PART II.

the eucharist. They alleged that the doctrine of CENT. the latter implied, that the body of Christ was IX. digested in the stomach, and was thrown out with the other excrements. But this consequence was quickly retorted upon those that imagined it; for they who denied the metamorphosis of the bread and wine into the real body and blood of Christ, charged the same enormous consequence upon their antagonists who believed this transmutation; and the charge was much more applicable certainly to the latter than to the former. The truth of the matter is, that it was neither truly applicable to the one nor to the other, and their mutual reproaches, most wretchedly founded, shew rather a spirit of invective, than a zeal for the truth. The charge of Stercoranism, is but a malignant invention; it can never, without the most absurd impudence, be brought against those who deny the transmutation of the bread into the body of Christ; it may indeed be charged upon such as allow of this transmutation, though it be a consequence, that none of them, who were not frenetic, did perhaps ever avow [o].

cerning

grace, set

Godeschal

XXII. While this controversy was at its The contro greatest height, another of a quite different versy conkind, and of much more importance arose, whose predestinaunhappy consequences are yet felt in the reformed tion and churches. The subject of this new contest was on foot by the doctrine of predestination and divine grace, cus and its rise is universally attributed to Godeschalcus, an illustrious Saxon, who had entered involuntarily into the monastic order in the convent of Fulda, from whence he removed to the monastery of Orbais, in the diocese of Soissons, where he prosecuted his theological studies with great assiduity,

[o] For an account of the Stercoranists, see Mabillon, Præf. ad Sac. iv. Benedict. part II. p. 21.-J. Basnage, Histoire de l'Eglise, tom. i. p. 926. and a Treatise of the learned Dr. Pfaff, published at Tubingue in 1750.

IX.

CENT. but also with an insatiable desire of sounding the deepest mysteries, and of being wise above what PART II. is written. This eminent ecclesiastic, upon his return from Rome in the year 847, took up his lodging for some time with Count Eberald, one of the first noblemen at the court of the emperor Lothaire, where he discoursed largely concerning the intricate doctrine of predestination in presence of Nothingus, bishop of Verona, and maintained that God, from all eternity, had preordained some to everlasting life, and others to everlasting punishment and misery. Rabanus Maurus, who was by no means his friend, being informed of his propagating this doctrine, opposed him with all his might. To render his opposition more successful, he began by representing Godeschalcus as a corrupter of the true religion, and a forger of monstrous heresies, in some letters addressed to Count Eberald, and to the bishop of Verona. And when the accused monk came from Italy into Germany to justify himself against these clamours, and for that purpose appeared at Mentz, of which Rabanus his accuser was archbishop, he was condemned in a council assembled by the latter in that city, A. D. 848, and sent from thence to Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, in whose diocese he had received the order of priesthood. Hincmar, who was devoted to the interests of Rabanus, assembled a council at Quiercy, A. D. 849, in which Godeschalcus was condemned a second time, and was also treated in a manner equally repugnant to the principles of religion and the dictates of humanity. Because he was firm in maintaining his doctrine, which he affirmed, and indeed with truth, to be the doctrine of St. Augustin, the imperious Hincmar degraded him from the priesthood, and was so barbarous as to order him to be whipped with the utmost severity, until the force of his pain overpowering

IX. PART II.

powering his constancy, obliged him, according to CENT. the commands of his reverend executioners, to burn with his own hands the justification of his opinions which he had presented to the council of Mentz. After these barbarous proceedings, the unfortunate monk was cast into prison in the monastery of Hautvilliers, where he ended his misery and his days in the year 868, or the year following, maintaining with his last breath the doctrine for which he had suffered.

test.

XXIII. While Godeschalcus lay in prison, The history his doctrine gained him followers, his sufferings of this conexcited compassion, and both together produced a considerable schism in the Latin church. Ratramn, monk of Corbey, Prudentius, bishop of Troyes, Loup, or Lupus, abbot of Ferrieres, Florus, deacon of Lyons, Remi, archbishop of the same city, with his whole church, all these eminent and illustrious ecclesiasties, with many others, whom it would be tedious to mention, pleaded with the utmost zeal and vehemence both in their writings and in their discourse, the cause of this unhappy monk, and of his condemned opinions. Some, indeed, confined themselves principally to the defence of his person and conduct; while others went farther, and employed all their zeal, and all their labour, in the vindication of his doctrine. On the opposite side of the question were Hincmar, his unrighteous judge, Amalarius, the celebrated Johannes Scotus, and others, who all maintained, that Godeschalcus and his opinions had received the treatment they deserved. As the spirit of controversy ran high between these contending parties, and grew more vehement from day to day, Charles the Bald summoned a new council, or synod, which met at Quiercy, A. D. 853, in which, by the credit and influence of Hincmar, the decrees of the former council were confirmed, and

of

PART II.

CENT. of consequence Godeschalcus again condemned. IX. But the decrees of this council were declared null, and decisions of a different kind, by which Godeschalcus and his doctrine were vindicated and defended, were substituted in their place in a council assembled at Valence in Dauphiney, A. D. 855. This council was composed of the clergy of three provinces, Lyons, Vienne, and Arles, with Remi, archbishop of Lyons, at their head, and its decrees were confirmed, in the year 859, by the council of Langres, in which the same clergy were assembled, and in 860, by the council of Tousi, in which the bishops of fourteen provinces supported the cause of the persecuted monk, whose death diminished considerably the heat of this intricate controversy [p].

What judg

ment we

are to

form of

this con

troversy.

XXIV. If we attend to the merits of this cause, we shall find that the debate subsists still in all its force, and that the doctrine of Godeschalcus has in our days both able defenders and powerful adversaries. He undoubtedly maintained a twofold predestination, one to everlasting life, and the other to eternal death. He held also," that God did not desire or will the salva"tion of all mankind, but that of the elect only; " and that Christ did not suffer death for the whole "human race, but for that part of it only whom "God has predestinated to eternal salvation." These decisions, which carry a severe and rigorous aspect, are softly and favourably interpreted

by

[p] Besides the common writers, who speak of this controversy, the curious reader will do well to consult the more learned and impartial accounts he will find of it in Cæsar Egasse de Boulay's Hist. Acad. Paris, tom. i. p. 178.Mabillon, Præf. ad Sæc. iv. Benedict. part II. p. xlvii.—Hist. Litteraire de la France, tom. v. p. 352.-Usserii Histoire Godeschalci, Hanoviæ 1662, in 8vo, et Dublini 1661, in 4to.Gerhard. Joh. Vossii Historia Pelagiana, lib. vii. cap. iv.— Add Jo. Alb. Fabricii Biblioth. Latin, medii ævi, tom. iii. p. 210.

66

66

66

66

66

66

IX.

PART II.

by the followers of Godeschalcus. They deny, CENT. for example, that their leader represents God as predestinating to a necessary course of iniquity, those whom he has previously predestinated to eternal misery, and, according to them, the doctrine of Godeschalcus amounts to no more than this: "That God, has, from all eternity doomed to everlasting misery such as he foresaw would go on impenitent in a sinful course, and has decreed "their ruin in consequence of their sins freely "committed and eternally foreseen that the salutary effects of the mercy of God, and the sufferings of Christ, extend indeed only to the elect, and are made good to them alone; though this mercy and these sufferings, con"sidered in themselves, belong equally to all “mankind.” But this contradictory jargon did not satisfy the adversaries of the Predestinarian monk; they, maintained, on the contrary, that under ambiguous terms and perplexed sentences Godeschalcus had concealed the most enormous errors, propagating it assiduously as an article of faith, That God had not only by an original "decree predestinated one part of mankind to "eternal damnation, but had also pushed them "on by an irresistible necessity, by a prepollent "force, to those crimes and transgressions which were proper to render that damnation just [9]." Without

66

66

[q] The cause of Godeschalcus has been very learnedly defended by the celebrated Maguin, who published also a valuable edition, which is yet extant, of all the treatises that were composed on both sides of this intricate controversy. This interesting collection, which was printed at Paris in the year 1650, in two volumes 4to, bears the following title: Veterum auctorum qui Nono Sæculo de Predestinatione et Gratia scripserunt, Opera et Fragmenta, cum Historia gemina Præfatione. Cardinal Noris maintained also the cause of the Predestinarian monk with more brevity, but less moderation than Maguin. This brief vindication may be seen in the Synopsis Historia Godeschalchana, which is inserted in the 4th volume

of