CENT. Without determining any thing upon such an inIX. tricate and incomprehensible subject, with respect PART II. to which silence is the truest wisdom, we shall Hincmar and Godes only observe, that the private quarrels, and mutual hatred, that prevailed between Rabanus Maurus and Godeschalcus, were the real source of the Predestinarian controversy, and of all the calamities in which it involved that unfortunate monk [r]. XXV. Another, though less important conchalcus dis-troversy arose about this time, concerning the pute con- concluding words of a very ancient hymn, words Tri- which runs thus; te, trina Deitas unaque, posna Deitas. cimus, which may be thus translated, O God, cerning the who art three, and at the same time but one, we beseech thee, &c. Hincmar wisely prohibited the singing these words in the churches that were under his jurisdiction, from a persuasion that they tended to introduce into the minds of the multitude notions inconsistent with the unity and sim plicity of the works of that cardinal, p. 677. All the Benedictines, Jansenists, and Augustin monks maintain, almost without exception, that Godeschalcus was most unjustly persecuted and oppressed by Rabanus Maurus. The Jesuits are of a different opinion; they assert in general, and Louis Cellot, one of their order, has in a more particular manner laboured to demonstrate in his Historia Godeschalci Predestinationis, published at Paris in 1655, that the monk in question was justly condemned, and deservedly punished. [] The parents of Godeschalcus consecrated him to God, by devoting him from his infancy, as was the custom of the times, to the monastic life in the monastery of Fulda. The young monk, however, being arrived at a certain age, seemed much disposed to abandon his retreat, to shake off his religious fetters, and return again into society; but he was prevented from the execution of this purpose by Rabanus Maurus, who kept him, against his will, in his monastic bonds. Hence a violent contest arose between these two ecclesiastics, in which Lewis the Meek was obliged to interpose, and hence the furious disputes concerning predestination and grace. See Centuriæ Magdeb. Cent. ix. c. 10.-Mabillon, Annal. Bened. tom. ii. ad A. 829. p. 523. But IX. PART II. plicity of the Supreme Being, and might lead CENT. them to imagine that there were three Gods. the Benedictine monks refused to obey this mandate, and Bertram, who was one of the most eminent of that order, wrote a large book to prove the expression trina Deitas, or threefold Deity, orthodox, from the authority of fathers, which was esteemed the only criterion of truth in these miserable times. Godeschalcus, who now lay in prison, heard of this dispute, entered warmly into it, and in a laboured dissertation supported the cause of his Benedictine brethren, on which account Hincmar accused him of tritheism, and drew up a treatise to prove the charge, and to refute that impious and enormous heresy. This controversy, however, was but of a short duration, and the exceptionable passage of the hymn in question maintained its credit, notwithstanding all the efforts of Hincmar, and continued, as before, to be sung in the churches [s]. Christ's comes a subject of XXVI. A vain curiosity, and not any design The manof promoting useful knowledge and true piety, ner of was the main source of the greatest part of the birth becontroversies that were carried on in this century. And it was more especially this idle curiosity, car-debate. ried to an indecent and most extravagant length, that gave rise to the controversy Concerning the manner in which Christ was born of the Virgin, which began in Germany, and made its way from thence into France. Certain Germans maintained, that Jesus proceeded from his mother's womb in a manner quite different from those general and uniform laws of nature that regulate the birth of the human species; which opinion was no sooner known in France, than it was warmly opposed by the famous Ratramn, who wrote a book ex pressly [s] There is an account of this controversy given by the writers of the life, actions, and doctrines of Godeschalcus. CENT. pressly to prove that Christ entered into the IX. world in the very same way with other mortals, PART II and that his Virgin-mother bare him, as other The first Π. controver sy women bring forth their offspring. Pascacius Radbert, who was constantly employed, either in inventing or patronizing the most extravagant fancies, adopted the opinion of the German doctors, and composed an elaborate treatise to prove that Christ was born, without his mother's womb being opened, in the same manner as he came into the chamber where his disciples were assembled after his resurrection, though the door was shut. He also charged those who held the opinion of Ratramn with denying the virginity of Mary. This fruitless dispute was soon hushed, and gave place to controversies of superior moment [t]. XXVII. Of all the controversies that divided Sy between Christians in this century, the most interesting, the Greeks though at the same time the most lamentable, and Latins was that which occasioned the fatal schism beaccount of tween the Greek and Latin churches. A vindic on the Photius. tive and jealous spirit of animosity and contention had, for a long time, prevailed between the bishops of Rome, and Constantinople, and had sometimes broke out into acts of violence and rage. The ambition and fury of these contending prelates grew still more keen aud vehement about the time of Leo the Isaurian, when the bishops of Constantinople, seconded by the power and authority of the emperors, withdrew from the jurisdiction of the Roman pontiffs many provinces, over which they had hitherto exercised a spiritual dominion [u]. But in this century they arose to an enormous [] See Lucas Dacherius, his Spicilegium veterum Scriptor. tom. i. p. 396. Mabillon, Præf. ad. Soc. iv. Benedict. part II. p. 51. [u] See Gianone, Histoire de Naples, tom. i. p. 535. 646.— Petr. de Marca, De concordia sacerdotü et imperii, lib. i. cap. i. p. 6.-Lequien, Oriens Christianus, tom. i. p. 96. IX. PART II. enormous height, and broke forth into a most CENT. dreadful flame, in the year 858 [w], when the learned Photius was chosen patriarch of Constantinople, by the emperor Michael, in the place of Ignatius, whom that prince drove from his see and sent into exile. For this violent proceeding, though it was justified and applauded by a council assembled at Constantinople in the year 861, was far from being attended with a general approbation. Ignatius appealed from this council to the Roman pontiff Nicolas I. who espoused his interests, and in a council assembled at Rome, A. D. 862, excommunicated Photius as unlawfully elected; and his abettors for having been concerned in such an unrighteous cause. The new patriarch, however, was so far from being terrified or dejected by this excommunication, that he returned the compliment to the Roman pontiff, and in a council assembled at Constantinople, in the year 866, he declared Nicolas unworthy both of the place he held in the church, and also of being admitted to the communion of Christians. XXVIII. The Roman pontiff alleged a specious pretext for his appearing in this matter with such violence, and exciting such unhappy commotions in the church. This pretext was the innocence of Ignatius, whom, upon an accusation of treason, whether true or false, the emperor had degraded from his patriarchal dignity. This, however, was but a mere pretext; ambition and interest were the true, though secret springs, that directed the motions of Nicolas, who would have borne with patience, nay, beheld with indifference the unjust sufferings of Ignatius, could he but [w] In the original, there stands 852, but as this is probably an error of the press, the translator has taken the liberty to correct it in the text. PART II. CENT. but have recovered from the Greeks the proIX. vinces of Illyricum, Macedonia, Epirus, Achaia, Thessaly, and Sicily, which the emperor and Photius had removed from the jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff. Before he engaged in the cause of Ignatius, he sent a solemn embassy to Constantinople, to demand the restitution of these provinces; but his demand was rejected with contempt. And hence, under pretence of avenging the injuries committed against Ignatius, he indulged without restraint his own private resentment, and thus covered with the mask of justice the fury of disappointed ambition and avarice. A second contest concerning XXIX. While things were in this troubled state, and the flame of controversy was growing the same more violent from day to day, Basilius the Macedonian, who, by the murder of his predecessor, degraded. had paved his way to the imperial throne, calmed person Photius at once these tumults, and restored peace to the church, by recalling Ignatius from exile to the high station from which he had been degraded, and by confining Photius in a monastery. This imperial act of authority was solemnly approved and confirmed by a council assembled at Constantinople, in the year 869, in which the legates of the Roman pontiff Adrian II. had great influence, and were treated with the highest marks of distinction [x]. The Latins acknowledge this assembly as the 8th œcumenical council, and in it the religious contests between them and the Greeks were concluded, or at least hushed and suspended. But the controversy concerning the authority of the Roman pontiffs, the limits of their ghostly empire, and particularly their jurisdiction in Bulgaria, still subsisted; nor could all the efforts [r] The writers on both sides of this controversy are enumerated by Fabricius, in his Bibl. Græca, vol. iv. c. xxxviii, p. 372. |