mtl)f€ttpoti^fwgork
LIBRARY
i
HISTORY
OF
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
VOL. II. -Part I.
HISTORY
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
By JAMES CRAiaiE ROBERTSON, M.A.,
CA>'ON OF CANTEEBUET.
VOLUME II.— (AD. 590-1122.)
Part I.
NEW EDITIOIfy REVrsiFr) /)'^rp F.NLATim^T)
V NYOKii.
LONDON
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.
1862.
l%e right of Trandatimi is reserved.
\)
LONDON: PRINTED BY W. CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET,
AND CHARING CROSS.
ADVERTISEMENT.
«
This volume has been carefully revised for the present
edition, and has been enlarged to such an extent that,
with a view to the reader's convenience, it has been
thought well to divide it into two parts.
The Author hopes that the Third Volume of the
work (to which references are occasionally made in the
following pages) will be ready for publication before
the end of next year.
Precincts, Canterbury,
July 25, 1862.
0 1 G 0 B
C 0 N T E N T S.
BOOK III.
FROM THE ELECTION OF GREGORY THE GREAT TO THE DEATH
OF CHARLEMAGNE, A.D. 590-814.
CHAPTEE I.
Gregory the Great, a.d. 590-604; Columban, a.d. 589-015.
PAGE
Transition to the Middlu Ages ... 1
Gregory ,2
Conti'oversy with Eutychius ib.
Election as pope 3
Epistles ^
Liturgical reforms 5
Charities 6
Political conduct 7
Administration of the Church ib.
Controversy with John the Faster 8
Relations with the emperors 11
Theodelinda 13
Treatment of Sectaries and Jews. . . ib.
Exertions against paganism 14
Mission to England ib.
Augustine and the Britons 19
Death of Augustine 21
Gregory's works and opinions ib.
Hisdeath 26
Columban ib.
Gall 31
CHAPTEE II.
Mahomet— THE Monothelite Controversy, a.d. 010-718.
Lateran Council 47
Persecution of Martin and Maximus 48
Council under Agatho 50
Sixth General Council 51
Council "iuTrullo" 54
Justinian n 55
Philippicus 57
The Maronites 58
Heraclius • 32
Religious condition of Arabia 33
Mahomet 34
The Koran 35
Progress of Mahometanism 38
Mouothelism 41
Ecthesis of Heraclius 44
Pyrrhus and Maximus 45
Type of Coustaus 46
CHAPTEE III.
The Western Church from the Death of Gregory the Great to the
Pontificate of Gregory II., a.d. 604-715.
I.
II
III
IV.
V.
The Papacy CO
Spain 02
France 63
Ireland 66
England 67
Roman and Scottish usages ... 68
Conference at Whitby 71
Wilfrid— Theodore 72
Roman usages established ... 76
Arts and learning 77
Monasticism 77
Bede, Aldhelra, Csedmon 78
VL Germany, &c 79
(1.) Bavaria ib.
(2.) Thuringia 80
(3.) Labours of Amandus 81
Livin — Eligius 82
(4.) Frisia—Wulfram— Egbert ... 83
Willibrord 84
Vlll
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER IV.
ICONOCLASM, A.D. 717-775.
I'AGE
Growth of revereuce for images ... 86
Leo the Isauriau 87
Germanus 90
"The Surety" ih.
John of Damascus 91
Commotions in Italy 93
PAGE
Constantine Copronymus 97
Council at Constantinople 98
Persecution of monks 99
The patriarch Constantine 101
Deatii of Copronymus 102
''CHAPTER V.
St. Boniface, a.d. 716-75.5.
English missions to Germany 103
Boniface ih.
Labours in Frisia and Hes.sia 104
Consecration at Kome 105
Daniel of Winchester 106
The oak of Geismar 107
Labours in Bavaria 108
Charles Martel 108
Councils 109
Fulda Ill
Adelbert and Clement '...... 112.
Virgil of Salzburg 114
Archbishopric of Mentz 115
Martyrdom of Boniface 116
^CHAPTER VI.
PiPiN AND Charlemagne, a.d. 741-814.
Gregory III. and Charles Martel 122
Change of dynasty in France 123
Stephen II. and the Lombards ... 125
Pipin in Italy 127
Intrusion and deposition of pope
Constantine 128
Charlemagne's Lombard marriage 129
End of the Lomltard kingdom 130
Charlemagne at Rome 131
Leo III. pope 132
Charlemagne emperor 134
Wars with the Saxons 137
Measui-es for conversion of the
heathen : 140
Encouragement of learning 1 42
Alcuin 143
Education 145
Service of the Church 147
Ecclesiastical legislation 148
Charlemagne and the papacy 149
CHAPTER VII.
The Easteen Chuech ; Conteoveesies of Chaelemagne's Age, a.d. 775-814.
L Leo IV 151
Irene 152
Council at Constantinople 153
Second Council ofNicaja 154
Constantine VI 158
Nicephorus 160
Michael Ehangabe ih.
II. Frankish doctrine as to images 161
The Caroline Books ib.
Council of Frankfort 164
III. Adoptionism 165
IV. Controversy as to Procession
of the Holy Spirit 171
CHAPTER VIII.
The Oeiental Sects.
I. Monophysites 175
II. Nestorians — Missions ib-
III. Paulicians 176
CONTENTS.
IX
CHAPTER IX.
Supplementary.
PAGE
I. Influence of the Papacy 18G
Donation of Constautine ib.
Eomuii influence in England 187
II. Kelations op Chukch and
State 189
(1.) Coniirmatiou of popes ib.
(2.) Appointment of bishops 190
(3.) Frankisli arehcliaplains 191
(4.) Councils 192
(5.) Judicature 193
III. The Hiekaechy — ADmNis-
TRATION OF THE ChUECH . . . 194
(1.) Metropolitans ib.
2.) Chorepiscopi 195
3.) Archdeacons 196
(4.) ArcLipriests — Rural Deaneries ih.
(5.) Episcopal visitations 197
(6.) Parishes 198
(7.) Local ties of clergy ih.
(8.) Acephalous clerks ib.
(9.) Chaplains 199
(10.) Advocates 200
(11.) Patronage 201
(12.) Simony 202
(13.) Precarious contracts ib.
(14.) Tithes 203
(15.) Benefices 205
(16.) Division of income ib.
PAGE
(17.) Taxation 207
(18.) Secular employments ib.
(19.) Position and manners of the
clergy *^-
(20.) Celibacy and marriage 209
(21.) Canonical life 211
IV. MONASTICISM 213
Benedict of Aniane 220
Decay of English monasticism ... 221
Nunneries 222
Canonesses 223
V. Rites AND Usages ib.
(1.) Language of Divine service ib.
(2.) Organs 225
(3.) The Eucharist 226
Piu-gatory — Masses — Fra-
ternities 228
(4.) The Lord's-day 229
(5.) Other festivals 231
(6.) Reverence for saints 232
Relics 233
Legends 235
7.) Pilgrimages 236
8.) Penitential discipline 237
(9.) Ordeal 239
(10.) Asylum 242
VI. Slavery 244
BOOK IV.
FROM THE DEATH OF CHARLEMAGNE TO THE DEPOSITION
OF POPE GREGORY VI., A.D. 814-1046.
CHAPTER I.
Louis the Pious, a.d. 814-840; end op the Contkoversy as to Images,
A.D. 813-842 ; the False Decretals.
L Death of Charlemagne 249
Louis the Pious 250
Transactions with Leo III. and
Stephen IV 251
Ecclesiastical and monastic reform 252
Lotliair associated in the empire ... 253
Conspiracy and death of Bernard. . . 254
Marriage of Louis with Judith 255
Penance at Attigny ib.
Lothair at Rome 256
Intrigues against Louis 257
The Field of Lies 260
Deposition and restoration of Loiiis 261
His deatl) 263
Northmen and Saracens 263
II. Images in the East 264
Leo the Armenian ib.
Theodore the Studite 266
Proceedings against images 267
Murder of Leo 270
Michael the Stammerer 272
Theophilus 274
Images restored by Theodora 276
in. Images in France 278
Agobard 280
Claudius of Turin 281
Change in the Franldsh view 284
IV. Tlie False Decretals ib.
C()NTE^'TS.
CHAPTER II.
The Frankish Chukcu and the Papacy fkum the Death of Louis the
Pious to the Deposition of Chables the Fat, a.d. 840-887.
PAUli
Dismemberment of the empire ... 291
The Nortlimen 29.3
Tiie SLiracens 295
Diminution of the royal power . . . 297
The Hierarchy ib.
Hincmar 299
The Papacy 300
Nicolas 1 302
Doctrinal controversies 303
I. The Eucharistic presence ih.
Paschasius Eadbert 304
Eatramn 305
II. Predestination , 307
Gottschalk 308
John Scotus Erigena 312
Councils 317
Controversy as to " Trina Deitas" 318
Imprisonment and deatli of
Gottschalk 319
Questions between Kome and
France 321
fAOE
I. Lothair's marriage and divorce 321
Synod of Metz 824
Louis II. at Kome 325
Gunther and Theutgaud ib.
Submission of Lothair 327
Adrian II 329
Death of Lothair 331
II. Case of clerks ordained by
Ebbo 332
III. Case of Eothad of Soissons ... 835
IV. Seizure of Lotliaringia by
Charles the Bald 340
V. Case of Hincmar of Laon 842
John VIII 347
Charles tlie Bald, emperor ib.
Council of Pontyon 348
Last expedition and death of
Charles 3."")0
John VIII. at Troyes 351
Deaths of John and Hincnrar 353
Charles the Fat 354
CHAPTER III.
The Greek Church ; Photius, a.d. 842-898.
Michael III 355
Differences of Greeks and Latins 35fj
Deprivation of Ignatius 357
Pliotius 358
Correspondence with Nicolas of
Eome 361
Conversion of Bulgaria 3G5
Basil the Macedonian 369
Pliotius deposed 371
Prankish writings against the
Greeks 371
Eighth General Council of the Latins 872
Disputes as to Bulgaria 373
Photius in captivity 374
His restoration 375
Eighth General Council of the
(xreeks 376
Photius again deprived 378
CHAPTER IV.
Spain — England — Missions of the Ninth Century.
L Spain 379
Persecution at Cordova 380
II. England— The Danes 383
Alfred ib.
III. Moravia— Cyril and Methodius 384
Bohemia 389
IV. Christianity in the North 391
Anskar 392
Anskar in Denmark and Sweden 394
Ai'chbislKjprick of Hamburg . . . 395
Further labours of Anskai' 397
Kimbert 400
CONTENTS.
XI
PART II.
CHAPTER V.
Feom the Deposition of Charles the Fat to the Death of Pope
Sylvestee II., A.r>. 887-1003.
I'AGE
Character of the tentli century ... 401
Fourth marriage of Leo VI ih.
The Greek Church 403
Ariiulf a.
Hungarians and Saracens 404
Germany 405
France— Hugh Capet 406
Cession of Normandy 408
Italy 409
Tlie Church in France ih.
Degradation of the Papacy 411
Deposition of John XII ' 416
Kepublican party at Eome 418
Crescentius 419
Gregory V. pope 420
Arnulf of Eheims 421
Gerbert 424
Question as to marriage of Robert I. 428
Expectation of the second Advent 430
Gerbert pope (Sylvester II.) 431
Last days and death of Otho III. ... 434
Death of Sylvester 5
CHAPTER VI.
From the Death of Pope Sylvester II. to the Deposition of Gregory VI.,
A.D. 1003-1046.
I. Henry II. emperor 437
State of Rome 438
The Normans in Italy 440
Conrad II 441
Benedict IX 442
Heribert of Milan 443
Death of Conrad 444
Three popes 445
Council of Sutri 446
II. Heresy in the West 447
Sect at Orleans 448
Sect at Arras 450
Sect at Monteforte 452
Sect at Chalons 453
Question as to origin of the sects ib.
Heresies of the East 455
CHAPTER VII.
The British Churches — Missions op the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries.
L England 456
Dunstan 457
n. Ireland 461
III. Scotland ib.
IV. Russia 463
V. Bohemia 467
Adalbert of Prague 468
VI. Slavonic Liturgy 469
VII. Poland 471
VIIL North Germany 473
IX. Hungary ib.
X. Denmark 477
XI. Sweden 479
xn.
xni.
XIV.
Norway 480
Clave Tryggvesen 482
St. Clave 485
Iceland 487
Greenland and America ... 491
CHAPTER VIII.
Supplementary.
I. The Hierarchy 493
(1.) The Papacy ib.
Metropolitans -The pall 496
Legates 498
Interference with diocesan
rights 498
(2.) Secular unportance of bishops 500
Apiwintment to sees 501
CONTENTS.
Chapteu Vin. — continued.
PAGE
Boy-bishops 502
Theophylact of Constantinople 503
Simony 504
Investiture ih.
Relations of bishops and sove-
reigns 506
Foundation of sees 507
Chorepiscopi 508
Coadjutors ib.
Warlike bishoi^s 509
(3.) Property of the Church ih.
Advocates 511
(4.) Canons 512
(5.) Morals of the clergy 513
Chaplains and acephalous
clerks ii.
Celibacy and marriage 514
Eatherius 516
II. MONASTICISM 519
Order of Cluny 521
Order of Camaldoli 525
PAGE
Order of Vallombrosa 526
Reforms in Germany — Hirschau . . . 527
Abolition of impropriations 528
Relations of bishops and monks . . . ib.
Confraters 531
III. Rites AND Usages ib.
(1.) Ritualists ib.
(2.) Martyrologies and legends . . . 532
Canonisation 534
(3.) Reverence for the Blessed
Virgin , 535
(4.) All Souls' Day 536
(5.) Relics 537
(6.) Pilgrimages 538
(7.) Architecture 539
(8.) Penance 541
Excormnunication and ana-
thema ib.
Interdict 542
(9.) Truce of God 545
IV, Chivalry 546
BOOK V.
FROM THE DEPOSITION OF POPE GREGORY VI. TO THE DEATH
OF POPE CELESTINE III., a.d. 1046-1198.
CHAPTEE I.
The Pontificates of Clement II., Damasus II., Leo IX., Victor II.,
Stephen IX., Nicolas II., and Alexander II., a.d. 1046-1073.
Clement II > 549
Conflicting views as to reform 550
Damasus II 552
Hildebrand 553
Leo IX 554
Peter Damiani 555
Flagellation — Dominic of the
Cuirass 557
Damiani on marriage of the clergy 558
Simony 559
Leo's attempts at reform ib.
Council of Rheims 561
Effects of Leo's measures 564
Leo at Worms 565
Leo and the Normans 566
His death 568
Breach with Constantmople ib.
Victor II 572
Death of Henry III 574
Stephen IX 575
John of Velletri 577
Nicolas II 577
Troubles at Milan 578
Legation of Peter Damiani 581
Decree as to election of popes 583
Treaty with Robert Guiscard 585
Norman conquests in Italy and
Sicily 587
Death of Nicolas 588
Alexander II. and Cadalous ib.
Abduction of Hemy IV 589
Synod of Osbor 591
Peter Damiani in retirement 592
Adalbert of Bremen 593
Council of Mantua 597
Renewed trou bles at Milan ib.
Troubles at Florence 601
Henry IV. and Bertha 602
Last days and death of Adalbert . . 603
Disorders of Germany 605
Deaths of Alexander and Damiani 606
CONTENTS.
Xlll
CHAPTER II.
Gregory VII., a.v. 1073-1083.
PAGE
Election of Hildebrand as pope . . . 607
Claims of the Papacy 609
Gregory and Pliiliii I. of France... 612
Transactions with Germany 613
Measures against simony and mar-
riage of the clergy 616
Investiture 619
Seizvu'e of Gregory by Oencius ... 621
Communications between Gregory
and Henry IV 622
Council at Worms 623
Excommunication of Henry 625
Excommimication of Gregory 626
Distress of Henry 627
Meeting at Tribur 628
Henry goes into Italy 629
PAGE
Gregory and Henry at Canossa . . . G31
Hen ry and the Italians 634
Election of Eudolf as king of Ger-
many 637
War in Germany 638
Remonstrances of the Saxons 639
Henry again excommunicated 640
Guibert elected antipope 641
Death of Eudolf. ib.
Gregory's preparations against
Henry 642
Henry in Italy 644
The Normans at Eome 646
Death of Gregory 647
His character 64S
CHAPTER III.
Berengak, a.d. 1045-1088.
Doctrine of the eucharistic pre-
sence 652
Berengar 653
Lanfranc 654
Letter of Berengar to Lanfranc ... 655
Councils at Eome,Vercelli, Brionne,
and Paris 656
Council at Tours 658
Berengar before Nicolas II 659
Treatises of Lanfranc and Berengar 660
Guitmund 662
Eoman council of 1078 663
Last years of Berengar 664
CHAPTER IV.
Feom the Death op Gregory VII. to that of the Emperor Henry IV. ;
THE First Crusade, a.d. 1085-1106.
Victor III 666
Urban II 668
Second Marriage of Countess Ma-
tilda 670
Henry in Italy H-
Rebellion of Conrad 671
Sufferings of Christians inPalestine 673
Peter the Hermit 674
Councils of Piacenza and Clermont 676
Preparations for the Crusade 680
The first expeditions 681
Leaders of the regular forces 684
The Crusaders at Constantinople. . . I'h.
Passage th rough Asia Minor 687
Siege of Antioch 688
Siege of Jerusalem 692
Kingdom of Jerasalem 695
Eesults of the Crusades 698
Tlie Sicilian monarchy 702
Death of Urban ib.
Deaths of Guibert and Philip I. ... 703
Henry IV. in Germany 704
Eebellion of the younger Henry . . . 707
Abdication of Henry tV 708
His death and character 709
CHAPTER V.
England from the Norman Conquest to the Death of St. Anselm,
A.D. 1066-1108.
Effects of the Conquest 712
Lanfranc archbishop of Canterbury 714
Ecclesiastical policy of the Con-
queror 716
Communications with Gregory VII. 717
William Eufus 719
Anselm 721
His promotion to Canterbury 723
XIV
CONTENTS.
Chapter V. — cfnntimieiJ.
Disagreements between William
and Anselm 724
Council of Rockingham 726
Acknowledgment of Urban 728
Anselm goes to Rome 729
Exile and recall of Anselm 731
Question of homage 732
Second exile of Anselm 734
Reconciliation with Henry 1 736
Death of Anselm 738
CHAPTEE VI.
Frobi the Death of the Emperor Henry IV. to the Concordat of Worms,
A.D. 1106-1122.
Council of Guastalla 739
Conferences at ChaloiLS and Troyes 740
Henry V. in Italy 741
Seizure and submission of Pas-
chal II 742
Movements of the Hildebrandine
party 744
Hem-y in Germany 746
His second expedition to Italy 747
Gelasius II., pope ; Gregory VIII.,
antipope 748
CalixtusII 750
Council of Rlieims ib.
Conference with Henry I. of Eng-
land at Gisors 7.52
Punishment of the antipope 755
Dispositions towards peace ib.
Concordat of Worms 757
CHAPTER VII.
Monasticism — New Orders — The Templars and Hospitallers.
State of Monasticism 760
New orders : —
I. Order of Grammout 762
II. Carthusians 765
HI. Order of Fontuvraud 768
IV. Cistercians 771
V. Canons regular of St. Au-
gustine 774
Prjemonstratensiaus ih.
VI. Canons of St Antony 778
Templars and Hospitallers 779
Increased power of Monachisra ... 782
Index
785
LIST OF BOOKS CITED.
\This list is supplementary to that given hi the second editirm of the former volume,
and is limited to such loorks as are cited throvghout some considerable portion of
the folloiving pages. Boohs iiihich are quoted in particular sections only will he
found described in the proper places ; and xchere editions different from those in
the lists have been used, the fact is expressly mentioned. In the case of works or
documents which appear in more than one collection, a refen-etice to a single col-
lection has generally appeared sufficient.']
Agobaivlus, ed. Bahize, Paris, 1666.
Alcuitius, eil. Froben, Katisbou, 1777.
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, transl. by Thorpe (Chron. and Mem. of Great Britain ;ind
Ireland), Lond. 1861.
Anselmus, cd. Gcrbcron, Paris, 1721.
Art (L') de Vc'rifier les Dates, 8vo. edition, Paris, 1819.
Blackstone, Commentaries on tlic Laws of England, ed. Kerr, Lond. 1857.
Bohmer, Kegesta Karolorum, Stuttg.
, Pontes Ecrum Germanicanim. Stnttg. 1843-5.
Bonizo, in Oefelii Rerum Boicarnm Scriptores, t. ii. Angsb. 1763.
Bouquet, see Recueil.
Bowden, Life of Gregory VIL, Lond. 1841.
Browne, Fasciculus Eerura expetendarum et fugiendarum, Lond. 1690.
Busk, Mrs. Hans, Mediaeval Popes, Emperors, Kings, and Crusaders, Lond. 1S54-5.
CsDsarius Heisterbacensis, Dialogi, Cologne, 1599.
Cedrenus, in Hist. Byzant. Scriptores, ed. Paris, 1648.
Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain and Ireland, published under the
direction of the Master of the Rolls, Lond. 1858, seqq.
Ciaconius {i. e. Chacon), Vita? Pontificum Romanorum et S. R. E. Cardinaliuni,
cum notis Oldoini, Rome, 1677.
Cunningham, Church History of Scotland, Edinb. 18.59.
DAcIiery, Spicilegium, ed. De la Barre, Paris, 1723.
Dalilmann, Gesch. v. Diinnemarck, Hamb. 1840, seqq.
Datt, Volumen Rerum Germanicarum No\imi, Ulm, 1G9S.
Depping, Expeditions Mari times des Normands, Paris, 1826.
Dodechini Annales, in Pistorius, vol. i. [These ought rather to be cited as
'Aunales S. Disibodi.' Sec Pertz, xvii. 4-5.]
Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, Lond. 1845.
Ebrard, Das Dogma vom heil. Abendmahl, Frankf. 1844-6.
Eccard, Corpus Historieuni Medii Mvi, Leipz. 1723.
Einhardus, ed. Teulet, Piris, 1840.
EUendorf, Die Karolinger und die Hierarchie. ihrer Zeit, Essen, 1838.
Encyclopsedia Britannica, 8th edition, Edinb. 1853-61.
Fabricius, Bibliotheca Grteca, ed. Harless, Hamb. 1790, seqq.
Fell, Rerum Anglicarum Scriptores, Oxford, 1684.
Florentius Wigorniensis, ed. Thorpe (^English Historical Society).
Freher, Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum, Frankf. 1600, seqq.
Gale, Rerum Britannicanun Scriptores, Oxford, 1691.
Geijer, Geschichte Schwedens, iibers. v. Leffler, Hamb. 1832, seqq.
XVI LIST OF BOOKS CITED.
Georgius Hamartolus, ed. Muralt, Ht. Petersburg, 1859.
Gfrorer, Gesch. der Karolinger, a.d. 840-918, Freiburg, 1848.
Giauuouo, Istoria di Napoli, Naples, 1770.
Gieseler, Ivirchengeschichte, B. ii. ed. 4, Bonn, 1846-8.
Ginzel, Gesch. der Slawenapostel Cyrill u. Method, Leitmeritz, 18.57.
Goldast, Imperialia Decreta de Cultu Imaginum, Frankf. 1608.
, Apologia pro Henrico IV., Hauov. 1611.
Grub, G., Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, Edinb. 1861.
Halin, Gesch. der Ketzer im Mittelalter, Stuttg. 1845-7.
Haure'au, De la Philosophic Scholastique, Paris, 1850.
Hefele, Conciliengescliichte, Freiburg, 1855, seqq.
Helmoldus, in Leibnitz, ii.
Helyot, Hist, des Ordres Monastiques, Paris, 1714-9.
Hincmarus, Paris, 1645.
Hofler, Die Deutschen Ptipste, Eatisb. 1839, seqq.
John of Ephesus, transl. by K. Payne Smith, Oxforil, 1860.
Johnson, Laws and Canons of the Church of Englaml, ed. Baron, Oxford, 1850-1.
Languedoc, Histoire de, see Vic.
Leibnitz, Scriptores Kerum Brunsvicensium, Hanov. 1707.
Luden, Gesch. der teutschen Volks, Gotha, 1825-37.
Mabillon, Annates Qrdinis S. Bcnedicti, tt. v. vi., Paris, 1713-39.
Mailath, Gesch. der Magyaren, Vienna, 1828.
Martene et Durand, Thesaurus Novus Anecdotorum, Paris, 1717.
Collectio Amplissima, 1724-33.
Martin, Hist, de France, ed. 4, Paris, 1855-60.
Michaud, Hist, de Croisades, Brussels, 1841.
Migne, Patrologia Grasca. [Vols. i. to cviii. contain the writers to the time of
Photius. The series is to be continued.]
Milman, History of Latin Christianity, 2ud edition, Lond. 1857.
Moutalembert, Les Moines d 'Occident, depuis S. Benoit jusqu'a S. Bernard, Paris,
1860, seqq.
Mouravieif, Hist, of the Russian Church, transl. by Blackmore, Oxford, 1842.
Miiuter, Kirchengesch. von Diinnemarck u. Norwegen, Leipz. 1825, seqq.
Miu-atori, Annali d' Italia, Rome, 1752-4.
Ordericus Vitalis, ed. Le Prevost, Paris, 1838, seqq.
Palacky, Gesch. von Bohmen, Prague, 1845, seqq.
Palgrave, Hist, of Normandy and of England, Lond. 1851, seqq.
Pertz, Monumenta Germanias Historica, Hanov. 1826, seqq. [In two divisions —
Scriptores and Leges. An alphabetical list of contents is given in vol. xii. of
the Scriptores.]
Petrus Damiani, ed. Cajetan,, Paris, 1663.
Phillips, Englische Reichs- und Rechtsgeschichte, Berlin, 1827-8.
Pistorius, Rerum Germanicarum Scriptores, ed. Struvius, Ratisbon, 1726.
Platina, De Vitis Pontificum Romanorum, Cologne, 15G8.
Raumer (F. v.), Gesch. der Hohenstaufen und ihrer Zeit, Leipz. 1857-8.
Recueil des Historiens de la France (Gallicarum et Francicarum Renrm Scrip-
tores), Paris, 1738, seqq. [This is usually cited under the name of the first
editor, Bouquet.]
Robins, Sanderson, On the Claims of the Roman Churcli, Lond. 1855.
Rogerius de Hoveden, in Savile.
de Wendover, ed. Coxe (English Historical Society).
Savigny, Geschichte des roniischen Rechts im Mittelalter, Heidelb. 1826-34,
Savile, Rerum Auglicarum Scriptores, Lond. 1596.
Saxo Gramnraticus, ed, Stephanius, Sora, 1644.
Schardius, Syntagma Tractatuum de Juribus Regni et Imperii, &c., Strasb. 1609.
Schlosser, Gesch. der bilderstiirmenden Kaiser, Frankf. 1812.
LIST OF BOOKS CITED. XVll
Schmidt, M. I., GescMchte der Deutschen, Ulm, 1785-93.
, C, Histoire et Doctrine des Catharea ou Albigeois, Paris, 1849.
Sirmond, Opera Varia, Venice, 1728.
Snorro Sturlcson, Hist, of the Kings of Norway, transl. by Laing, Lend. 1854.
Soames, Tlie Anglo-Saxon Church, ed. 2.
Sparke, Historise Anglicanre Scriptores, Lond. 1723.
Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Eastern Cliurch, Lond. 1861.
Stenzel, Deutschland unter den friinkischen Kaisern, Leipz. 1828.
Stevenson, Church Historians of England, Lond. 185- (incomplete).
Strahl, Gesch. des Kussischen Staats, Hamb. 1832, seqq.
Symeon Dunelmensis, in Twysden.
Theodorus Studita, in Sirmond. v.
Thierry, Hist, de la Conquete d Angleterre par lea Normands, Brux. 1835.
Thorpe, Ancient Laws and Institutes of England, folio edition.
Turner, History of the Anglo-Saxons, ed. 6, Lond. 1836.
— , History of England during the Middle Ages, Lond. 1825.
Twysden, Historias Anglicanaj Scriptores Decern, Lond. 1652.
Urspergense Chronicon, auctore Conrado h, Lichtenau, Strasb. 1609.
Urstisius, Germanise Historici Illustres, Frankf. 1585.
Vic et Vaissette, Hist, de Laugucdoc, Paris, 1730-45.
Ussher, ed. Elrington, Dublin, 1847.
Voigt, Hildebrand und sein Zeitalter, ed. 2, Weimar, 1846.
Wharton, Anglia Sacra, Lond. 1691.
Wilken, Gesch. der Kreuzziige, Leipz. 1807, seqq.
Wilkins, Concilia Magnse Britanniaa et Hibemiaj, Lond. 1737.
Will. Malmesburiensis, Gesta Eegum, ed.flardy (Eng. Hist. Soc). [When the
author's name only is given, this work is intended.]
, . , Gesta Pontificum, in Migne, Patrol, clxxix.
LIST OF POPES AND SOVEREIGNS.
Popes of Eome. (From JafPfs liegesta.)
(^The Names in brackets are those of Anti-popes.')
A.D.
590.
604.
607.
608.
615.
619.
625.
638.
640.
642.
649.
654.
657.
672.
676.
678.
682.
683.
685.
686.
687.
701.
705.
708.
708.
715.
731.
741.
752.
757.
768.
772.
795.
816.
817.
824.
827.
Gregory 1 604
Sabinian 606
Bonifoce III. (Feb. 19-Nov. 12)
Boniface IV 615
Deusdedit 618
Boniface V 625
Honorius 1 038
Severinus 640
John IV 642
Theodore 1 649
Martin 1 053
Eugenius 1 657
Vitalian 672
Adeodatus 676
Donus 678
Agatho 681
Leo II 683
Benedict II 685
John V 686
Conon 687
[Paschal, 687-692.]
TTheodore, Sept-Dec. 687.]
SergiusI 701
John VI 705
John VII 707
Sisinnius (Jan. -Feb. 7)
Constantino 1 715
Gregory II 731
Gregory III 741
Zacharias 752
Stephen (died without conse-
cration) *
Steplienll 757
Paul I 767
[Constantino II. 767-8.]
[Philip, 768.]
Stephen m 772
Adrian 1 795
Leo III 816
Stephen IV 817
Paschal 1 824
Eugenius II 827
Valentine (died within a month
— dates uncertain)
827. Gregory IV 844
[John— Jan. 844.]
844. Sergius II 847
847. Leo IV 855
855. Benedict III 858
[Anastasius, Aug.-Sept. 855.]
858. Nicolas 1 867
867. Adrian II 872
872. JohnVTII 882
882. Mariuus 1 884
884. Adrian III 885
885. Stephen V 891
891. Formosus 896
896. Boniface VI. (May-June)
Stephen VI 897
897. Eomanus (July-No v.)
Tlieodore II. (Nov.-Dec.)
898. JolmIX 900
900. Benedict IV 903
903. Leo V. (Aug.-Sept.)
Christopher 904
904. Sergius III 911
911. Anastasius III 913
913. Lando 914
914. John X 928
928. Leo VI 929
929. Stephen VII 931
931. John XI 936
936. Leo VII 939
939. Stephen VIII 942
942. MarinusII 946
946. AgapetusII 955
955. John XII 963
963. LeoVni 965
[Benedict V. May-June 964.]
965. John XIII 972
972. Benedict VI 974
[Boniface VII July- Aug. 974.]
974. Benedict VII 983
983. John XIV 984
[Boniface VII. again, 984-5.]
985. John XV 996
996. Gregory V 999
[John XVI 997-8.] *
* These are reckoned by Jaffe in the series of popes of their respective names, but are more
commonly omitted.
LIST OF POPES AND SOVEREIGNS.
XIX
A.D. A.V.
999. Sylvester II 1003
1003. John XVI. (Jan. 13-Dec. 7)
John XVII 1009
1009. SergiusIV 1012
1012. Benedict VIII 102i
[Gre£;-oi-y, Jan.-Dec. 1012.]
1021. John XVIII 1033
1033. Benedict IX 1016
[Sylvester III. 1044-6.]
104.5. Gregory VI 1046
1046. Clement II 1047
1047. DamasusII 1048
1048. Leo IX 1054
1054. Victor II 1057
1057. Stephen IX 1058
[Benedict X. 1058-9.]
1059. Nicolas II
1061. Alexander II
[Honorius II. 1061-9.]
1073. Gregory VII
[Clement III. 1080-1100.]
1086. Victor III
1088. Urban II
1099. Paschal II
[Theoderic, 1100.]
[Albert, 1102.]
[Sylvester IV. 1105-1111.]
1118. Gelasius II
[Gregory VIII. 1118-1121.]
1119. CalixtnsII
Eastern Emperoks.
582. Maurice
602. Phocas
610. Heraclius
„,, I Constautine III
IHeracleonas
641. Constans II
668. Constantiue IV. (Pogonatus)
685. Justinian II
695. Leontius
698. Tiberius Apsimar
705. Justinian II. (restored) ,
711. Philippicus
713. Anastasius II
716. Theodosius III
717. Leo III. (the Isaurian) ,
741. Constantino V. (Coprony-
mus)
775. Leo IV
'70A ( Constantino VI
^^"•ilrene
802. Nicephorus
811. Stauracius
811. Michael L (Ehangabe^
813. Leo V. (tlie Armenian)
820. Michael 11. (the Stammerer)
829. Theophilus
842. Michael III. (the Drunkard)
867. Basil I. (the Macedonian) ..
886. Leo VI. (the Philosopher) ..
602
610
641
641
641
668
685
695
698
705
711
713
716
717
741
775
780
797
802
811
811
813
820
829
842
867
886
911
911
to
959
959
963
969
976
1028,
1034
1067.
1071.
1078.
1081.
1118.
Alexander
Constantine VII. (Porphyro-
genitus — alone from 945)
Romanus I. (Lecai^enus) ..,
919. (Christopher, Stephen,
Constantine VIII.)
Romanus II
Nicephorus Phocas
John Tzimisces
( Basil IL.
iConstantine IX
Romanus III. (Argyrus) ...
, Michael IV. (the Paphla-
gonian)
Michael V. (Calaphatcs) ...
Zoe.
Constantine X. (Monomaclius)
Theodora (alone from 1054)
Michael VI. (Stratioticus)
Isaac Comnenus
Constantine XII. (Ducas)
rEudocia )
I Romanus III. (Diogenes) J
i Michael Vll. (Parapinaces) j
Andronic^^s I >
Constantine XII )
Nicephorus III. (Botoniates)
Alexius I. (Comnenus) ...
John, or Calo-Johannes ...
1061
1073
1085
1087
1099
1118
1119
1124
912
959
, 945
963
969
976
1025
1028
1034
1041
1042
1054
1056
1057
1059
1067
1071
1078
1081
1118
1143
Western Emperoijs, from Charlemagne.
{The date in the first column is that of succession to the kinijdom of Gerraamj ; that in
the second, of the Imperial Coronation.)
Conrad I. 9201 Kings
Henry I. (the > of Ger-
Fowler) 936) manv.
Othol 973
OthoII 983
OthoIII 1002
Henry II 1024
Conrad II 1039
Henry III 1056
Henry IV 1106
Henry V 1125
814
887
800. Charlemagne 814
813. Louis tlio Pious 840
817. Lothair 855
850. Louis 11 875
875. Charles the Bald 877
884. Charles the Fat 887
896. Arnulf 899
891. Guy I Titular
894. Lambert I -p^^n-
901. Louis of Provence 1 gj.^^g
916. Berengar j ^
912
920
936
962.
973
967.
983
996.
1002
1014.
1024
1027.
1039
1046.
1056
1084.
1106
nil.
XX
LIST OF POPES AND SOVEREIGNS.
Kings of France from the Accession of the Carolingian Dynasty.
A.D.
752
768.
8U:,
840,
877
879
884
A.D.
Pipin 768
(Charlemagne 814
ICarloman 772
Louis tlie Pious 840
Charles II. (the Bald) 877
Louis II. (the Stammerer) ... 879
fLouisIII 882
tCarloman 884
Charles the Fat 888
Ocio, orEudes 898
898. Charles III. (the Simple)... 923
923. Kodolf. 936
936. Louis IV. (d'Outre-mer) ... 954
954. Lothair 986
986. Louis V. (le Faine'ant) 987
987. Hugh Capet 996
996. EobertI 1031
1031. Henry 1 1060
1060. Philip 1 1108
1108. Louis VL (the Fat) 1137
Kings op England.
800.
836.
85'
-{
866.
871.
901.
924.
941.
946.
955.
959.
Egbert 836
Ethelwulf 857
Ethelhald 860
Ethelbert 866
Ethelredl 871
Alfred 901
Edward the Elder 924
Athelstan 941
Edmund 946
Edred 955
Edwy 959
Edgar 975
975. Edward the Martyr 978
978. Etlielred II. (the Unready) 1016
1016. Ednumd Ironside 1016
1016. Canute 1035
1035. Harold (Harefoot) 1039
1039. Hardicanute 1042
1042. Edward the Confessor 1066
1066. Harold 1066
1066. William I. (the Conqueror) 1087
1087. William n. (Eufus) 1100
1100. Henry 1 1135
A HISTORY
COI..COLL.
I\ YORK.
I] Mill . \ ^
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
BOOK III.
FROM THE ELECTION OF GREGORY THE GREAT TO THE
DEATH OF CHARLEMAGNE, a.d. 590-814.
CHAPTER I.
GREGORY THE GREAT, a.d. 590-604.— COLUMBAN, a.d, 589-615.
The end of the sixth century may be regarded as the boundary
between early and mediseval Church-History. The scene of interest
is henceforth varied ; the eastern churches, oppressed by calamities
and inwardly decaying, will claim but little of our attention, while
it will be largely engaged by regions of the West, unnoticed, or
but slightly noticed, in earlier times. The Gospel will be seen
penetrating the barbarian tribes which had overrun the western
empire, bringing to them not only religious truth but the elements
of culture and refinement, adapting itself to them, moulding them,
and experiencing their influence in return. As Christianity had
before been aflfected by the ideas and by the practices of its. Greek
and Roman converts, so it now suffered among the barbarians,
although rather from the rudeness of their manners than from the
infection of their old religions. Yet throughout the dreariest of
the ages which lie before us, we may discern the gracious provi-
dence of God, preserving the essentials of the truth in the midst
of ignorance and corruptions, enabling men to overcome the evil
by which they were surrounded, and filling the hearts of multitudes
with zeal not only to extend the visible bounds of Christ's kingdom,
but also to enforce the power of faith on those who were already
professedly His subjects.
2 GREGORY THE GREAT. ^^^ III.
Gregory, the most eminent representative of the transition from
the early to the middle period, was born at Rome about the year
540.* His family was of senatorial rank, and is said by some
authorities to have belonged to the great Anician house ;^ he
was great-grandson of a pope nained Felix — either the third or
the fourth of that name.'^ Gregory entered into civil employment,
and attained the office of praetor of the city ; but about the age of
thirty-five '^ he abandoned the pursuit of worldly distinctions, and
employed his wealth in founding seven monasteries — six of them
in Sicily, and the other, which was dedicated to St. Andrew, in his
family mansion on the Coelian hill at Rome.® In this Roman
monastery he took up his abode, and entered on a strictly ascetic
life, in which he persevered notwithstanding the frequent and
severe illness which his.austerities produced.* About the year 577,
he was ordained deacon, and was appointed to exercise his office
in one of the seven principal churches of the city ;^ and in 578, or
the following year, he was sent by Pelagius II. as his representa-
tive to the court of Tiberius, who had lately become sole emperor
on the death of the younger Justin.** The most noted incident
of his residence at Constantinople was a controversy with the
patriarch Eutychius, who maintained the opinion of Origen, that
the " spiritual body " of the saints after the resurrection would be
impalpable, and more subtle than wind or air. Gregory on the
contrary held, according to the doctrine which had been recom-
mended to the western church by the authority of Augustine,* that,
if the body were impalpable, its identity would be lost ; it will, he
* Lau, " Gregor der Grosse," 10. xxxix. ; Analecta, 502, seqq.) claim him
Leipz., 1845. as a member of the Benedictine order;
^ See Patrol. Ixxv. 241 ; Ciaeon. i. but it seems very doubtful (Pagi, x.
401. 368; Schrockh, xvii. 245). On this
<= The third, according to Gregory's depends another question — whether Au-
biographer, Paul Warnefrid (c. 1), gustine and his companions in the Eng-
Baronius (492. 1 ; 581. 4), Nait. Alex, lish mission were Benedictines. SeeRey-
(ix. 20), and Lau (9) ; the fourth, ac- nerius de Apostolatu Beuedictinorum
cording \o John the Deacon (Vita Greg, in Auglia (Duaci, 1626); Sammarth.
i. 1), the Benedictine biographer, Ste. iii. 6-7; Mabill., I. xl. seqq.; Tho-
Mai'the (i. 3), and Fleury (xxxiy. 35).' massin, I. iii. 24.
<• For the date see Pagi, x. 363 ; ^ Paul. 7 ; Lau, 25.
Lau, 71. ^ A.D. 578. He had been associated
« Paul. 4 ;■ Sammarth. ii. 6 ; Lau, in the empire four years before. Gib-
120-1. The name of St. Andrew has bon, iv. 253-4.
now been exchanged for that of the ' Enchirid. 88-91 ; De Civ. Dei, xxii.,
founder himself. In like manner, the 11, 20-1. See Gieseler, vi. 427 ; Hagen-
monastery founded at Canterbury in bach, i. 378. Eutychius has been already
honour of St. Peter and St. Paul, after- mentioned (vol. i., p. .531). John of
wards took the name of the foundei', Ephesus represents him as having taught
St. Augustine ; and for a list of other that " these bodies of men do not attain
instances see Montalembert, ii. 560. to the resurrection, but others are created
' Paul. 5. Ste. Marthe (Vita, i. 3) anew, which arise in their stead," pp.
and Mabillon (Acta SS. Ord. S. Bened. L, 147,149,196.
Chap. I. a.d. 590. STATE OF ITALY.
3
said, be " palpable in the reality of its nature, although subtle by
the effect of spiritual grace." Tiberius ordered a book in which
Eutychius had maintained his opinion to be burnt ; and ^ ^^^
the patriarch soon after, on his death-bed, avowed him-
self a convert to the opposite view, by laying hold of his attenuated
arm and declaring, " I confess that in this flesh we shall all rise
again." '^
After his return to Rome,™ Gregory was elected abbot of his
monastery, and also acted as ecclesiastical secretary to Pelagius."
On the death of that pope, who was carried off by a plague in
January, 590," he was chosen by the senate, the clergy, and the
people to fill the vacant chair. He endeavoured by various means
to escape the promotion ; but the letter, in which he entreated the
emperor Maurice to withhold his consent," was opened and detained
by the governor of Rome ; mu-acles baffled his attempts to conceal
himself; and he was consecrated in September, 690.'*
The position . which Gregory had now attained was one fiom
which he might well have shrunk, for other reasons than the fear
ascribed to him by an ancient biographer, " lest the worldly glory
which he had before cast away might creep on him under the colour
of ecclesiastical government." '" He compares his church to an
" old and violently-shattered ship, admitting the waters on all sides,
— its timbers rotten, shaken by daily storms, and sounding of
wreck." '^ The north of Italy was overrun, and its other provinces
were threatened, by the Lombards. The distant government of
Constantinople, instead of protecting its Italian subjects, acted only
as a hindrance to their exerting themselves for their own defence.
The local authorities had neither courage to make war nor wisdom to
negotiate ; some of them, by their unprincipled exactions, even drove
their people to espouse the interest of the enemy.* The inhabitants
of the land had been wasted by war, famine, and disease, while the
rage for celibacy had contributed to prevent the recruiting of their
numbers. In many places the depopulated soil had become pesti-
lential. The supplies of corn, which had formerly been drawn
from Sicily to support the excess of population, were now rendered
k Greg. Moralia, xiv. 56. '' Paul, 13 ; Greg. Turon. x. i. ; Pagi,
"" A.B. 584. Pagi, X. 368, 585 ; Lau, x. 489 ; Lau, 37-40. John the Deacon
30, 586 ; Dupin, v. 102. Dean Milman thinks it necessary to enter into a formal
thinks that he was abbot before his mis- proof that Gregory's reluctance was
sion to Constantinople, i. 404. real (i. 45)— a vindication of the man
" Sammarth. I., vi. 1. ° Jaffe, 91. which reflects on the age.
1' For the necessity of the emperor's '' Paul. 10. ' Ep. i. 4.
consent, see vol. i. p. 550, and Baron. ' Ep. v. 41.
540, 10.
b2
4 STATE OF THE CHURCH — GREGORY'S EPISTLES. B,jok III.
necessary by the general abandonment of husbandry. Rome itself
had suffered from storms and inundations, in addition to the common
misfortunes of the country. So great were the miseries of the time,
as to pi'oduce in religious minds the conviction, which Gregory often
expresses, that the end of the world was at hand.*^
Nor was the aspect of ecclesiastical affairs more cheering.
Churches and monasteries had been destroyed by the Lombards ; ^
the clergy were few, and inadequate to the pastoral superintendence
of their scattered flocks ; among them and among the monks, the
troubles of the age had produced a general decay of morals and
discipline.^' The formidable Lombards were Arians ; the schism
which had arisen out of the question as to the " Three Articles,"
continued to hold Istria and other provinces separate from Rome,
and had many adherents in Gaul.^ In Gaul, too, the Church was
oppressed by the extreme depravity of the princes and nobles, and
by the general barbarism of the clergy as well as of the people.
Spain had just been recovered from Arianism, but much was yet
wanting to complete and assure the victory. In Africa, the old
sect of Donatists took occasion from the prevailing confusions to
lift up its head once more, and to commit aggressions on the
Church. The eastern patriarchates were distracted by the Nesto-
rian and Monophysite controversies ; a patriarch of Antioch had
been deprived, and the bishop of Rome had reason to look with
jealousy on his brother and rival of the newer capital.
The collection of Gregory's letters, early eight hundred and
fifty in number, exhibits a remarkable picture of his extensive and
manifold activity. And it is in this that their value mainly con-
sists ; for, although questions of theology and morality are sometimes
treated in them, they do not contain those elaborate discussions
which are found among the correspondence of Jerome and
Augustine.* Gregory had neither leisure nor inclination for such
discussions ; but his capacity for business, his wide, various, and
minute supervision, his combination of tenacity and dexterity in
the conduct of affairs, are truly wonderful. From treating with
patriarchs, kings, or emperors on the highest concerns of Church
or State, he passes to direct the management of a farm, the
" e. g. Dial. iii. 38 ; Ep. iii. 29; * Dupin (v. 104, seqq.) gives a sum-
Baron. 590. 22-5 ; 594, 9 ; Sammarth. mary of the chief points in Gregory's
II., iv. 4 ; Gibbon, iv. 267-8 ; Neander, letters, classed under separate heads.
V. 155 ; Lau, 00. Jaffe, in his elaborate and valuable
* Greg. Dial. iii. 36. ' Regesta,' gives an analysis of them,
^ Lau, 48, 111. arranged in chronological order.
'• Lau, 143. See vol. i. p. 531.
Chap. I. a.d. 590-604. LITURGICAL REFORMS. 5
reclaiming of a runaway nun, or the relief of a distressed
petitioner in some distant dependency of his see.^ He appears as
a pope, as a virtual sovereign, as a bishop, as a landlord." He
takes measures for the defence of his country, for the conversion
of the heathen, for the repression and reconciliation of sectaries
and schismatics ; he administers discipline, manages the care of
vacant dioceses, arranges for the union of sees where impoverish-
ment and depopulation rendered such a junction expedient, directs
the election of bishops, and superintends the performance of their
duties. He intercedes with the great men of the earth for those
who suffered from the conduct of their subordinates ; he mediates
in quarrels between bishops and their clergy, or between clergy
and laity ; he adviSes on the temporal concerns of churches, and
in a spirit of disinterestedness and equity very unlike the grasping
conduct of too many bishops where legacies or other property were
in question. In his letters to the emperors, although the tone is
humble and submissive, he steadily holds to his purpose, and
opposes everything which appears to him as an encroachment on
the rights of the Church.'^
Gregory lived in a simple ^ and monastic style, confining his
society to monks and clergy, with whom he carried on his studies.'
He endeavoured to provide for the education of the clergy, not
indeed according to any exalted literary standard, but in such a
maimer as the circumstances of his time allowed. He introduced
a new and more effective organization into his Church.^ He
laboured for the improvement of the liturgy, and gave to the
canon of the mass the form which it still retains in all essential
respects.*^ He instituted a singing-school, selected music, and
established the manner of chanting which derives its name from
him.' He superintended in person the exercises of the choristers ;
the whip with which he threatened and admonished them was
preserved for centuries as a relic. "^ The misconduct of persons who
^ Epp. viii. 8-9 ; ix. 114. good asses. I cannot ride the horse,
•^ See Gibbon, iv. 370-1 ; Schrockh, because he is wretched ; nor the good
xvii. 278-80; Neander, v. 156. For beasts, because they are asses."
his humane care to lessen the burdens • ' Joh. Diac. ii. 11-2 ; Lau, 58.
and oppressions of his < p'ojjj, see Savigny *=' Lau, 303.
in the Philological Museum, ii. 129- ^ See vol. iv. of his works; also
131. Cambridge, 1833. Palmer's Origines, i. Ill, seqq. ; Gue'r-
<• Lau, 105-6. anger, i. 162, seqq. ; Lau, 244-299.
« One of his epistles (ii. 32), addressed ' Maimbourg, in Bayle, art. Gregoirc I.,
to an agent in Sicily, has been often note O ; Lau, 258.
quoted as showing both Gregory's hu- ^ Joh. Diac. ii. 5-6. This writer's
mour and the humbleness of his esta- account of the manner in which the
blishment : " You have sent us," he " Germans or Gauls " performed the
writes, "one wretched horse and five Gregorian chant (ii. 7) is too curious to
6 GREGOKY'S CHAKITIES— NEGOTIATIOx\S. Book III.
on account of their vocal powers had been ordained deacons had
become scandalous; Gregory, with a council, attempted to remedy
the evil, not by requiring a greater strictness of behaviour in the
singers,' but by enacting that the chanting should be performed by
subdeacons, or clerks of the inferior orders.™ He laboured dili-
o-ently as a preacher, and it was believed that in the composition of
his discourses he was aided by a special inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, who appeared in the form of a dove whiter than snow."
When Rome was threatened in 595 by the Lombards under Agilulf,
the pope expounded Ezekiel from the pulpit, until at length the
pressure of distress obliged him to desist, as he found that in such
circumstances his mind was too much distracted to penetrate into
the mysteries of the prophetic book.° " Let no*one blame me," he
says in the last homily of the series, " if after this discourse I cease,
since, as you all see, our tribulations are multiplied : on every side
we are surrounded with swords, on every side we fear the imminent
peril of death. Some come back to us maimed of their hands,
otiiers are reported to be prisoners or slain. I am forced to with-
hold my tongue from exposition, for that ray soul is weary of my
life." ^ Li his last years, when compelled by sickness to withdraw
from preaching in person, he dictated sermons which were delivered
by others.''
The wealth of his see enabled the pope to exercise extensive
charities, which were administered according to a regular scheme.
On the first day of every month he distributed large quantities of
provisions, and many members of the nobility were so reduced by
the calamities of the age that they were glad to share in his bounty.
Every day he sent alms to a number of needy persons, in all quarters
of the city. When a poor man had been found dead in the street,
Gregory abstained for some time from the celebration of the eucha-
rist, as considering himself to be the cause of his death. He was in
the habit of sending dishes from his own table to persons whom he
knew to be in want, but ashamed to ask relief. He entertained
strangers and wanderers as his guests ; and his biographers tell us
that on one occasion he was rewarded by a vision, in which he was
be omitted here, althoup;li it has been rigidas voces jactat, sicqne audientium
partly quoted by Gibbon: " Alpina animos, qnos mulcere debuerat, exas-
siquidem corpora, vocum suarum toni- perando magis ac obstrependo con-
truis altisone perstrepentia, susceptse turbat."
modulationis dulcedinem proprie non " Hard. iii. 496.
resultant, quia bibuli gutturis barbara " Paul. 28 ; Job. Diac. iv. 70. __
feritas, dum inflexionibus et repercus- ° Horn, iu Ezech., prsef. ad. lib. ii.
sionibus mitem nititur edere cantile- p II. x. 2-t.
nam, natural! (juodam fragore, quasi i Joh. Diac. iv. 74.
plaustra per gradus confuse sonantia,
Ciup. I. A.D. 590-604. ADMINISTRATlOiN OF THE CHURCH. 7
informed that among the objects of his hospitality had been his
guardian angel. At another time, it is related, the Saviour appeared
to him by night, and said to him, " On other days thou hast relieved
Me in my members, but yesterday in Myself." ''
Gregory found himself obliged to take an active part in
political affairs. He desired peace, not.only for its own sake, but
as necessary for the reform and extension of the Church.^ He
laboured for it notwithstanding many discouragements, and not-
withstanding repeated disappointments by the breach of truces
which had been concluded. He took it upon himself to negotiate
with the Lombards ; and, although slighted and ridiculed by the
court of Constantinople for his endeavours, he found his recompense
in their success, and in the gratitude of the people whom he had
rescued from the miseries of war.'
The property of the Roman see, which had come to be desig-
nated as the " patrimony of St. Peter," included estates not only
in Italy and the adjacent islands, but in Gaul, lllyria, Dalmatia,
Africa, and even in Asia." These estates were managed by com-
missioners ehosen from the orders of deacons and subdeacons, or
by laymen who had the title of Defensors. By agents of this class
Gregory carried on much of the administration of his own patri-
archate and of his communications with other churches ; and, in
addition to these, he was represented by vicars — bishops on whom,
either for the eminence of their sees or for their personal merits,
he bestowed certain prerogatives and jurisdiction, of which the pall
was the distinctive badge.^ His more especial care was limited to
the " suburbicarian " provinces, and beyond these he did not venture
to interfere in the internal concerns of churches.^ In Gaul and
in Spain he had vicars : his influence over the churches of these
countries was undefined as to extent, and was chiefly exercised in
the shape of exhortations to their sovereigns ; but he succeeded in
establishing by this means a closer connexion with the Frankish
kingdom than that which had before existed ; and by thus
strengthening his interest in the West, he provided for his church
' a support independent of the power of Constantinople.^
■■ Joh. Diac. ii. 22-30 ; Lau, 303. his subjects. (Vigil. Ep. 6, in Patrol.
' Lan, 54. Ixix. ; Greg. Ep. ix. 11 ; Giesel. I. ii.
» Sammarth. ii. 2 ; iv. 1 ; Gibbon, iv. 416. Lau, 95.) On its form see n. on
274 ; Lau, 63-6, 138-142. Ep. i. 28; De Marca, 1. vi. c. 6 ; Lau,
" Baron. 591. 30; Giannone, 1. IV. 54. There is an essay by Gamier on
xi. 1 ; Lau, 50. the pall. Dissert, iii. in Lib. Diurn.
* See Epp. iii. 56-7; v. 11, 15, 53 ; (Patrol, cv.).
vi. 34, 62, &c. The emperor's consent '' Fleury, xxxv. 19 ; Dupin, v. 103.
was necessary before tlie pall could be ' Lau, 89, 179 ; Neand. v. 162 ; Rett-
conferred on any bishops who were not berg, ii. 583.
8 CONTROVERSY WITH Book III.
By the aid of Gennadius, governor of Africa, the pope acquired
a degree of authority before unknown over the Church of that
country.*' In his dealings with the bishops of the west, he upheld
the authority of St. Petej-'s chair as the source of all ecclesiastical
privileges — the centre of jurisdiction, to which all spiritual causes
ought to be referred as the highest tribunal.^ His agents,
although belonging to the lower grades of the ministry, were
virtually the chief ecclesiastical authorities within their spheres ; we
find that subdeacons are in this character empowered not only to
admonish individual bishops, but even to convoke those of a whole
province, to administer the papal rebuke to them, and to report
them to the apostolical chair in case of neglect.*^ When, however,-
the agents exceeded their general authority, and allowed causes to
be carried before them without reference to the diocesan, Gregory
admonished them to respect the rights of the episcopate.*^ With
this lofty conception of the authority of his see, it would appear
that he was unfeignedly free from personal pride and assumption ;
but he must be reckoned among those of the popes who have most
effectively contributed to the extension of the papal dominion.
Gregory always treated the eastern patriarchs as independent.
He spoke of the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch as his equals —
as being, like himself, successors of St. Peter, and sharers with him
in the one chair of the same founder ;'^ and, although he was involved
in serious differences with the bishops of the eastern capital, these
differences did not arise from any claim on the Roman side, but
from a supposed assumption on the part of Constantinople.*^ John,
styled for his ascetic life " the Faster," was raised to the patriar-
chate in 585, after having struggled to escape the elevation with
an appearance of resolute humility, which Gregory at the time
admired, although he afterwards came to regard it as the mask of
pride. ^' In 587 a great synod of eastern bishops and senators was
held at Constantinople for the trial of certain charges against
Gregory, patriarch of Antioch.'' Over this assembly John
=» Lau, 103-4, 209. stantly allow ? " Perhaps SM6y(?cta may
'■ Neaiid. v. 156 ; Lau, 53, 96-100. mean inferior; for the whole course of
*• Epp. xiii. 26-7 ; Lau, 112. Gregory's dealings with Constantinople
^ Ep. xi. 37. is against the idea of his having re-
^ Epp. vi. 60 ; vii. 40. garded the patriarch as subject to him.
f In one of his epistles (ix. 12), when s Epp. v. 18, 44.
meeting a charge of having adopted •' Gregory was acquitted. The his-
some ritual novelties from Constan- torian Evagrius, who was a lawyer of
tinople, he asks : " As for the Constan- Antioch, and attended him as his coun-
tinopolitan Church, who can doubt that sel, gives a very high character of him.
it is subjecta to the Apostolic See, as (v. 6 ; vi: 7.) On the other side, see
both the most pious emperor and our the monophysite John of Ephesus, 213,
brother the bishop of that city con- 225.
Chap. I. a.d. 591. JOHN OF CONSTANTINOPLE. 9
presided, in virtue of the position assigned to his see by the
second and fourth General Councils ; and in the acts he
assumed, like some of his predecessors,' the title of " Ecumenical
(which the Latins rendered by Universal) Bishop." The meaning
of this term, in Byzantine usage, was indefinite ; there was cer-
tainly no intention of claiming by it a jurisdiction over the whole
Church \^ but Pelagiiis II., viewing with jealousy the power of
Constantinople, and apprehensive of the additional importance
which its bishops might derive from the presidency of a council
assembled for so important a purpose, laid hold on the title as a
pretext for disallowing the acts of the assembly, although these had
been confirmed by the emperor, and forbade his envoy to commu-
nicate with John.'"
Gregory, on succeeding Pelagius, took up the question with
much earnestness. After repeated, but ineffectual, remonstrances
through his apocrisiary," he wrote to the patriarch himself, to the
emperor Maurice, and to the empress. To Maurice he
urged that the title assumed by the patriarch interfered
with the honour of the sovereign.'' He declared that John was
drawn by his flatterers into the use of the " proud and foolish "
word ; that the assumption was an imitation of the devil, who
exalted himself above his brother angels ; that it was unlike the
conduct of St. Peter, who, although the first of the apostles, was
but a member of the same class with the rest ; that bishops ought
to learn from the calamities of the time to employ themselves better
than in claiming lofty designations ; that, appearing now when the
end of the world was at hand, the claim was a token of Antichrist's
approach. The council of Chalcedon, he said, had indeed given
the title to the bishops of Rome ;P but these had never adopted it,
lest they should seem to deny the pontificate to others.'^' Gregory
also wrote to Eulogiusof Alexandria, and to Anastasius of Antioch,
endeavouring to enlist them in his cause.'" To allow the title to
John, he said, would be to derogate from their own rights, and an
' See vol. i. p. 546. . ' inhabitatur. Nam quod Grseci cocu-
'' Thomassiu de Benfef. I. i. 11-16; mewem vocaiit, a Latinis non solum or6«s,
Dupin, V. 25. See Robins, 199-201. a cujus universitate 'universalis appel-
Compare the pi'eface to the Acts of the latur, verum etiam hahitatio seu locus
Second Council of Nicsea, by Anastasius habitabilis nuncupatur."
the librarian (Hard. iv. 20). "Cum "" Greg. Epp. v. 18, 44; Job. Diac.
apud Cpolim positus frequenter Grsecos iv. 51.
super hoc vocabulo I'eprehenderem, et " Lau, 149.
fastus vel arrogantiae redarguerem, as- ° Ep. v. 20.
serebant, quod non ideo wcimwnicum, ^ That this was a mistake, see vol. i,
quern multi (»JHY'/S;(/em iuterpretati sunt, p. 546.
dicerent patriarcham, quod universi or- "' Epp. v. 18, 20, 21 ; vi. 33.
bis teneat praisulatum ; sed quod ciii- ■■ Epp. v. 43; vi. GO; vii. 27; ix. 78.
dam parti prscsit orbis quae a Christianis
10 GREGORY'S RELATIONS Book III.
injury to their whole order. " Ecumenical bishop " must mean sole
bishop ; if, therefore, the ecumenical bishop should err, the whole
Church would fail ; and for a patriarch of Constantinople to assume
the proud and superstitious name, which was an invention of the
first apostate, was alarming, since among the occupants of that see
there had been not only heretics, but heresiarchs. These applica-
tions were of little effect, for both the Egyptian and the Syrian
patriarchs had special reasons to deprecate a rupture of the Church's
peace, and to avoid any step which might provoke the emperor.**
Anastasius had been expelled from his see by the younger Justin,
and had not recovered it until after an exclusion of thirteen years
(a.d. 582-595), when he was restored on the death of Gregory;*
Eulogius was struggling with the difficulties of the Monophysite
schism : while to both of them, as orientals, the title of ecumenical
appeared neither a novelty nor so objectionable as the Roman bishop
considered it. Eulogius, however, reported that he had ceased to
use it in writing to John, as Gregory had directed [sicut jussistis),
and in his letter he addressed the bishop of Rome himself as " uni-
versal pope." "I beg," rephed Gregory, "that you would not
speak of directing, since I know who I am, and who you are. In
dignity you are my brother ; in character, my father
I pray your most sweet holiness to address me no more with the
proud appellation of ' universal pope,' since that which is given to
another beyond what reason requires is subtracted from yourself.
If you style me universal pope, you deny that you are at all that
which you own me to be universally. Away with words which puff
up vanity and wound charity ! " ^^
John of Constantinople died in 595, leaving no other property
than a small wooden bedstead, a shabby woollen coverlet, and a
ragged cloak, — relics which were removed to the imperial palace
in reverence of the patriarch's sanctity.^ His successor, Cyriac,
continued to use the obnoxious title ; but Gregory persevered in
' Lau, 158. patriarchs of Constantinople intended.
' Evagr. V. 5. (See Dupin, v. 110; Laud against
" Ep. -viii. 30. Baronius, after quoting Fisher, p. 198, ed. Ang. Cath. Lib.)
some very insufficient cases of Gregory's Schrockh (xvii. 69-72) is unfair to
interference in countries beyond his own Gregory in this as in other points,
patriarchate, exclaims — " Sic vides Gre- Gregory, in tacitreproof of John, styled
gorium, cum refugitdici universalis, uni- himself " servant of God's servants;"
versalis tamen ecclesise curam subire !" but this title was not (as has sometimes
(595, 34-5 ; cf. 50.) The Benedictine been said) invented by him. It was as
biographer (III. i. 16-7) says that Gre- old as St. Augustine's time, was used
gory objected to the title of ecumenical by other bishops, and even by kings,
only as meaning sole bishop, and not in and did not become peculiar to the popes
the sense in which later popes have of Rome until the eleventh century,
used it. The truth is, however, that Ducange, s. vv. Servus servorum Dei;
he objected to it in the later Roman Schrockh, xvii. 78-9 ; Giesel. I. ii. 414.
sense rather than in that which the " Theoph. Simocatta, vii. 6.
Chap. I. a.d. 593-603. WITH MAURICE and PHOCAS. 11
his remonstrances against it, and, although he accepted the an-
nouncement of Cyriac's promotion, forbade his envoys at Con-
stantinople to communicate with the new ])atriarch so long as the
style of Ecumenical Bishop should be retained/
During his residence at Constantinople, Gregory had been on
terms of great intimacy with Maurice, who at that time was in a
private station. But since the elevation of the one to the empire,
and of the other to St. Peter's chair, many causes of disagreement
had arisen. Maurice favoured John personally ; he represented
the question of the patriarch's title as trifling, and was deaf to
Gregory's appeals on the subject.^ He often espoused the cause
of bishops or others whom Gregory wished to censure, and reminded
him that the troubles of the time made it inexpedient to insist on
the rigour of discipline.^ By forbidding persons in public employ-
ment to become monks, and requiring that soldiers should not
embrace the monastic life until after the expiration of
.AD. 593
their term of service, he provoked the pope to tell him
that this measure might cost him his salvation, although, in ful-
filment of his duty as a subject, Gregory transmitted the law to
other bishops.^ Moreover there were diflferences arising out of
Gregory's political conduct, which the exarchs and other imperial
officers had represented to their master in an unfavourable light.*'
Thus the friendship of former days had been succeeded by aliena-
tion, when in 602 a revolution took place at Constantinople. The
discontent of Maurice's subjects, which had been growing for years,
was swelled into revolt by the belief that, for reasons of disgraceful
parsimony, he had allowed twelve thousand captive soldiers to be
butchered by the Avars when it was in his power to ransom them.*^
The emperor was deposed, and the crown was bestowed on a cen-
turion, named Phocas, who soon after caused Maurice and his
children to be put to death with revolting cruelties, which the victims
y Epp. vii. 4, 31. xi. 8-9.
^ Schrockh, xvii. 343 ; Lau, 106. " See Ep. v. 40, to Maurice, a.d. 594,
" Baron. 590. 43. ^ Theoph. Simocatta, viii. 6-7. Mau-
•^ Ep. iii. 65. Ste. Marthe remarks rice had already been unpopular on
that the law was needed against those account of the severe economy which
who in that age were ready to take he practised in order to remedy the
refuge in cloisters when the state re- profusion of his predecessor Tiberius-^
quired their administrative or military more especially as this general economy
services, and justifies the regulation as contrasted offensively with his excessive
to soldiers by the analogy of similar liberality towards his own relations,
canons as to slaves — soldiers being (Job. Ephes. 357-363.) Mr. Finlay (i.
bound as truly as slaves for the term of 369-370; supposes that he wished to
their engagement (II. X. 3). As to the punish the troops for their late mutinous
subsequent alteration of the law, see conduct, and that he did not expect the
Lau, 109. Comp. De Marca, II. Avars to put them to death.
12
GREGORY'S LABOURS FOR UNITY.
Book III.
July, 603.
bore with extraordinary firmness and with devout resignation.® The
Dehaviour of Gregory on this occasion has exposed him to censures
from which his apologists have in vain endeavoured to clear him.
Blinded by his zeal for the Church, and by his dislike of the late
emperor's policy, he hailed with exultation the success of an
usurper whom all agree in representing as a monster of vice and
barbarity ;* he received with honour the pictures of Phocas and
his wife, placed them in the chapel of a palace, and addressed the
new emperor and empress in letters of warm congratula-
tion.^ Encouraged by the change of rulers, he now
wrote again to Cyriac, exhorting him to abandon the title which
had occasioned so much contention.'' Phocas found it convenient
to favour the Roman side, and for a time the word was given up
or forbidden.' But the next emperor, Heraclius, again used it in
addressing the bishops of Constantinople ; their use of it was
sanctioned by the sixth and seventh general councils ; and it has
been retained to the present day.^' • •
Gregory was zealous in his endeavours to extend the knowledge
of the Gospel, and to bring over separatists to the Church. He
« Theophanes, 439-443 ; Simocatta,
viii. 8-11 ; Job. Diac. iv. 17-18; Gib-
bon, iv. 296.
f Baron. 603. 9 ; Maimbourg, in
Bayle, art. Gr&joirc I. n. H. ; Gibbon,
iv. 299-300.
K Epp. xiii. 31, 39; Baron. 603, 2;
Lau, 232-3. For censures on his con-
duct, see Bayle, art. Gregoire I. ; Mos-
heim, ii. 19; Gibbon, iv. 299; Milman,
i. 460-3. John the Deacon (iv. 23),
Barouius (603, 7), the Benedictines
(Vita. IV. vii. 4-5; n. in Ep. xiii. 31),
and others suggest that Gregory meant
to indicate to Phocas what his conduct
ought to be ; that he did not suspect his
hypocrisy or foresee his misconduct,
&c. Dom Pitra goes to the Iliad for a
justification— " S'il descend dlalouange
otficielle envers I'assassin de Maurice,
sourenons-7ious do Prmm awx picds
d'Achille." (Hist, de S. Leger, p. xxxiii.)
M. Rohrbacher settles the question more
boldly, and to his own perfect satis-
faction. After quoting Gregory's letter
to Phocas, " C'est ainsi," says the Abbe',
" que le chef de I'Eglise universelle, le
chef de I'univers Chretien, juge I'em-
pereur qui n'est plus, et admoneste celui
qui le remplace!" (ix. 513.) M. de
Montalembert, however, notwithstand-
ing his general admiration of Gregory,
is strongly against him in this case
(ii. 120-3). Gregory's frequent compli-
ments to the Prankish queen Brunichild
afford grounds for the same sort of
charges with his letter to Phocas. The
Benedictines and other llomanists argue
that either Brunichild was not what she
is said to have been, and that the crimes
of Fredegund have been ascribed to
her ; or that her misdeeds must have
been after Gregory's death ; or that
Gregory knew of her good actions from
herself and had no means of knowing
her evil deeds. (Vita, III. iii. 6; n. in
Ep. vi. 5; Mariana, ii. 108; Monta-
lembert, ii. 437-8.) Neander in both
cases excuses him, on the ground
that he could not get correct informa-
tion from distant countries, but allows
that he went too far in his civilities to
Phocas. (v. 156.) Lau gives up the
defence (192-3, 233-4). Mr. Hallam
(Suppl. Notes, 15) and Dr. Perry (190-5)
incline to think that Brunichild's in-
famy is partly undeserved,
h Ep. xiii. 40.
i It has been said that Phocas after-
wards granted the title to Gregory's
successors, but see Schrockh, xvii. 73;
Planck, i. 655.
'' Sammarth. iii. 1 ; Giesel. I. ii. 414.
See for the later history of the title,
Schrockh, xvii. 73-8.
Chap. I. a.d. 590-601. . TREATMENT OF THE JEWS. 13
laboured, and with considerable, although not complete success, to
put an end to the schism of Aquileia and Istria, which had arisen
out of the controversy as to the " Three Articles " and the Fifth
General Council.''' In order to this purpose, he was willing to
abstain from insisting on the reception of that council : the first four
councils, he said, were to be acknowledged like the four Gospels ;
" that which by some was called the Fifth " did not impugn the
Council of Chalcedon, but it related to personal matters only, and
did not stand on the same footing with the others." By means
of this view he was able to establish a reconciliation between
Constantius, bishop of Milan, an adherent of the Council, ^ ^ ^^^
and Theodelinda, queen of the Lombards, although the " '
queen persisted in refusing to condemn the " Three Articles." °
The influence of this princess was of great advantage to the pope,
both in religious and in political affairs. According to the usual
belief, she was daughter of the prince of the Bavarians, and had
been trained in the Catholic faith. It is said that on the death of
her husband, the Lombard king Authari, her people desired her
to choose another, and promised to accept him for their
sovereign ; and her choice fell on Agilulf, duke of Turin,
who, out of gratitude for his elevation, was disposed to show favour
to her religion, and to listen to her mediation in behalf of the
Romans." The statement of some writers,'^ that Agilulf himself
became a Catholic, appears to be erroneous ; but his son was bap-
tised into the Church, and in the middle of the seventh century
Arianism was extinct among the Lombards.""
Towards those who were not members of the Church Gregory
was in general tolerant. That he urged the execution of the laws
ao-ainst the Donatists is an exception which the fanatical violence
of the sect may serve to explain, if not even to justify.^ He pro-
tected the Jews in the exercise of their religion,* and disapproved
of the forcible measures by which some princes of Gaul and Spain
had attempted to drive them to a profession of Christianity."
™ Epp. ix. 9 ; xii. 33, &c. ; Job. Diac. For the famous " iron crown " of Agi-
i, 47-50 ; Lau, 67-71, 143-8. lulf, see the Patrol, xcv. 551-6, and
" Epp. iii. 16; iv. 2-4, 38-9. Ducange, s. w. Corona Ferrca.
° Baron. 593. 31-9; 594. 1, seqq. i Paul, de Gestis Langob. iv. 6. See
Saramarth. II. xii. 1-3. Muratori, Annali, a.d. 599.
p Paul. Warnefr. De Gestis Langob. ' Schrockh, xviii. 131.
iii. 29, 34 ; iv. 6, 8 (Patrol, xcv.) ; ^ Ep. iv. 34, &c. ; Baron. 591. 32-7 ;
Pagi, X. 506; Lau, 46, 61. Rettberg 592.3-4; Lau, 72.
thinks the story fabulous, because Pre- ' Ep. vi. 23: Schrockh, xvii. 320-3;
degar (c. 34) makes her a Prankish Lau, 142.
priucess, and names no other husband "^ Epp. i. 47 ; iii. 53. Such compul-
than " Ago," i. e. Agilulf. (ii. 180.) sory conversions are often mentioned in
] 4 ENGLAND, Book III.
When a bishop of Palermo had seized and consecrated a syna-
gogue, Gregory ordered that as, after consecration, it could not be
alienated from the Church, the bishop should pay the value of it to
the Jews.'' On another occasion, when a convert from Judaism,
having been baptized on Easter eve, had signalized his zeal by
invading the synagogue of Cagliari on the following day, and
placing in it his baptismal robe, with a cross and a picture of the
blessed Virgin, he was censured for the proceeding, and it was
ordered that the building should be restored to the rightful owners/
Sometimes, however, Gregory endeavoured to expedite the conver-
sion of Jews by holding out allowances of money or diminution of
rent as inducements, and by increasing the rent of those who were
obstinate in their misbelief;' and, although he expressed a con-
sciousness that conversion produced by such means might be hypo-
critical, he justified them by the consideration that the children of
the converts would enjoy Christian training, and might thus become
sincere professors of the Gospel.*
Gregory endeavoured to root out the remains of Paganism
which still existed in some parts of Italy, and in the islands of
Sardinia and Corsica. He wrote in reproof of landowners — some
of them even bishops — who allowed their peasants to continue in
heathenism, and of official persons who suffered themselves to be
bribed into conniving at it.^ Sometimes he recommended lenity as
the best means of converting the pagan rustics ; sometimes the
imposition of taxes, or even personal chastisement.^
But the most memorable of Gregory's attempts for the conversion
of the heathen had our own island for its scene. It is probable
that many of the Britons who had become slaves to the northern
invaders retained some sort of Christianity f but the visible appear-
ance of a church no longer existed among them ; the last bishops
within* the Saxon territory are said to have withdrawn from London
and York into Wales about the year 587-*' The zeal of controversy
has largely afiected the representations given by many writers of
the subject at which we have now arrived. Those in the Roman
the records of the time. The IVth in monasteries or elsewhere. C. 60.
Council of Toledo (a.d. 633) enacted =' Ep. ix. 55.
that Jews should not be "saved against y Ep. ix. 6.
their will," but that those who had been ^ E. g. Epp. iv. 32 ; v. 8.
compelled to profess Christianity in the " Ep. v. 8.
reign of the late king Sisebut, should ^ Epp. iv. 23-6; v. 41 ; vi. 1, 18;
still be obliged to adhere to their pro- Lau, 102.
fession. (C. 57. Cf. Isid. Hispal. Hist. <= Ep. iv. 26 ; ix. 65 ; Lau, 242-3.
Goth. 60, in Patrol. Ixxxiii.) Children ^ Lingard, H. E. i. 89 ; Lappenberg,
of Jews are to be separated from their i. 63, 133.
parents, and to be Christianly trained "= Collier i. 144.
Chap. I. a.d. 596. MISSION TO THE ANGLO-SAXONS. 15
interest have made it their object to narrow as much as possible the
extent of the British Christianity, to disparage its character, and to
reflect on the British clergy for their supineness and uncharitableness
in neglecting to impart the knowledge of salvation to their Saxon
neighbom'S. And, while some Anglican writers have caught this
tone, without sufficiently considering what abatements may fairly
be made from the declamations of Gildas and fi'om the statements
of ancient authors unfi-iendly to the Britons ; or whether, in the
fierce struggles of war, and in the state of bondage which followed,
it would have been even possible for these to attempt the conver-
sion of their conquerors and oppressors — other Protestants have
committed the opposite injustice of decrying the motives and
putting the worst construction on the actions of those who were
instrumental in the conversion which proceeded from Rome/
It will be enough to allude to the familiar story of the incident
which is said to have first directed Gregory's mind towards the con-
version of the Anglo-Saxons — the sight of the fair-haired captives
in the slave-market, and the succession of fanciful plays on words
by which he declared that these Angles of angelic beauty, subjects
of Aella, king of Deira, must be called from the ire of God, and
taught to sing Alleluiah.^ The date of this is placed by some in
the early days of his monastic life ; '^ by others, after his return
from Constantinople.' He resolved to undertake a mission to
Britain, and the pope (whether Benedict or Pelagius) sanctioned
the enterprise ; but the people of Rome, who were warmly attached
to Gregory, made such demonstrations that he was obliged to
abandon it.'^ Although, however, he was thus prevented from
executing the work in person, he kept it in view until, after his
elevation to the papal chair, he was able to commit it to the agency
of others.
Ethelbert had succeeded to the kingdom of Kent in 568, and in 593
had attained the dignity of Bretwalda, which gave him an influence
over the whole of England south of the Humber.' About 570, as is
supposed, he had married a Christian princess, Bertha, daughter of
Charibert, king of Paris, and the saintly Ingoberga. As a condition
of this marriage, the free exercise of her religion was secured for the
queen, and a French bishop, named Luidhard, accompanied her to
f See Schrockh, xvi. 268 ; Neander, ' Lau, 36.
V. 15 ; Lappenb. i. 136. ■* Paul. 19-21.
K Beda, ii. 1 ; Paul. 17. Mr. Soames ' Beda, i. 25 ; ii. 5 ; Turner, Hist,
disbelieves the story. Ang. Sax. Ch. Anglo-Sax. i. 328, 338 ; Lingard, H. E.
32-3 ; Latin Ch. 13-4. i. 88 ; Lappenberg, i. 127-8.
'• Joh. Diac. i. 22 ; Fleury, xxxiv. 35.
16 ETHELBERT. Book III.
the Kentish court."' It is probable that Bertha, in the course of her
long union with Ethelbert, had made some attempts, at least indi-
rectly, to influence him in favour of the Gospel ; perhaps, too, it
may have been from her that Gregory received representations
which led him to suppose that many of the Anglo-Saxons were
desirous of Christian instruction, and that the Britons refused to
bestow it on them." In 596, during an interval of peace with the
. Lombards," the pope despatched Augustine, provost of his own mo-
nastery, with a party of monks, to preach the Gospel in England ;
and about the same time he desired Candidus, defensor of the papal
estates in Gaul, to buy up English captive youths, and to place
them in monasteries, with a view to training them for the conversion
of their countrymen.'^ But the missionaries, while in the South of
France, took alarm at the thought of the dangers which they were
likely to incur among a barbarous and unbelieving people whose
language was utterly unknown to them, and their chief returned to
Rome, with a prayer that they might be allowed to relinquish the
enterprise. Gregory refused his consent ; he encouraged them to
go on, and furnished them with letters to various princes and bishops
of Gaul, whom he requested to support them by their influence,^ and
to supply them with interpreters. In 597 Augustine, with about
forty companions, landed in the Isle of Thanet. Ethelbert, on being
apprised of their arrival, went to meet them ; and at an interview,
which was held in the open air, because he feared lest they might
practise some magical arts if he ventured himself under a roof with
them, he listened to their announcement of the message of salva-
tion.'" The king professed himself unable at once to abandon the
belief of his fathers for the new doctrines, but gave the missionaries
leave to take up their abode in his capital, Durovernum, or Can-
terbury, and to preach freely among his subjects. They entered
the city in procession, chanting litanies and displaying a silver
-cross with a picture of the Saviour. On a rising ground without
the walls they found a church of the Roman-British period, dedi-
cated to St. Martin, in which Luidhard had lately celebrated his
" Beda, i. 25 ; luett, i. 7. As to Bertha's Augustine. But it appears from Ep. vi.
mother, see the Rev. R. C. Jenkins, in 57, that Augustine and Candidus went
' Archffiologia Cantiana,' iii. 20-1. into Gaul together. Lingard, A. S. C.
° See Epp. vi. 58 ; xi. 29; Inett, i. i. 21.
8-10 ; Schroekh, xvi. 269 ; Lingard, i Ep. vi. 51-4, 57-9 ; Beda, i. 23. In
A. S. C. i. 23. his letter to Theodoric and 'I'heodebert
° Lau, 139. (vi. 58) he seems to speak as if he sup-
p Ep. vi. 7. The commission to posed the Saxons to be their subjects —
Candidus is placed by many writers (as probably by way of compliment. See
Thierry, i. 49, and Lau, 213) some Lappenb. i. 118 ; Thierry, i. 51.
considerable time before the mission of ■■ Beda, i. 25.
Chap. I. a. d. 597-601. THE ENGLISH MISSION. 17
worship f and to this day the spot on which it stood, overlooking
the valley of the Stour, is occupied by a little church, which, after
many architectural changes, exhibits a large proportion of ancient"
Roman materials. There Augustine and his brethren worshipped ;
and by the spectacle of their devout and self-denying lives, and of
the miracles which are said to have accompanied their preaching,''
many converts were drawn to them. Ethelbert himself was bap-
tized on Whitsunday, 597 ; he declared his wish that his subjects
should embrace the Gospel, but professed himself resolved to put
no constraint on their opinions." ' ^
Gregory had intended that Augustine, if he succeeded in making
an opening among the Saxons, should receive episcopal consecra-
tion.-^ For this purpose the missionary now repaired to Aries f
and from that city he sent some of his companions to Rome with a
report of his successes. The pope's answer contains advice which
may be understood as hinting at some known defects of Augustine's
character, or as suggested by the tone of his report. He exhorts
him not to be elated by his success or by the miracles which he
had been enabled to perform ; he must reckon that* these were
granted not for his own sake, but for that of the people to whom
he was sent.^ Having accomplished the object of his journey into
Gaul, Augustine returned to England by Christmas, 597 ; and
Gregory was able to announce to Eulogius of Alexandria that at
that festival the missionaries had baptized ten thousand persons in
one day.*
In the summer of 601 the pope despatched a reinforcement to
the English mission. The new auxiliaries — among whom were
Mellitus and Justus, successively archbishops of Canterbury, and
Paulinus, afterwards the apostle of Northumbria — carried with
them a large supply of books, including the Gospels, with church
plate, vestments, relics said to be of apostles and martyrs, and the*
pall which was to invest Augustine with the dignity of a metro-
politan.'^ Gregory had written to Ethelbert, exhorting him to
destroy the heathen temples in his dominions;*^ but, on further
consideration, he took a different view of the matter, and sent after
Mellitus a letter for the guidance of Augustine, desiring him not
^ That Luidhard was then dead, see Inett, i. 20 ; Lingard, A. S. C. i. G4,
Pagi, X. 619. 368.
' See Martineau, 45, seqq. ^ Ep.xi. 28; Beda i. 31. (See Smith
" Beda, i. 26; Pagi, x. 620. in Patrol, xcv. 316.)
'^ Beda, i. 23. " Ep. viii. 30 ; Beda, i. 27.
>' That his consecration was after his •> Beda, i. 29 ; Epp. xi. 58-63, 66, &c.
first success, not (as some have thought) '•' Ep. xi. 66.
on his way to Britain — see Pagi, x. 619;
18 GREGORY'S INSTRUCTIONS. Took 11 [.
to destroy the temples, but, if they were well built, to purify them
with holy water, and convert them to the worship of the true God ;
thus, it was hoped, the people might be the more readily attracted
to the new religion, if its rites were celebrated in places where they
had been accustomed to worship. By a more questionable accom-
modation of the same sort — for which, however, the authority of
Scripture was alleged — it was directed that, instead of the heathen
sacrifices and of the banquets which followed them, the festivals of
the saints whose relics were deposited in any church should be
celebrated by making booths of boughs, slaying animals, and
feasting on them with religious thankfulness.*^
About the same time Gregory returned an elaborate set of
answers to some questions which Augustine had proposed as to
difficulties which had occurred or might be expected to occur to
him.® As to the division of ecclesiastical funds, he states the
Roman principle — that a fourth part should be assigned to the
bishop and his household for purposes of hospitality ; a fourth to
the clergy ; another to the poor ; and the remaining quarter to the
maintenance of churches. But he says that Augustine, as having
been trained in the monastic rule, is to live in the society of his
clergy ; and that it is needless to lay down any precise regulations
as to the duties of hospitality and charity where all things are held
in common, and all that can be spared is to be devoted to pious
and religious uses. Such of the clerks not in holy orders *^ as might
wish to marry might be permitted to do so, and a maintenance
was to be allowed them. In reply to a question whether a variety
of religious usages were allowable where the faith was the same —
a question probably suggested by the circumstance of Luidhard's
having officiated at Canterbury according to the Galilean rite,^ —
the pope's answer was in a spirit no less unlike to that of his
predecessors. Innocent and Leo, than to that of the prevalent
party in the Latin Church of our own day. He desired Augustine
to select from the usages of any churches such " right, religious,
and pioUs " things as might seem suitable for the new church
"" Ep. xi. 7G ; Beda, i. 30. See Inett, Excerptions of Egbert (No. 160, in
i. 23-5; Lau, 225; Martineau, 53; Wilkins, i. 112, or Thorpe, 34). The
Ozanam, 159. subdiaconate began to be included among
' Ep. xi. 64 ; Beda, i. 27. the holy orders about the twelfth cen-
f " Clerici extra sacros ordines con- tury. (Martene, ii. 2 ; Walter, 435 ;
stituti." Mr. Kemble (ii. 414) seems Augusti, xi. 224.) Beleth, in the end
to suppose that by "sacros ordines" of that century, speaks of it as some-
orders of monks are meant ; but the times reckoned with the holy orders,
"holy orders" -were those from the and sometimes not. Rationale, 72
diaconate upwards, as is explained with (Patrol, ccii.).
reference to Gregory's letter in the ^ Johnson's Canons, i. 68.
Chap. I. a.d. 603. AUGUSTINE AND THE BRITISH CHURCH. 19
of the English ; " for," it was said, " we must not love things
on account of places, but places on account of good things.""^
With I'espect to the degrees within which marriage was to be for-
bidden, Gregory, while laying down a law for the baptized, under
pain of exclusion from the holy Eucharist, did not insist on the
separation of those who from ignorance had contracted marriages
contrary to it: "for,^' he said, "the Church in this time corrects
some sins out of zeal, bears with some out of lenity, connives at
some out of consideration, and so bears and connives as by this
means often to restrain the evil which she opposes." In answer to
another inquiry, Augustine was told that he must not interfere
with the bishops of Gaul beyond gently hinting to them such
things as might seem to require amendment ; " but," it was added,
" we commit to your brotherhood the care of all the British
bishops, that the ignorant may be instructed, the weak may be
strengthened by your counsel, the perverse may be corrected by
your authority."
It was Gregory's design that Augustine should make London
his metropolitical see, and should have twelve bishops under him ;
that another metropolitan, with a like number of suffragans, should,
when circumstances permitted, be established at York ; and that,
after the death of Augustine, the archbishops of London and York
should take precedence according to the date of their consecration.
But this scheme, arranged in ignorance of the political divisions
which had been introduced into Britain since the withdrawal of the
Romans, was never carried out. Augustine fixed himself in the
Kentish capital, as London was in another kingdom ; and his succes-
sors in the see of Canterbury have, although not without disputes
during one period, continued to be primates of all England.'
The bishops of the ancient British Church were not disposed to
acknowledge the jurisdiction which Gregory had professed to confer
on his emissary. In 603, Augustine, through the influence of
Ethelbert, obtained a conference with some of them at a place
which .fi"om him was called Augustine's Oak — probably Aust Clive,
on the Severn.'' He exhorted them to adopt the Roman usages
as to certain points in which the churches differed, and proposed
an appeal to the Divine judgment by way of deciding between the
•' I have combined the reading of kins, i. 398 ; W. Malmesb. Gesta
Beda, bonis, -with that of Gregory's Pont. iii. 7 ; Stubbs, Chron. Poutif.
epistles, nobis. Eborac. ap. Twysd. 1686.
' Beda, i. 29 ; Johnson, i. 74 ; Kemble, ^ Stevenson, Note on Bed. ii. 2.
ii. 359. See the letter of Archbishop Others place it in Worcestershire.
Ralph to Calixtus II., a.d. 1121; Wil- (Joyce, ' England's Sacred Synods,' HI.)
C2
20 AUGUSTINE AND THE BRITISH CHURCH. Book III.
rival traditions. A blind Saxon was brought forward ; the Britons
were unable to cure him ; but when Augustine prayed that the
o-ift of bodily light to one might be the means of illuminating the
minds of many, it is said that the man forthwith received his sight.
The Britons, although compelled by this miracle to acknowledge
the superiority of the Roman cause, said that they could not alter
their customs without the consent of their countrymen ; and a
second conference was appointed, at which seven British bishops
appeared, with Dinoth, abbot of the great monastery of Bangor
Iscoed, in Flintshire. ' A hermit, whom they had consulted as to
the manner in which they should act, had directed them to submit
to Augustine if he were a man of God, and, on being asked how
they should know this, had told them to observe whether Augustine
rose up to greet them on their arrival at the place of meeting,™ As
the archbishop omitted this courtesy, the Britons concluded that he
was proud and domineering ; they refused to listen to his proposal
that their other differences of observance should be borne with if
they would comply with the Roman usages as to the time of keeping
Easter, and as to the manner of administering baptism," and would
join with him in preaching to the English ; whereupon Augustine
is said to have told them in anger that, if they would not have
peace with their brethren, they would have war with their enemies,
and suffer death at the hands of those to whom they refused to
preach the way of life.° In judging of this affair, we shall do well
to guard against the partiality which has led many writers to cast
the blame on the Romans or on the Britons exclusively. We may
respect in the Britons their desire to adhere to old ways and to
resist foreign assumption; in the missionaries, their anxiety to
estabhsh unity in external matters with a view to the great object
of spreading the Gospel : but the benefits which might have been
expected were lost through the arrogant demeanour of the one
party and the narrow and stubborn jealousy of the other."
" See Collier, i. 177, against Baronius. sions. The second view seems to me
" " Ut miuisterium baptizandi, quo the more probable, although, if" Augus-
Deo renascimur, juxta morem sanctae tine insisted on the Roman practice of
RomanjB et apostolicaj ecclesite com- trine immersion, it was contrary to the
pleatis." Dr. Lingard (A. S. C i. 69, directions given by Gregory for Spain,
322) and Mr. Stevenson (Eug. Ch. His- where he approved the practice of the
torians, i. 358) render compleatis, by Catholics in baptizing by single immer-
" perfect," and suppose it to refer to sion, because the Arians had used three
confirmation, which at Rome was ad- as sjmbolising their doctrine of the
ministered at the great festivals irn- inferiority of the Second and Third per-
mediately after baptism. Archdeacon sous in the Godhead. Ep. i. 43.
Churton (Early Eng. Ch. 44) and Mr. " Beda, ii. 2.
Martineau (56) understand it to relate v As nothing is said of any discussion
to the question of one or three immer- about the Roman supremacy, Dr. Lin-
CiiAv. I. HIS DEATH — WRITINGS OF GREGORY. 21
Augustine is supposed to have died soon after the conference.^
Before hig death he had consecrated Justus to the bishoprick of
Rochester, and Mellitus to that of London, the capital of Saberct,
nephew of Ethelbert, and king of Essex ;'" he had also consecrated
Laurence as his own successor. The threat or prophecy which he
had uttered at the meeting with the Britons was supposed to be
fulfilled some years after, wheft Ethelfrid, the pagan king of
Bernicia, invaded their territory. In a battle at Caerleon
on the Dee, Ethelfrid saw a number of unarmed men,
and, on inquiring, was told that they were monks of Bangor who
had come to pray for the success of theu' countrymen. " Then,"
he cried, " although they have no weapons, they are fighting
against us ;" and he ordered them to be put to the sword. About
twelve hundred, it is said, were slain, and only fifty escaped by
flight.'
Amidst the pressure of his manifold occupations, and notwith-
standing frequent attacks of sickness, Gregory found time for the
composition of extensive works. The most voluminous of these,
the ' Morals' on the book of Job, was undertaken at the sug-
gestion of Leander, bishop of Seville, with whom he had made
acquaintance at Constantinople, where the Spanish prelate was
employed in soliciting the emperor to aid his convert Hermenegild.''
Gregory's qualifications for commenting on Scripture were not of
any critical kind ; he repeatedly states that he was ignorant even
of Greek." The nature of his work is indicated by its title. From
the circumstance that Job sometimes makes use of figurative
language, he infers that in some passages the literal sense does
not exist ;^ and he applies'himself chiefly to explaining the typical
gard (A. S. C. i. G7, 6!^, 380) infers that 74). See Hussey, n. in Bed. ii. 3.
on that subject the Britons did not differ ' Inett, i. 38.
from the missionai'ies. But how could ' Beda, ii. 2. The genuineness of the
they have more effectually disowned words, in which it is said that Au-
any such supremacy than by their con- gustine was dead long before this, has
duct ? If, as Dr. Lingard supposes been questioned, but is now generally
(68), the story has been embellished, the admitted (Soames, Ang. Sax. Ch. 46 ;
embellishment must have been in the Stevenson in loc). Moreover, as Ethel-
Romcm interest. A letter or speech, first frid was a pagan, and beyond the limits
published by Spelman, in which Dinoth of the Bretwalda's influence, it does not
is made to disavow the bishop of Rome appear how Augustine could have insti-
(Patrol. Ixx. 21), is, however, probably gated him against the Britons, if alive
spurious. See Lingard, A. S. C. i. 71 ; and desirous so to do.
Giesel. I. ii. 462 ; Collier, i. 179 ; Inett, * Ep. ad Leandr. prefixed to the
i. 33 ; Martineau, 57. book; Mariana, iv. 124. See vol. i.
1 His death is placed by some in the p. .542.
same year, C03 ; by Baronius in 604 ; " Epp. vii. 32 ; xi. 74.
by others, in 605 ; by Pagi, in 607 (xi. '^ Ep. ad Leandr. c. 3.
22 GREGORY'S WRITINGS Book III.
and moral senses — often carrying to an extreme the characteristic
faults of this kind of interpretation-estrange wresting of the
language of Scripture, and introduction of foreign matter under
pretence of explaining what is written.^' He regards Job as a
type of the Saviour ; the patriarch's wife, of the carnally-minded ;
his friends, as representing heretics ; their conviction, as signifying
the reconciliation of the heretics to the Church. The ' Morals '
were greatly admired. Marinian, bishop of Ravenna, caused them
to be read in church ; but Gregory desired that this might be
given up, as the book, not being intended for popular use, might
be, to some hearers, rather a hindrance than a means of spiritual
advancement.'^
The ' Pastoral Rule,' written in consequence of Gregory's
having been censured by John, the predecessor of Marinian, for
attempting to decline the episcopate, also contains some curious
specimens of allegorical interpretation ; "■ but it is characterised by
practical wisdom and by an experienced knowledge of the heart.
It was translated into various languages ; the Anglo-Saxon version
was made by king Alfred, who sent a copy of it to every bishop
in his kingdom for preservation in the cathedral church.^ In
France, it was adopted as the rule of episcopal conduct by
reforming synods under Charlemagne and his son f and some
synods ordered that it should be put into the hands of bishops
at their consecration.*^ •
In his ' Dialogues,' addressed to Theodelinda,'' Gregory dis-
courses with a deacon named Peter on the miracles of Italian
saints. The genuineness of the work has been questioned, chiefly
on account of the anile legends with which it is filled.*^ But the
evidence of the authorship is generally admitted to be sufl[]cient f
y See Milman, i. 407. Aquisgr. a.d. 836, cap. ii. 4, &c.
» Ep. xii. 24. '' Hincmar, t. ii. p. 389 ; Dupin, v.
'^ Such as the commentary on the dis- 134-5 ; Lau, 315.
qualifications for the priesthood in Levit. •= Paul. Warnefr. Hist. Langob. iv. 5
xxi. 18. The nose, it is said, signifies (Patrol, xcv.). In this circumstance
discretion. " Parvo autem naso est, qui Dean Milman sees the best apology for
ad tenendam mensuram discretionis ido- the legends which Gregory has stamped
neus nou est. . . . Nasus enim grandis with his authority. " They might be,
et tortus est disci-etionis subtilitas im- if not highly coloured, selected with
moderata, quae, dum plus quam decet less scruple, to impress the Lombard
excreverit, actionis sua; rectitudiuem queen with the wonder-working power
ipsa confundit" (i. 11). of the Roman clergy, and of the ortho-
'' Pauli, 'Konig Aelfred,' 236. Ber- dox monks and bishops of Italy," i.
lin, 1851. 427.
^' Cone. Mogunt. ap. Hard. iv. 1008 ; ' See, for example, the story as to
Cone. Rem. c. 10 ; Cone. Turon. c, 3 ; Theodoric, vol. i. p. 520.
Cone. Cabilon! c. 1 ; (ail a.d. 813.) « Dupin, v. 137-8 ; Schrockh, xvii.
Cone. Paris, a.k. 829, c. 4; Cone. 322-5; Lau, 316-8: Bahr, ii. 448.
Chap. II. AND OPINIONS. 23
and it is to be noted to Gregory's praise that he repeatedly warns
Peter against attaching too much value to the miracles which are
related with such unhesitating credulity.^ In the fourth book, the
state of the soul after death is discussed. Peter asks why it is that
new revelations are now made on the subject, and is told that the
time is one of twilight between the present world and that which
is to come ; and that, consequently, such revelations are now
seasonable.' The doctrine of Purgatory is here advanced more
distinctly than in any earlier writing."^ The oriental idea of a
purifying fire, through which souls must pass at the day of judgment,
had been maintained by Origen ;*" but at a later time the belief in
a process of cleansing between death and judgment was deduced from
St. Paul's words, that *' the fire shall try every man's work," and
that some shall be "saved as by fire ;"" and it was supposed that
by such means every one who died in the orthodox faith, however
faulty his life might have been, would eventually be brought to
salvation. St. Augustine earnestly combated this error, and main-
tained that the probation of which the Apostle spoke consisted
chiefly in the trials which are sent on men during the present life.
He thought, however, that, for those who in the main had been
servants of Christ, there might perhaps be a purging of their
remaining imperfections after death ; ° and, although he was
careful to state this opinion as no more than a conjecture, his
authority caused it to be soon more confidently held.^ Gregory
lays it down that as every one departs hence, so is he presented in
the judgment ; yet that we must believe that for some slight
transgressions there is a purgatorial fire before the judgment day.*^
In proof of this are alleged the words of our Lord in St. Matthew
xii. 32, from which it is inferrecl, as it had already been inferred
by Augustine,*" that some sins shall be forgiven " in the world to
come;" and the doctrine is confirmed by tales of visions in which
the spirits of persons suffering in purgatory had appeared, and had
entreated that the eucharistic sacrifice might be offered in order to
their relief.^ A work in which religious instruction was thus
combined with the attractions of romantic fiction naturally became
'' See Neand. V. 202-3. p Giesel.*'vi. 418-9 f Hagenbach, i.
' Dial. iv. 41. 382.
i^ Schrockh, xvii.- 332-3; Lau, 508; 'i Dial. iv. 39.
Giesel. I. ii. 434-5 ; Hagenbach, i. 382. ■■ De Civ. Dei, xxi. xxiv. 2.
" See vol. i. p. 110. '^ Against the legend of Gregory's
" 1 Cor. iii. 12-15. having delivered the soul of the Em-
" De Question. Dulcitii, i. 13-14 ; peror Trajan by his prayers (.loh. Diac.
Enchiridion, 68 -9 ; De Civ. Dei, xxi. ii. 440), see Nat. Alex. t. v. Dissert. 1.
2G.
24: WRITINGS AND ^^^^ li-
very popular. Pope Zacharias (a.u. 741-752) rendered it into
his native Greek ;^ it was translated into Anglo-Saxon under
Alfred's care/by Werfrith, bishop of Worcester;" and among the
other translations was one into Arabic/
Gregory has been accused of having destroyed or mutilated the
monuments of ancient Roman greatness in order that they might
not distract the attention of pilgrims,'' and of having, from a like
motive, burnt the Palatine library,^ and endeavoured to extermi-
nate the copies of Livy's History." These stories are now rejected
as fictions invented during the middle ages with a view of doing
honour to his zeal ;" but it is unquestionable that he disliked and
discouraged pagan literature. In the epistle prefixed to his
'Morals' he professes himself indiff^erent to style, and even to
grammatical correctness, on the ground that the words of inspira-
tion ouo-ht not to be tied down under the rules of Donatus.''- And
in a letter to Desiderius, bishop of Vienne, who was reported to
have given lessons in " grammar," he doeS not confine his rebuke
to the unseemliness of such employment for a member of the
episcopal order, but declares that even a religious layman ought
not to defile his lips with the blasphemous praises of false deities.''
However this contempt of secular learning may be excused in
Gregory himself, it is to be regretted that his authority did much
to foster a contented ignorance in the ages which followed.'^
In other respects the pope's opinions were those of his age,
controlled in some measure by his practical good sense. His
reverence for the authority of the Church may be inferred from
' Anastasius, 165. iv. 2G8 ; Giesel. I. ii. 389. Schnickh's
>' Pauli's Aelfred, 237. *lislike of Gregory, however, inclines
" Schrockh, xvii. 335. him to believe the tale as to the library,
'^ Platina, 84-5. xvi. 59.
y Job. Sarisb., Polycraticus, ii. 26 ; '' Ad Leand. 5.
viii. 19 (Patrol, cxcix. 461, 792). In <= Ep. xi. 54. See Bayle, note M;
the first of these passages the authors of Neander, v. 207 ; Lau, 304. The Bene-
the 'Art deVe'iifier les Dates' ^iii. 279) dictines wish to suppose that Gregory
contend, with seeming reason, that we did n6t blame the thing but the manner.
ought to read ' reprobatse lectionis But the work from which they quote a
scripta ' (not ' probatie '), and to under- sanction of profane learning is spurious,
stand astrological books, which were and the passage in the epistle to Leander
so styled in the Digest. But in the rather favours the opposite view. (Lau,
other passage, John says distinctly : 20.) Desiderius was murdered by Bru-
" Fertur Gi-eg<ft-ius bibliothecam com- nichild's contrivance in 607, and has
bussise geutilem, quo divinse paginse been canonised. Vita S. Desider. ap.
gratior esset locus, et major auctoritas. Bouquet, iii. 484.
et diligentia studiosior." ** Fleury, xxxvi. 35 ; Giesel. I. ii.
^ The earliest authority for this is 388. The letter is cited as an authority
Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence in by Atto of Vercelli in the 10th century,
the 15th century. Bayle, art. Gre- De Pressuris Eccles.-p. ii. (Patrol.
goire I., n. N. cxxxiv. 75).
" See Bayle, notes L, M, N ; Gibbon,
Chap. I. OPINIONS OF GREGORY.
25
his repeated declarations, tkat he regarded the first four general
councils as standing on the same level with the four Gospels.^ It
has been argued from some passages in his works that he held the
doctrine of transubstantiation in the Eucharist ;*^ but his words,
although sometimes highly rhetorical, do not seem to affirm any
other than a spiritual presence of the Saviour's body and blood in
the consecrated elements.
After what has been said of his character and history, it is hardly
necessary to state that Gregory was a zealous friend to monachism.
He protected the privileges and property of monastic societies
against the encroachments of the bishops, and in many cases he
exempted monks from episcopal jurisdiction as to the management
of their affairs, although he was careful to leave the bishops undis-
turbed in the right of superintending their morals.^ But, notwith-
standioff his love for the monastic life, he detected and denounced
many of the deceits which may be compatible with asceticism ;
perhaps his disagreements with John "the Faster" may have
aided him to see these evils the more clearly.^' With reference
to the edicts of Justinian which had sanctioned the separation of
married persons for the sake of the monastic profession, he plainly
declares that such an act, although allowed by human laws, is for-
bidden by the law of God.' Nor, although he contributed to
extend the obligation to celibacy among the clergy, was his zeal
for the enforcement of it violent or inconsiderate ; thus, in directing
that the sub-deacons of Sicily should in future be restrained from
marriage, he revoked an order of his predecessor by which those
who had married before the introduction of the Roman rule were
compelled to separate from their wives.''
A veneration for relics is strongly marked in Gregory's writings.
It was his practice to send, in token of his especial favour,
presents of keys, in which were said to be contained some filings
of St. Peter's chains. These keys were accompanied by a prayer,
that that which had bound the Apostle for martyrdom might loose
the receiver from ail his sins;' and to some of them miraculous
histories were attached.™ The Empress Constantina— instigated,
« Epp. i. 25 ; iii. 10. See above, p. 13. ' Ep. xi. 45 (col. 1 161). See vol. i.
f As Dialog, iv. 58, quoted in Prsef. p. 552.
Bened. p. 29. See Schrockh, xvii. 305 ; '' Ep. i. 44. (col. 506.) His regula-
Lau 483-4. tions on this subject are summed up by
B^Epp. ii. 42; vi. 11; vii. 12; viii. Theiner, i. 355, sc^/.
15, 34; ix. HI; Cone. llom. a.d. 601, ' Ep. vi. 6; vii. 28, and elsewhere,
ap. Greg. t. iii. 1340-2 ; Schrockh, xvii. with some variety of form.
301-3. "' I^P- '^•ii- 26.
'- Neand. v. 206 ; Lau, 126.
26 DEATH OF GREGORY — COLUMBAN. Book III.
it is supposed, by John of Constantinople, with a view of bringing
the pope into trouble'' — asked him to send her the head, or some
part of the body, of St. Paul, for a new church which was built in
honour of the Apostle. Gregory answered, that it was not the
custom at Rome to handle or to dispose of the bodies of martyrs ;
that many persons who had presumed to touch the remains of
St. Peter and St. Paul had been struck with death in consequence ;
that he could only send her a cloth which had been applied to the
Apostle's body, but that such cloths possessed the same miraculous
power as the relics themselves. He added, that the practice of
removing relics gave occasion to fraud, and mentioned the case
of some Greek monks who, when called in question for digging
up dead bodies by night at Rome, confessed an intention of
passing them off in Greece as relics of martyrs. °
Two of Gregory's letters are addressed to Serenus, bishop of
Marseilles, who, on finding that some images were the subjects of
adoration, had broken them ; and these letters have a special
interest from their bearing on the controversy as to images which
arose somewhat more than a century after. The pope commends
Serenus for his zeal, but blames him for the manner in which it
had been displayed. He tells him that modesty ought to have
restrained him from an action for which no bishop had given any
precedent ; that pictures and images serve for the instruction of
those who cannot read books ; and that for this purpose they
ought to be preserved in churches, while care should be taken to
guard against the worship of them.^'
Gregory's infirmities had long been growing on him. For some
years he had been seldom able to leave his bed ; "^ he professed
that the expectation of death was his only consolation, and
requested his friends to pray for his deliverance from his suf-
ferings.'' On the 12th of March, 604, he was released.^
While the conversion of the English was reserved for the zeal of
Italian monks, a remarkable body of missionaries set out from the
shores of Ireland. Their leader, Columban,^ born in the province
of Leinster about 560, was trained in the great Irish monastery of
Bangor, which contained a society of three thousand monks, under
"Baron. 594. 2-5; 595. 29; Sam- >■ Ep. xiii. 22.
niarth. II. xi. 7. '^ Lau, 299. •
" Ep. iv. 30. ' Vita S. Columb. by Jonas, a monk
1' Epp. ix. 105 ; xi. 13. See Baanage, of Bobbio, in Mabilloii, ii., or Patrol.
1336. Ixxxvii.
1 Ep. xi. 44.
Chap. I. a.b. 589-610. MONASTIC RULE OF COLUMBAN. 27
the government of its founder, Comgal." Columban resolved to
detach himself from earthly things by leaving his country, after
the example of Abraham, and in 589^ crossed the sea with twelve
companions, first into Britain, and thence into Gaul. He had
intended to preach the Gospel to the heathen nations beyond the
Prankish dominions ; but the decayed state of religion and disci-
pline offered him abundant employment in Gaul, and, at the
invitation of Guntram king of Burgundy,^ he settled in that
country.^ Declining the king's offers of a better position, he
established himself in the Vosges, where a district which in the
Roman times was cultivated and populous had again become a
wilderness, while abundant remains of Roman architecture and
monuments of the old idolatry were left as evidence of its former
prosperity. Here he successively founded three monasteries,
Anegray, Luxeuil, and Fontaines. For a time the missionaries
had to endure great hardships ; they had often for days no other
food than wild herbs and the bark of trees, until their needs were
supplied by means which are described as miraculous. But by
degrees the spectacle of their severe and devoted life made an
impression on the people of the neighbourhood. They were looked
on with reverence by men of every class ; and while their religious
instructions were gladly heard, their labours in clearing and tilling
the land encouraged the inhabitants to exertions of the same kind.
The monasteries were speedily filled with persons attracted by
the contrast which Columban's system presented to the general
relaxation of piety and morals among the native monks and
clergy ; and children of noble birth were placed in them for
education.^
The Rule of Columban was probably derived in great measure
from the Irish Bangor.'' The main principle of it was the incul-
cation of absolute obedience to superiors, the entire mortification
of the individual will<= — a principle which is dangerous, as relieving
the mind from the feeling of responsibility, and as tending either
to deaden the spirit, or to deceive it into pride veiled under the
appearance of humility.'^ The diet of the monks was to be coarse,*^
and was to be proportioned to their labour. But Columban
" Jonas, 6-9; Lanigan, ii. 201. '^ Jouas, 13-19.
" The Histoire Litt(5raire says 585. ^ Lanigan, ii. 267.
(iii. 506.) See Rettberg, ii. .37. '• Cc. 1, 9. (Patrol. Ixxx.).
>" SeeMabillon, ii. 10. '' Schrockh, xvii. 423 ; Neander,
^ Jonas, 10 ; Walaf. Strabo, Vita S. Mem. 438 ; Rettberg, ii. 37.
Galli, in Bouquet, iii. 474 seqq. ; Rett- " " Vilis et vespertinus" c. 3.
berg, ii. 36-7.
28 RULE OF COLUMBAN — EASTER CONTROVERSY. Book 111.
warned against excessive abstinence, as being " not a virtue but a
vice." " Every day," it was said, " there must be fosting, as
every day there must be refreshment;" and every day the monks
were also to pray, to work, and to read.* There were to be three
services by day and three by night, at hours variable according to
the season.^ The monastic plainness was extended even to the
sacred vessels, which were not to be of any material more costly
than brass.*" To the Rule was attached a Penitential, which,
instead of leaving to the abbot the same discretion in the appoint-
ment of punishments which was allowed by the Benedictine system,
lays down the details with curious minuteness. Corporal chastise-
ment is the most frequent penalty. Thus, six strokes were to
be given to every one who should call anything his own; to
every one who should omit to say "Amen" after the abbot's
blessing, or to make the sign of the cross on his spoon or his
candle ; to every one who should talk at meals, or who should fail
to repress a cough at the beginning of a psalm. Ten strokes were
the punishment for striking the table with a knife, or for spilling
beer on it. For heavier offences the number rose as high as two
hundred ; but in no case were more than twenty-five to be inflicted
at once. Among the other penances were fasting on bread and
water, psalm-singing, humble postures, and long periods of silence.
Penitents were not allowed to wash their hands except on Sunday.
They were obliged to kneel at prayers even on the Lord's Day
and in the Pentecostal season.' Columban warned his monks
against relying on externals; but it may fairly be questioned
whether his warnings can have been powerful enough to counteract
the natural tendency of a system so circumstantial and so rigid in
the enforcement of formal observances.'^
Columban fell into disputes with his neighbours as to the time
of keeping Easter, in which he followed the custom of his native
country.™ He wrote on the subject to Gregory and to Boniface
(either the third or the fourth pope of that name), requesting that
they would not consider his practice as a ground for breach of
communion." In his letters to popes, while he speaks with high
respect of the Roman see, the British spirit of independence
strongly appears. He exhorts Gregory to reconsider the question
of the paschal cycle without deferring to the opinions of Leo or of
f C. 3. ^ C. 7. Neander, v. 41-2.
h Fleury, xxxv. 10. ™ See vol. i. p. 544.
i c. 10. " Epp. i. iii.
'' Instructio ii. (Patrol. Ixxx, 234);
Chap. I. a.d. 589-610. COLUMBAN IN BURGUNDY. 29
other elder popes ; " perhaps," he says, " in this case, a living dog
maybe better than a dead lioiC He even sets the church of
Jerusalem above that of Rome : " You," he tells Boniface IV..,
" are almost heavenly, and Rome is the head of the Churches of
the world, saving the special prerogative of the place of the Lord's
resurrection;" and he goes on to say that, in proportion as the
dignity of the Roman bishops is great, so ought their care to be
great, lest by perversity they lose it.*' Another letter on the
subject of Easter is addressed to a Gaulish synod. He entreats
the bishops to let him follow the usage to which he has been
accustomed, and to allow him to live peaceably, as he had already
lived for twelve years, amid the solitude of the forest, and beside
the bones of his seventeen deceased brethren.*i
After a residence of about twenty years in Burgundy, Columban
incurred the displeasure of king Theodoric II., by whom he had
before been held in great honour. Brunichild, the grandmother
of Theodoric, according to a policy not uncommon among the
queen-mothers of India in our own day, endeavoured to ^ ^ ^^^
prolong her influence in the kingdom by encouraging
the young prince in a life of indolence and sensuality.'" Columban
repeatedly, both by word and by letter, remonstrated against
Theodoric's courses : he refused to bless his illegitimate children,
and, with much vehemence of behaviour, rejected the hospitality of
the court, making (it is said) the dishes and drinking-vessels which
were set before him fly into pieces by his word." The king, whom
Brunichild diligently instigated against him, told him that he was
not unwise enough to make him a martyr, but ordered him to be
conducted to Nantes with his Irish monks, in order that they might
be sent back to their own country.' The journey of the mis-
sionaries across France was rendered a series of triumphs by the
miracles of Columban, and by the popular enthusiasm in his
favour." On their arrival at Nantes, the vessel which was intended
to convey them to Ireland was prevented, by miraculous causes,
from performing its task ;^ and Columban, being then allowed to
choose his own course, made his way to Metz, where Theodebert II.
of Austrasia gave him leave to preach throughout his dominions.^
o Ep. i. 2. (Eccl. ix. 4.) Velly ia the Hist. Litt. xii., Avertissem.
P Ep. V. 10. ix. seqq.
q Ep_ ;i_ ' Jonas, 33.
■• Wala'fr. Strabo ap. Bouquet, iii. " Id. 38-46.
474 . " Id. 47.
s Jonas, 31-2.* There is a vindication y Id. 51 ; Walaf. Strabo ap. Bouquet,
of Columban and his biographer against iii. 475.
30 COLUMBAX. ^"^^ "I-
He then ascended the Rhine into Switzerland, and laboured for a
time in the neighbourhood of the lake of Zurich. At Tuggen, it
is said, he found a number of the inhabitants assembled around a
large vat of beer, and was told that it was intended as a sacrifice
to Woden. By breathing on it, he made the vessel burst with a
loud noise, so that, as his biographer tells us, " it was manifest that
the devil had been hid in it."^ His preaching and miracles made
many converts, but after a time he was driven, by the hostility of
the idolatrous multitude, to remove into the neighbourhood of
Bregenz, on the lake of Constance, where he found circumstances
favourable to the success of his work. The country had formerly
been Christian ; many of its inhabitants had been baptized, although-
they had afterwards conformed to the idolatry of the Alamanni,
who had overrun it ; and the Alamannic law, made under
Frankish influence, already provided for Christian clergy the same
privileges which they enjoyed in France." Columban was kindly
received by a presbyter named Willimar : ^ he destroyed the idols
of the people, threw them into the lake, and for a time preached
with great success. But in 612, Theodebert was defeated by
Theodoric, and Columban found it necessary to leave the territory
which had thus fallen into the possession of his enemy,'' He
meditated a mission to the Slavons, but was diverted from the
design by an angel, and crossed the Alps into Italy, where he was
received with honour by Agilulf and Theodelinda, and founded a
monastery at Bobbio.'^ At the request of his Lombard patrons, he
wrote to Boniface IV. on the controversy of the " Three Articles." ^
His knowledge of the question was very small : he had been
possessed with opinions contrary to those of the Roman bishops
respecting it ; and perhaps this difference of views, together with
the noted impetuosity of his character, *^ might have led to serious
disagreements, but that the danger was prevented by his death in
'■ Jonas, 53; Rettberg, ii. 39. micvologus eloquentissimo, extremus
•' Rettberg, ii. 16-8. The like was primo, peregrinus indigena;, pauperciilus
the case as to the Bavarian law, before prtepotenti (mirum dictu ! nova res !
the conversion of Bavaria, ibid. 218. rara avis!) scfibere audet Bonifacio
'' Vit. ap. Pertz, iu 8. patri Palumbus."
" Jonas, 59 ; Pagi, xi. 612. ' Dr. Reeves makes the general re-
■' Id. 56, 59-60. mark that " If we may judge from the
"^ Ep. V. The remarkable address of biographical records which have de-
this letter has often been quoted — scended to us, primitive Irish eccle-
" Pulcherrimo omnium totius Eui-opse siastics, and especially the superior
ecclesiarum capiti, papse prsedulci, prse-. class, commonly known as saints, were
celso prsesuli, pastorum pastori, reve- very impatient of contradiction, and
rendissimo speculatori : humillimus very resentful of injury." Prolegom. to
celsissirao, maximo, agrestis urbano, Adamnan, Ixxvii.
Chap. I. a.d. 610-627. DEATH OF COLUMBAN — GAIJL. 31
615/ In the preceding year he had refused an invitation from
Clotaire II., who had become sole king of France, to return to his
old abode at Luxeuil.'^
Both Luxeuil and Bobbio became the parents of many mo-
nasteries in other quarters.' But the most celebrated of Columban's
followers was his countryman Gall, who had been his pupil from
boyhood, and had accompanied him in all his fortunes, until com-
pelled by illness to remain behind, when his master passed into
Italy. Gall founded in the year 614 the famous monastery which
bears his name, and is honoured as the apostle of Switzerland.'^
He died in 627."^
B Baron. 615. 15; Schrockh, xvii. ii., and Pertz, ii. ; also Neander, Ch.
430 ; Neand. v. 46. Hist. v. 45-9, and Memorials, 450 ; Oza-
n Jonas, 60-1. nam, 120-7 ; Rettberg, ii. 40-8.
• Fleury, xxxvii. 8. '" Pagi, xi. 236.
!< For lives of St. Gall, see Mabillon,
( 32 ) BOOK III.
CHAPTER II.
MAHOMET — THE MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY.
A.P. 610-718.
Phocas, after having earned universal detestation during a reign
of eight years, was dethroned and put to death in 610, by Hera-
clius,°son of the exarch of Africa.^ The new emperor found
himself involved in a formidable war with Chosroes II., king of
Persia. Chosroes had formerly been driven from his kingdom,
had found a refuge within the empire, and had been restored by
the arms of Maurice.^ On receiving the announcement that
Phocas had ascended the throne, he declared himself the avenger
of his benefactor ; " he invaded the empire, repeatedly defeated the
usurper's disorderly troops, and had advanced as far as Antioch,
which fell into his hands immediately after the elevation
A.D. 611. ^^ Heraclius. The war for which the murder of Maurice
had been the pretext, did not end on the fall of his murderer.
Chosroes overran Syria and Palestine ; with one division of his
AD 611- force he conquered Egypt, and carried devastation as
622. far as Tripoli, while another advanced to Chalcedon,
and for ten years presented to the people of Constantinople the
insulting and alarming spectacle of a hostile camp on the opposite
shore of the Bosphorus.*^
Between the Avars on the European side and the Persians on
the east, Heraclius was reduced to extreme distress. He had
almost resolved to return to Africa, which had recovered much of
its old prosperity, and was then the most flourishing province of
the empire ; '' but the patriarch of Constantinople obliged him to
swear that he would not forsake those who had received him as
their sovereign. At length, after having in vain at-
A.D. 615. tgjnpted to appease Chosroes by offering to become his
tributary, the emperor determined on the almost desperate enter-
prise of carrying the war into the enemy's country. He raised a
laro-e sum of money by loans — borrowing the plate and other
" Niceph. Cpol. 4 ; Gibbon, iv. 301-2. -^ Niceph. Cpol. 7 ; Gibbon, iv. 302-6 ;
I' Theoph. Simocatta, iv. 10 ; v. 3 ; Finlay, i. 376.
Gibbon, iv. 285-6. ' Finlay, i. 389.
"^ Simocatta, viii. 15.
Chap. II. a.d. 622-8. HERACLIUS. 33
wealth of churches on a promise of repayment with usury. With
this money he levied an array, and, having secured the forbearance
of the Avars, he boldly made his way into the heart of Persia/ In
six brilliant campaimis he recovered the provinces which
had been lost. Chosroes fled before him, and, in 628,
was deposed and put to death by his own son Siroes, who was glad
to make peace with the Romans.^
The war had on each side been one of religion. Chosroes was
aided in his attack on Jerusalem by 26,000 Jews, collected from
all quarters. On the capture of the city he destroyed churches,
defiled the holy places, plundered the treasures amassed from the
offerings of pilgrims during three centuries, and carried off into
Persia the patriarch Zacharias, with the relic which was venerated
as the True Cross. It is said that 90,000 Christians were slain
on this occasion, and that many of these were bought by the
Jews for the purpose of butchering them.'^ A great number of
Christians, however, found safety by flying into Egypt, and
were received with extraordinary kindness by John, patriarch of
Alexandria, whose charities earned for him the title of " the Alms-
giver."' Heraclius, in his turn, retaliated on the religion of
Persia, by destroying its temples, especially that at Thebarmes,
the birthplace of Zoroaster, and quenching the sacred fire."^
He restored the cross with great triumph to Jerusalem, and the
event was commemorated by a new festival — the " Exaltation of
the Cross." "* And the edict of Hadrian against the Jews was
renewed — forbidding them to approach within three miles of their
holy city."
While Chosroes was warring against the religion of the empire,
a more formidable and lasting scourge of Christendom had arisen
in Arabia." The prevailing religion of that country is said to
f Theophanes, 466; Pagi, xi. 151; bon, iv. 326-7. There is, however, a
Art de Ve'rif. iv. 351 ; Gibbon, iv. 309- difference as to this between the Greek
10; Schlosser, 52-9, and the Latin churches. See Pagi, xi.
s Niceph. Cpol. 14; Pagi, xi. 226-8; 238; Fleury, xxxvii. 34.
Gibbon, iv. 314-325 ; Finlay, i. 423-5. " Dean Milman (Hist, of Jews, iii.
^ Theophanes, 463 (who gives other 237-240, and n. on Gibbon, iv. 327)
instances of .Jewish hatred, p. 457) ; questions the stories as to further pun-
Baron. 614. 32 ; Gibbon, iv. 304-5. ishments inflicted on the Jews for the
That the story is probably exaggerated, atrocities which they had committed
see Schrockh, xix. 299. ' under cover of the Persian power.
' Vita S. Joh. Eleemos. ap. Rosweyd, " In addition to my usual authorities
i. 6 (Patrol. Ixxiii.) I have consulted Sale's ' Koran,' Lond.
k Niceph. Cpol. 12; Gibbon, iv. 314- 1734; Ockley's 'History of the Sara-
6 ; Finlay, i. 424. cens,' Canib. 1757 ; White's ' Bampton
'™ Niceph. Cpol. 15; Theophanes, Lectures for 1784,' Lond. 1811; ' Ke-
273, ed. Paris ; Baron. 627. 23-9; Gib- marks on the Character of Mahammad,'
i)
34 MAHOMET. l^**K I"
have been founded on a belief in the unity of God ; but this belief
was darkened and practically superseded by a worship of the
heavenly bodies, of angels, and of idols.^ The ancient sanctuary
of the nation, the Caaba, or holy house of Mecca, contained a
number of images answering to that of days in the year.*^ Other
religions also existed in Arabia. Judaism had become the faith
of some tribes ; orthodox Christian missionaries had made converts ;
and members of various sects, such as Gnostics, Manicheans, Nes-
torians, and Monophysites, had found in that country a refuge
from the unfriendly laws of the empire/ Thus there were abundant
materials within the reach of any one who might undertake to
become the foundey of a new system.
Mahomet was bom at Mecca, either in 570 or the following
year.^ His temper was naturally mystical and enthusiastic ; he
was subject from an early age to fits of epilepsy,' which were sup-
posed to proceed from an influence of evil spirits ; and in the
course of his mental conflicts he was often reduced to a state of
melancholy depression which suggested the thought of suicide."
He appears to have become possessed with a ruling idea of the
Divine unity, and with a vehement indignation against idolatry.
Every year, according to a custom which was not uncommon among
his countrymen, he withdrew to a cave in a mountain, and spent
some time in religious solitude ; and in his lonely musings he was
gradually wrought up to a belief that he was especially called by
by Col. Vans Kennedy, in ' Transactions of the prophet's name are so various,
of the Bombay Literary Society,' iii. that, so long as no one of them is gene-
398-448, Lond. 1823; Forster's 'Ma- rally adopted, it appears safest to follow
hometanism Unveiled,' Lond. 1829 ; the most unpretending manner of spell-
Moliler, ' Ueber das Verhiiltniss des ing it— a rule which I have usually ob-
Islams zum Evangelium,' in vol. i. of served as to other names,
his Essays; DoUinger, ' Muhammeds p Sale, Intvod. 14-21; Gibbon, v. 17-
Religion nach ihrer inneren Entwicke- 22 ; Weil, 20. Dr. Sprenger (p. 103)
lung und ihrem Einflusse auf das Leben seems to question the monotheistic foun-
der Volker,' Munich, 1838 ; Weil's dation.
' Mahommed der Prophet,' Stuttg. i See Koran, c. iii. pp. 47-8 ; Caussin
1843; Caussin de Perceval, ' Essai de Perceval, i. 270.
sur I'Hist. des Arabes,' Paris, 1847; ^ Sale, Introd. 22-4 ; Gibbon, v. 20-1.
Irving's ' Mahomet and his Successors,' ' See Gibbon, v. 24, with Milman's
Lond. 1850; Sprenger's 'Life of Ma- notes; Weil, 31; Sprenger, 75. M.
/tommad,' Pt. I. (reaching to the He- Caussin de Perceval (i. 283), Mr. Caze-
gira), Allahabad, 1851 ; Muir's ' Life of nove (299), and Mr. Muir (i. 14) are for
Mahomet,' Lond. 1858-61 ; Encyclo- 570.
peedia Britannica, 8th edition, art. on ' This, which has been treated as
' Mohammed,' by the Rev. J. G. Caze- a calumny of Christian writers (see
nove ; Kenan, ' Etudes d'Histoire Ke'- Schrockh, xix. 348-9), seems to be now
ligieuse,' ed. 3, Paris, 1858 ; Stanley established beyond doubt on Arabian
on 'The Eastern Church,' Lect. viii. authority. See Weil, 42-5; Sprenger,
The first volume of an enlarged bio- 77-8 ; Gfrcirer, iii. 26-8 ; Irving, i, 61 ;
gi-aphy (in German), by Dr. Sprenger, Muir, i. 21.
has just appeared (1861). The at- » Muir, ii. 71, 84.
tempts at a more correct exhibition
Chap. II. a.d. 610. ISLAM.
35
God to be an instrument for the propagation of the true faith, and
was favoured with revelations from heaven.'' The ' Koran,' ^ in
which his oracles are preserved, has much in common with both
the Jewish and the Christian Scriptures ; but it would seem that
Mahomet was not acquainted with either the Old or the New
Testament — that he rather drew his materials, more or less
directly, from such sources as Talmudical legends, apocryphal
Gospels, and other heretical writings, mixed with the old tradi-
tions of Syria and Arabia.^ His own account of the work was,
that its contents were written from eternity on the " preserved
table" which stands before the throne of God; that a copy was
brought down to the lowest heaven by the angel Gabriel (whom
Mahomet seems to have gradually identified with the Holy Spirit ''),
and that the sections of it were revealed according as circum-
stances required.'' The charge of inconsistency between the dif-
ferent parts was guarded against by the convenient principle that
a later revelation abrogated so much of the earlier as disagreed
with it° By way of proof that he had not forged these revela-
tions, which are always uttered in the name of God himself,
Mahomet repeatedly insists on the contrast between his own illi-
teracy and the perfection of the book, bpth as to purity of style
and as to substance ; he challenges objectors to produce any work
either of men or of genii which can be compared with it.'^ The
oracles of the Koran were noted down as they proceeded from the
prophet's mouth ; and after his death they were collected into one
body, although without any regard to the order in which they had
been delivered.*'
The religion thus announced was styled Islam — a word which
means submission or resignatioyi to the will of God.^ Its single
^ Gibbon, v. 27; Sprenger, 106-111 ; the Blessed Virgin led him to miscon-
Miiir, ii. 55 ; and c. iii. ceive the essence of Christian doctrine,
y This word signifies " the reading, or and so alienated him from the faith
rather that lohich ought to be read," and is (ii. 19-20).
applied either to the whole book or to " Muir, ii. 74, 138.
any particular section of it. Sale, In- '" Koran, Cc. 81, 85, 97; Sale, 64;
trod. p. 56. Gibbon, v. 31-3 ; Muir, ii. 137.
^ White, 268 ; Kennedy, 428 ; Mil- " Ch. xvi. p. 223.
man, ii. 2,5-6; Muir, ii. 185, 288, 306, '^ Koran, c. ii. p. 3 ; c. x. p. 170; c.
309. Mr. Forster (c. viii.) exhibits a xii. p. 176 ; c. xvi. p. 223 ; c. xvii. p.
collection of parallels between the Koran 236 ; c. xxix. p. 328 ; and elsewhere,
and the Scriptures, many of which are <■ Muir, i. Introd. 3-13. A transla-
very striking ; but this, of course, does tion, arranged according to the dates of
not prove that Mahomet drew imme- the chapters, has been published by the
diafely from the Bible, and Mr. Forster Rev. J. M. Kodwell (Lond. 1862);
himself declines to give a judgment on comp. Muir, ii. 318-320; iii. 311-2.
the question (ii. 75. See DoUiuger, ' Sale, Introd. 70, and n. on Koran,
30-1). Mr. Muir thinks that the pre- p. 36: Sprenger, 168-9.
vailing exaggeration of reverence for
d2
36
THE KORAN. Book III.
doctrine was declared to be, that " There is no God but the true
God, and Mahomet is his apostle ; " but under this principle was
comprehended belief in six points — (1) in God ; (2) in his angels ;
(3) in his scriptures ; (4) in his prophets ; (5) in the resurrection
and the day of judgment ; (6) in God's absolute decree and pre-
determination both of good and evil. With these were combined
four practical duties — (1) prayer, with its preliminary washings
and lustrations ; (2) alms ; (3) fasting ; (4) the pilgrimage to
Mecca, which was held so essential that any one who died without
performing it might as well die a Jew or a Christian.^ Judaism
and Christianity were acknowledged as true, although imperfect,
religions. Their holy books were acknowledged, and it would
seem that Mahomet's ordinal -intention was rather to connect his
religion with the elder systems than to represent it as superseding
them.'^ Jesus was regarded as the greatest of all former prophets,
but although his birth was represented as miraculous,' the belief
in his Godhead was declared to be erroneous ; He was said to be
a mere man, and his death was explained away, either on the
docetic principle, or by the supposition that another person suffered
in his stead.'" Mahomet asserted that he himself had been fore-
told in Scripture, but that the prophecies had been falsified by
those who had the custody of them ; " yet he and his followers
claimed some passages of the extant Scriptures in his favour, such
as the promise of the Paraclete, and the parable in which the
labourers were spoken of as called at various times of the day — the
final call being to the religion of Islam."
The conception of the Divine majesty in the Koran is sublime ;
the mercy of God is dwelt on in a very impressive manner. But
the absence of anything hke the Christian doctrine of the Incar-
nation places an impassable gulf between the Creator and his
creatures ; there is no idea of redemption, of mediation, of adop-
tion to sonship with God, of restoration to his image. The Divine
omnipotence is represented as arbitrary, and as requiring an abject
submission to its will." The duty of loving their brethren in the
B Sale, 71-114. (Forster, i. ."366-8, 396-7; ii. 104.) A
'' Koran, c. v. p. 89 ; Muir, ii. 183, Jew, on embracing Mahometanisra, is
2'il-4. required, before admission, to profess
' Koran, c. iii. p. 40, c. 19 ; Muir, ii. belief in Jesus as the Christ. lb. i.
277-282. 367.
^ Koran, c. iii. pp. 42-3 ; c. iv. pp. "• Koran, c. ii. pp. 6, 14, 17; c. iii. p.
80-1 ; c. V. pp. 92, 98 ; c. ix. pp. 152-3 ; 46, &e. Yet see Muir's Introd. 72.
c. xix. p. 251 ; 0. xliii. ; Gibbon, v. 29- " Koran, c. 61 ; Muir,i. 16-7 ; Mohler,
30; Weil, 190-3. Some later Maho- 353-5.
metan teachers come nearer than Maho- "> See Neand. v. 1 1 7-9 ; Giesel. I. ii.
met himself to the truth on this subject. 4G8.
CiiAP. ir. CHARACTER OF MAHOMET. 37
faith is strongly inculcated on the disciples of Islam ; but their love
is not to extend beyond this brotherhood ; and the broad declara-
tions which had held forth the hope of salvation, not only to
Jews and Christians, but to Sabians, and to " whoever believeth
in God and in the last day, and doeth that which is right," ^
were abrogated by oracles which denounced perdition against all
but the followers of Islam.'^ In other respects the new religion
was unquestionably a great improvement on that which Mahomet
found established among his countrymen. It benefited society by
substituting a measure of justice for rude violence, and by abolish-
ing the custom of putting female infants to death. The general
tone of its morality is rather austere than (as it has sometimes
been styled) licentious ; "■ instead of being condemned for his sanc-
tion of polygamy, Mahomet rather deserves credit for having
limited the license which had before prevailed in this respect,
although he retained an extreme and practically very mischievous
facility of divorce ; ^ but it is one of the most damning traits in his
character, that he declared himself to be exempt from the restric-
tions which he imposed on his disciples, and claimed for his laxity
the sanction of pretended revelations.'
On the merits of that enigmatical character it would be bold to
give any confident opinion. The religious enmity by which it was
formerly misrepresented appears to have little effect in our own
time ; we need rather to be on our guard against too favourable
judgments, the offspring of a reaction against former prejudices,
or of an affectation of novelty and paradox which in some cases
appears to be not only deliberate but almost avowed. The latest
and most complete evidence seems to prove that Mahomet was at
first an honest enthusiast ; " as to the more doubtful part of his
V Koran, c. ii. p. 8 ; c. v. p. 92. to Mahomet's own license by speaking
1 Koran, c. iii. p. 47 ; see Sale's of it as a confession of weakness. If
notes, pp. 9. 47 ; Muir, ii. 296-8, 304 ; Mahomet had so represented it, others
Cazenove, 307. would have claimed indulgence on the
■■ It is, however, with some astonish- same plea ; it was therefore necessarily
ment that I have read Col. Kennedy's founded on a pretence of superiority,
words — ■" Never was a purer religion The caliphs and the rich Mussulmans in
propagated than his," p. 429. general extended the prophet's privilege
^ Caussin, i. 351 ; Muir, ii, 272. On to themselves. See Milman, i, 487;
the degradation of woman under the Muir, iii. 230-7.
Mahometan system, and its general " See Sprenger, 185, and elsewhere;
effect ou family relations, see DoUiuger, Muir, ch. iii. and vol. iv. 312-7. Col.
20 seqq. Kennedy strongly denies that the pro-
' See the Koran, c. xxiii. pp. 348-9 ; phet was "an enthusiast or fanatic"
Gibbon, V. 66 ; Hallam, M. A. i. 476-7 ; (pp. 429, 445) ; but this denial becomes
Forster, i. 322-9 ; Weil, 400. As to the a truism when, after some definition of
effects of polygamy, ■ see Muir, iii. the word, we are told that " Fanaticism
234-5. Dr. Weil gives a false colouring is peculiar to the Christians," p. 446.
38 THE HEGIEA. Buok 111
career, I must confess myself unable to enter into the views of his
admirers ; but I will not venture to judge whether he was guilty
of conscious imposture, or was blindly carried along by the intoxi-
cation of the power which he had acquired and by the lust of
extending it."
Mahomet had reached the age of forty before (in obedience, as he
professed, to a heavenly vision) he announced himself as a prophet/
At first he made proselytes slowly among his friends and
near relations ; ^ he then by degrees attempted to publish
his opinions in a wider circle. But his pretensions were disbe-
lieved ; he and his followers were persecuted by the Koreish, the
tribe which was dominant in Mecca, and had possession of the Caaba ;
and in 622 (the year in which Heraclius made his first campaign
against the Persians) he fled to Yatreb (Medina),'* where he had
already contrived to form a party, and was received as a prince and
a prophet. '^ This flight {Hegii-a) is regarded as the great era in the
prophet's life, and as the foundation of the Mahometan chronology."
Hitherto he had endeavoured to spread his doctrines by persuasion
only ; but now that he was possessed of force, he was charged by
revelation to use it for the propagation of the faith.'^ His oracles
became fierce and sanguinary .'' From leading his little bands of
followers, to attack caravans of merchants, he went on, as his
strength increased, to more considerable enterprises ; and in G30
he gained possession of Mecca, cleansed the Caaba of its idols,
erected it into the great sanctuary of Islam, and united all the
tribes of Arabia under his own dominion and in the profession of
his religion.*"
When his power had become considerable, Mahomet sent envoys
to the emperor, to the king of Persia, and to other neighbouring
" See Gibbon, V. G3-5 ; Schrockh, xix. " More properly Mcdinct-al-Nabi,
381; Milman, i. 454; Muir, iv. 318- " City of the Prophet."
320, 322. *" Gibbon, v. 43-4 ; Weil, 72-3, 79 ;
y Koran, c. x. p. 168, c. 96 ; Caussin, Caussin, i. 365, seqq. iii. 20; Muir, ii.
i. 354. 210-8 ; iii. 7-11.
^ Weil, 49, Dr. Sprenger thinks that "^ See Caussin, iii. 16-7.
his first adherents were not indebted to '' Sale, 48-9, 142 ; Koran, c. xxii. &c.
him for their religious ideas, but were «■ Muir, iii. 307-8. " In the Koran,
already in possession of them ; that " the victories are announced, success pro-
Islam is the offspring of the spirit of mised, actions recounted ; failure is ex-
the time;" that Mahomet did no more plained, bravery applauded, cowardice
than combine " the floating elements or disobedience chided ; military or po-
which had been imported or originated litical movements are directed; and all
by others," while he polluted the system this as an immediate communication
with his own " immorality and perverse- from the Deity." lb. 224.
ness of mind," pp. 44, 174-5; cf. Cans- ' Sale. 114; Gibbon, v. 54-7; Weil,
sin, i. 321-6. Against this see Muir, 218; Caussin, iii. 227-234; Muir, iv. ch.
Introd. 239. 24, 27.
CuAP. II. A.D. G11-G32. CONQUESTS OF THE MOSLEMS. 39
princes, declaring his mission as " the Apostle of God," and re-
quiring them to submit to the faith of Islam. Heraclius is said
to have received the communication with respect; the
Persian king contemptuously tore the letter in pieces ; and
Mahomet, on hearing of the act, exclaimed, " It is thus that God
will tear from him his kingdom, and reject his supplications.""
The duty of fighting for Islam (for arms, and not argument,
were to be the means for the conversion of all who should refuse
to believe on a simple announcement of the faith'') was binding
on all its professors, except the sick and the feeble, the lame, the
blind, and the poor ; ' and, lest the believers should at any time
rest satisfied with their conquests, Mahomet is said to have declared
that wars for the propagation of the truth were not to cease until
the coming of Antichrist.'^ The fanaticism of the warriors was
urged on by the inducements of rapine and of lust (for the limit
which the Koran prescribed as to the- number of concubines did
not apply to captives or slaves)."* They were raised above regard
for life by the conviction that they were doing God's will, by the
belief of an absolute and irresistible predestination, and by the
assurance of bliss in paradise " — a bliss which opened to the sensual
unlimited gratifications with unlimited powers of enjoyment,*' while
the martyrs and those who should die in the wars of the faith
were moreover to be admitted to the transcendent and ineffable
felicity of beholding the face of God at morning and at evening.^
Thus animated, the Moslem armies went forth with an enthusiasm
which nothing could che'ck. Their immense sacrifices of life in
bloody battles and in long sieges were repaired by an unfailing
succession of warriors. Before the death of Mahomet, which took
place at Medina in 632,'' Kaled, " the Sword of God,'"" had carried
his arms into Syria. The energy of Heraclius was consumed by
disease ; ^ Syria and Egypt, which he had reconquered from Chos-
B Compare the Koran, c. xxx. p. 430 ; Muir, iii. 303.
Sale, 53; Weil, 195, 198-9; Caussin, ii. " Sale, 10.3, 133-7; Gibbon, v, 48-9;
189 ; Muir, ii. 224. The interview with Wachsmuth, AUgem. Culturgeschichte,
Heraclius was at Emesa, on his return i. 517 ; Maurice on the Religions of the
from Persia, in 629 (Gibbon, v. 58). World, ed. 2, p. 23.
Chosroes II. is usually named as the ° Koran, c. xxxvii, p. 367; c. xliv.
king of Persia who received Mahomet's p. 403; c. Iv. p. 433 ; c. Ivi. pp. 434-5 ;
letter (ib. iv. 308) ; but Mr. Muir refers Gibbon, v. 39-40; Muir, ii. 141-2.
it to the reign of Siroes, who dethroned p Sale, 100.
his father in 628, and died early in the i Gibbon, v. 61-3; Weil, 331.
following year. iv. 53-4. '' Theophanes, 278, ed. Paris.
>> DoUinger, 16. ■* Cedrenus, 430. Mr. Finlay (i. 431)
' Koran, c. xlvii. ; c. xlviii. p. 414. shows that Gibbon is mistaken in sup-
^ Muir, iv. 201. posing the emperor to have given him-
'" Koran, c. xxiii. p. 281 ; Sale, 145-6 ; self up to indolence.
40 MAHOMETAN CONQUESTS. Book 111.
roes, were again wrested from the empire by the new enemy.^ In
637 Jerusalem fell into the hands of the caliph " Omar, who built
a mosque on the site of the temple,'' and within a few years Persia,
Khorasan, and part of Asia Minor were subdued. The internal
quarrels of the prophet's followers suspended the progress of con-
quest only for a time. For years they threatened Constantinople
A.D. itself, although their attempts were unsuccessful, and
668-677. ended in the caliph's submitting to tribute ; ^ and by
the end of the century they took Carthage and became masters of
the African provinces (a.d. 698).''
The progress of the Mahometan arms was favoured by the
exhaustion of the empire and of Persia in the course of their recent
wars." In Syria and Egypt the greater part of the inhabitants
were Nestorians or Monophysites, depressed by the imperial laws,
and ready to welcome the enemies of the Byzantine court as
deliverers.*' And the conquerors, although indifferent to the dis-
tinctions of Christian parties for their own sake, were glad to
encourage and to profit by this feeling. While they drove out the
Greek orthodox from Egypt, and kept down the Melchites, they
favoured the sects which were opposed to Rome and to Constan-
tinople.'^ While war was waged without mercy against idolaters,"
the "people of the book" — Jews and Christians — as professors of
true, although defective, religions, were allowed to live as tribu-
taries in the conquered lands.*" But the oppressions to which they
were subjected,*^ the advantages offered to converts, and perhaps
« The charge against Omar, of order- >" Niceph. Cpol. 22 ; Gibbon, v. 174.
ing tlie Alexaudrian library to be burnt, ^ Gibbon, v. 142, 150.
appears to be now re-established. See " Sale, 37 ; Gibbon, iv. 308 ; v. 89.
Matter, ' Ecoles d'Alexandrie,' i. 334- ^ Schrockh, xx. 382-3 ; Gibbon, v.
344; Milman, n. on Gibbon, v. 136-8 ; 132 ; Finlay, i. 382, 466, 487.
Churton in Pearson's Viudic. Ignat. " Fleury, xxxviii. 55 ; Neand.
293.
This word means successor (of the 36.
122; Ockley, i. 309-310; Gfrorer, ii.
prophet).
See the Koran, c. ix. — the last-
Ockley, i. 229; Gibbon, v. 123-4; revealed chapter. But Christians are in
Milman, ii. 41. I do not venture any it charged with idolatry, inasmuch as
I.e.
opinion as to the truth of Mr. Fergus- " they take their priests and monks [,
son's theory, which identifies what is saints] for Gods, and Christ, the son of
popularly styled the Mosque of Omar Mary, although they are commanded to
with the church built by Constantine worship one God." pp. 152-3 ; Muir,
over the Holy Sepulchre (see vol. i. iv. 211-2.
188). This building is called by Maho- '^ Koran, c. ix. p. 152. The feeling
metans " The Dome of the Rock," while towards Christians, however, afterwards
they give the name of Omar to a small became more bitter. (DoUiuger, 14.)
mosque at the south-east corner of the As to Mahomet's relations with the
site of the Temple. Fergussou, in Jews, see Muir, iii. 32-8, 288-294.
Smith's Bibl. Dictionary, art. "Jeru- ' See the capitulation of Jerusalem,
salem ;" and ' Defence against the Edin- in Milman, i. 482-3.
burgh Review,' Lend. 1860.
CH.U'. II. A D. 616-682. MONOTHELISM.
41
the perplexity of controversies as to Christian doctrine, drew many
away from the Gospel to profess the faith of Islam.^
About the same time when Mahomet began his public career,
a controversy arose which continued for nearly a century to agitate
the Church.
Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, who is said to have been a
Syrian, and connected by family with the Jacobite sect,'' had met
with a letter ascribed to his predecessor Mennas,' in ^bout
which the Saviour was said to have " one will, and one ^•^- '^^*^-
life-giving operation." ^ Struck with the expression, he consulted
Theodore, bishop of Pharan, in Arabia, a person of whom nothing
is known except in connexion with this controversy, but who, from
the reference thus made to him, may be supposed to have enjoyed an
eminent character for learning, and to have been as yet unsuspected
of any error in doctrine ; "" and as Theodore approved the words, the
patriarch adopted them, and had some correspondence with other
persons on the subject." The doctrine thus started, which was
afterwards known as 3IonotheUsm° is summed up in some words
from another of Theodore's writings — that " in the incarnation of
our Saviour there is but one operation, whereof the framer and
author is God the Word ; and of this the j\Ianhood is the instru-
ment, so that, whatsoever may be said of Him, whether as God or as
man, it is all the operation of the Godhead of the Word." ^ In
opposition to this, it was contended that the faculty of willing is
inherent in each of our Lord's natures, although, as his person is
one, the two wills act in the same direction — the human will being
exercised in accordance with the Divine.'^
Heraclius, in the course of his Persian wars, saw cause to regret
the policy by which the Nestorians had been alienated from the
empire,' and to desire that the evils which we]-e likely ^^^^
to result from the schism of the Monophysites might be
averted. With a view to a reconciliation, he conferred with some
e Gibbon, v. 31, 172 ; Schrockh, xix. however, thinks that it may have really
370 : Giesel. I. ii. 469-470 ; Mihnan, i. been the work of Mennas. ix. 97, 100.
487. "' Walch, ix. 151 ; Neander, v. 250.
h' Theophan. 274, ed. Paris. 'But » Walch, ix. 93-4, 98.
Walch (ix. 83, 101) questions this. " i. e. maintaining of a single will
i For Mennas, see vol. i., book II. c. only. The name monothelete or monothe-
12. lite first appears in John of Damascus
^ The Vlth General Council con- {c. g. De Hseresibus, 99). Giesel. I. ii.
demned the letter as spurious, and it 477.
was there proved to be wrongly attached v Hard. iii. 768.
to the Acts of the Vth General Council. i Dorner, ii. 259-260.
(Hard. iii. 1067-70, 1312, 1365.) Walch, ■■ See vol. i. pp. 455-7.
42 MONOTHELITE ""o"^ l^^-
of their leaders— as Paul, the chief of the party in Armenia, and
Athanasius, the Jacobite patriarch of Antioch, to whom it is said
that he offered the Catholic throne of that city on condition of
accepting the council of Chalcedon. The Monophysites had gra-
dually become less averse from the substance of that council's
doctrine ; ' and Heraclius was led to hope that the schism might
be healed if the (Jatholics would grant that, although our Lord
had two natures, yet He had only one will and operation.* When
in Lazica, in the year 626, the emperor related the course of his
negotiations to Cyrus, bishop of Phasis, who, as the question was
new to him, wrote to ask the opinion of Sergius. He was told by
the patriarch, in reply, that the Church had pronounced no deci-
sion on the point ; that Cyril of Alexandria and other approved
fathers had spoken of " one life-giving operation of Christ, our
very God ; " that Mennas had used similar expressions ; that he
was mistaken in supposing Leo the Great to have taught two ope-
rations, and that Sergius was not aware of any other authority for
for so speaking.*" Cyrus was convinced by this letter. Through
the emperor's favour, he was soon after promoted to the
A.D. b30. pj^|.j.jaj,gi^ate of Alexandria, and in 633 effected the re-
union of the Theodosians, a Monophysite sect, with the Church,
by means of a compromise which was embodied in nine articles.''
In the seventh of these it was said that our Lord " wrought the
acts appertaining both to God and to man by one tlieandric {i. e.
divinely-human) operation " — an expression for which the authority
of the writings ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite was alleged.^
The Monophysites regarded the terms of union as matter of
triumph. " It is not we," they said, " who have gone over to the
council of Chalcedon ; it is the council that has come over to us." ''
Sophronius, a learned monk, who was then at Alexandria, was
greatly alarmed on seeing the articles. He uttered a loud cry,
threw himself at the patriarch's feet, and, with a profusion of
» See vol. i. p. 505. tlieandric, but to the statement that the
' Theophanes, 506 ; Cedrenus, 420. operation was sinijlc. (Pagi, xi. 273-4.)
There are difficulties as to the inter- In the passage of Dionysius (Ep. 4,
views with Paul and Athanasius. See Opera, ii. 75, ed. Corderius, Antwerp,
Pagi, xi. 219, 243-5, who questions the 1634), they read " a new theandric ope-
story of Athanasius ; Walch, ix. 75-80, ration" — Kaiv-hv (instead of fxiav) nva
90, 104, 109, 151 ; Combefis, Auctaurim, rrjc 9eavSpiK)]v ivipyeiav i^fuv TmroMrev-
iii. 17-9; Clinton, ii. 171; Hefele, iii. fx^vos. But although this reading was
113, 119 124-5. correct, the singular number and the
" Hard. iii. 1309, 1337. epithet "new" were in favour of the
^ lb. 1340-4. Monothelites. Dorner, ii. 208.
y See Dorner, ii. 200-4, 235. The "^ Theophan. 274-5, cd. Paris.
Catholics did not object to the term
Chap. ]I. a.d. 622-634. CONTROVERSY. 43
tears, implored hira, by the Saviour's passion, not to sanction such
ApolUnarian doctrines.* Cyrus proposed to refer the matter to
Serglus, and the monk, furnished with a letter to the patriarch of
Constantinople, proceeded to the imperial city. Althoufrh himself
a Monothelite, Sergius did not consider agreement in his opinion
necessary as a condition of orthodoxy. In conversation with
Sophronius, he dwelt on the importance of regaining .the Mono-
physltes throughout the Egyptian patriarchate ; he asked the monk
to produce any express authority for speaking of two operations in
Christ ; and, as Sophronius could not do this,*' the patriarch ob-
tained from him a promise to let the question rest. Sergius then
wrote to Cyrus, desiring him to forbid all discussion on the subject,
lest the late union of parties should be endangered.*^
In the following year, Sophronius became patriarch of Jeru-
salem. He seems to have felt that he was thus released from his
promise — that the silence which might have been proper
in a humble monk would be treachery to the faith in ' '
the occupant of a patriarchal throne.^ On hearing of his eleva-
tion, Sergius took the alarm, and, without waiting for the formal
announcement of it, wrote to Honorius of Rome, detailing the
previous history of the question. ° The pope, in his answer,
echoed the opinions of his correspondent ; he not only agreed
with him as to the expediency of enforcing silence, but in a per-
sonal profession of Monothelism : — " We confess," he says, " one
will of our Lord Jesus Christ, forasmuch as it is evident that that
which was assumed by the Godhead was our nature, not the sin
which is in it — our nature as it was created before sin, not as
it was corrupted by transgression." ' After discussing St. Paul's
words as to the will of the flesh and the will of the mind, he con-
cludes that the Saviour had not the fleshly will ; and he spoke of
the question as to two operations as one fit only for grammai'ians.^
Sophronius, in his enthronistic letter, set forth very fully, and with
great ability, the doctrine of the Incarnation, with special reference
to the controversy which had arisen.^ He admits the word theandric,
•■' Maximixs ap. Baron, xi. 647. this jointly with the Divine "will. See
^ It is said that Sophronius after- Dorner, ii. 232.
wards, in a work which is now lost, s Baronius boldly attempts to' justify
produced six hundred passages from the Honorius (633. 32. seqq.). Pagi gives
fathers in favour of his doctrine. He- up the pope's language and conduct,
fele, iii. 132. but maintains his personal orthodoxy,
<■ Serg. ad Honor, ap. Hard. iii. 1316. xi. 285-298, 390-2. See Combefis, 33-6 ;
•^ Neaud. V. 247. Walch, ix. 125-6; Schrockh, xx. 402;
^ Hard. iii. 1312-7. Dollinger, i. 157; Hefele, iii. 137.
f lb. 1320. The answer is obvious— '■ Hard. iii. 1257-96; Hefele, iii. 139.
that, as a part of the sinless nature. He The extant works of Sophronius are in
took the innocent human will, and had vol. Ixxxvii. pt. 3, of the Patrol. Gr.
44 THE ECTHESIS. ^"^'^ "1-
but applies it to the joint action of both natures in the Divinely-
human Person — an application different from that in which it had
been used by Sergius and his partisans.' Honorius obtained from
the envoys who conveyed this letter to Rome a promise that their
master would give up speaking of two wills, if Cyrus would cease
to speak of one will ; ^ but the controversy was not to be so easily
appeased.
The siege and capture of Jerusalem by the Arabs may be
supposed to have soon after engrossed the attention of Sophronius ;
and he did not long survive.™ But before his death he
A.D. b37. ^^^ Stephen, bishop of Dor, the first of his suffragans,
to Calvary, and there, in the most solemn manner, charged him,
by the thoughts of the crucifixion and of the last judgment, to
repair to Rome, and never to rest until he should have obtained
a condemnation of the Monothelite doctrine."
The distractions of the church continued, and in 639, Heraclius,
unwarned by the ill success of his predecessors in such measures,
put forth, at the suggestion of Sergius, an edict composed by the
patriarch, which bore the title of Ecthesis, or Exposition of the
faith." After stating the doctrines of the Trinity and of the In-
carnation, it proceeded to settle the controversy by forbidding the
discussion of the question as to one or two operations. All opera-
tion suitable either to God or to man (it was said) proceeds from
the same one incarnate Word. To speak of a single operation,
although the phrase had been used by certain fathers, caused
trouble to some ; to speak of two operations, was an expression
unsupported by any authority of approved teachers, and gave
offence to many, as suggesting the idea of two opposite wills;
The impious Nestorius himself, although he divided the Person of
the Saviour, had not spoken of two wills ; one will was to be con-
fessed, agreeably to the doctrine of the holy fathers, forasmuch as
the Saviour's manhood never produced any motion contrary to the
inclination of his Godhead." Even if the Ecthesis had not in its
substance been thus evidently partial to the Monothelites, no satis-
factory result could have been reasonably expected from a docu-
ment which aimed at putting an end to difiPerences by concealing
them, or from a policy which, in silencing both parties, necessarily
favoured the more subservient, while it was galling to the more
zealous.
' Hard. iii. 1280 B. See Dorner,ii. 214. Clinton, ii. 175.
1^ Honor. Ep. 5 (Patrol. Ixxx.) ; Hefele, " Hard. iii. 713.
iii. 147. <' Walch, ix. 139-141.
. ■» Theophanes,, 520 ; Pagi, xi. 314 ; )' Hard. iii. 79(3.
Chap. II. a.d. 634-645. MONOTHELISM.
45
The Ecthesis was approved by councils at Constantinople under
Sergius and his successor Pyrrhus, and at Alexandria under Cyrus.*^
The patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem, suffering under the
oppression of the Arabs, were in no condition to oppose it. But
Honorius of Rome was dead : his successor, Severinus
11 A.D. 640.
(whose pontificate lasted only two months, and was
chiefly remarkable for the plunder of the papal treasures by the
exarch of Ravenna '"), appears to have rejected the new formulary ;**
and the next pope, John IV., with a council, certainly did so.
Ileraclius hereupon wrote to John, disowning the authorship of the
Ecthesis ; it had, he said, been drawn up by Sergius some years
before, and he had only consented to issue it at the patriarch's
urgent entreaty.'
Heraclius died in February 641, leaving the empire jointly to
Constantine, son of his first marriage, and Heracleonas, the offspring
of his second marriage with his niece Martina." Constantine
survived his father little more than three months, and Martina
then attempted to rule in the name of her son ; but the senate,
backed by the army and by the inhabitants of the capital, deposed
her and Heracleonas, as guilty of the death of Constantine, whose
son, Constans II., was then set on the throne.'^ On this revolution
the patriarch Pyrrhus, who was regarded as an accomplice of
Martina, thought it expedient to abandon his dignity, and sought
a refuse in Africa.^ There he met with Maximus, a man of noble
Byzantine family, who, after having been a secretary of state under
Heraclius, had embraced the monastic profession, and became the
ablest controversialist in opposition to Monothelism.^ In 645, a
disputation was held between the two, in the presence of Gregory,
governor of the province, with many bishops and other eminent
persons.^ Pyrrhus started with the proposition that, as the Saviour's
person is one. He could have but one will ; to which Maximus replied
that, as He is both God and man, each of his natures must have its
own proper will. The discussion was long, and was carried on with
much acuteness ; but, in addition to the superiority of his cause,
1 Hard. iii. 798-804; Pagi, xi. 336. == Nic. Cpol. 19-20; Gibbon, iv. 402-2.
■^ Anastas. Patrol, cxxviii. 709. He ^ Nic. Cpol. 21 ; Theophanes, 508 ;
■was chosen, a.d. 638 ; confirmed and Cedren. 430 ; Gibbon, iv. 402.
.died, 640; Cenni, ib. 715. ^ Baron. 640. 5; Dupin, vi. 43;
« See Walch, xi. 145-8; Hefele, iii. Walch, ix. 194. His works, among
159. wliich are commentaries on the pseudo-
» Maximus, ap. Baron, xi. 640-9 ; Dionysius, were edited by Combefis,
Walch, ix. 199. Paris, 1675, and are reprinted in the Pa-
» Niceph. Cpol. 10, 18. The inces- trol. Gr.
tuous union is placed in 613 by Baron. ^ Printed at the end of Baronius, vol,
(613. 3). See Pagi, xi. 119. xi. See Dorner, ii. 222-3,
46 TYPE OF CONSTANS II. • Book III.
Maximus bad evidently the advantage in ability and in dialectic
skill. At length Pyrrhus avowed himself convinced, and he accom-
panied Maximus to Rome, where the pope, Theodore,
^'^' '^ " admitted him to commmiion, and treated him as patri-
arch of Constantinople. But Pyrrhus soon after went to Ravenna,
and there (probably under the influence of , the exarch, and in the
hope of recovering his see) retracted his late professions. On
hearinn- of this relapse, Theodore held a council, at which Pyrrhus
was condemued and excommunicated ; and, in order to give all
solemnity to the sentence, the pope subscribed it in the wine of the
eucharistic cup, and laid it on the tomb of St. Peter.'^
Both John IV.'' and Theodore had urged the successive emperors
to withdraw the Ecthesis, which was still placarded by authority.
In 648, Constans put forth a new formulary, which was intended
to supersede the Ecthesis, and is known by the name of the Ti/pe
(or Model) of faith. The tone of this document (of which the
patriarch Paul was the author) is less theological than that of the
Ecthesis, and more resembles that of an ordinary imperial decree.
While, like the earlier edict, it forbade the discussion of the con-
troversy, and the use of the obnoxious terms on both sides, it did
so without betraying an inclination to either party ; and it enacted
severe punishments against all who should break the rule of silence."
Paul had carried on some unsatisfactory correspondence with
Rome on the subject of the controversy, when at length Theodore,
with a council, declared him excommunicate. On being informed
of the sentence, the patriarch overthrew the altar of the papal
chapel at Constantinople ; he forbade the Roman envoys to cele-
brate the Eucharist, treated them with harshness, and persecuted
their partisans.*" At this stage of the proceedings it was that the
Type appeared; but, notwithstanding the publication of it, the
controversy raged more and more fiercely. Maximus was un-
ceasing and indefatigable in his exertions to stir up opposition to
the Monothelite doctrines ; and Rome was beset by applications
from African councils, from Greece, and from other quarters, to
act in defence of the faith.^
In July, 649, Theodore was succeeded by Martin, and in Oc-
tober of the same year the new pope held a synod, which, from
I' Theophanes, 509; Anastas. 138-9. ' Hard. iii. G14.
It afterwards became, usual, in signing '' lb. 824-5. See Hefele, iii. 189.
solemn documents, to make the sign of ■= lb. 700.
the cross " calarao in pretioso Christi f lb. iii. 702, 720, 728, 738, cSic. ;
sanguine intincto." Ducange, s. v. Walch, ix. 2ii8 ; Neand. v. 257.
Crux, p. G79. See Marten.e, i. 253.
Chap. H. a.d. 645-9. FIRST LATERAN COUNCIL.
47
having met in the " Basilica of Constantine," adjoining the Lateran
palace, is known as the First Lateran Council. It was attended
by a hundred and five bishops, among whom was the bishop of
Ravenna.^ In the course of five sessions the history of the contro-
versy was discussed, and the chief documents of it were examined.
Stephen of Dor presented a memorial, praying that the errors of
Monothelism might be rejected, and stating the solemn charge
which the patriarch Sophronius had laid on him with regard to.it."
Passages from the writings of the leading Monothelites were con-
fronted with extracts from Catholic fathers,' and were paralleled
. with the language of notorious heretics."" The Type of Constans
was said to place truth and error on the same level, to " destroy
the righteous with the wicked ; "™ to leave Christ without will and
operation, and therefore without substance and nature." The
Council declared that there are in the Saviour two natural wills
and operations, the Divine and the human, — " the same one Lord
Jesus Christ willing and working our salvation both as God and
as man." ° Among the contents of the twenty canons, the doctrine
of two united wills and of two operations was laid down, and an
anathema was uttered against all who should deny it.^ The ex-
pression " one theandric operation " was denounced,'^ and anathemas
were passed against Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexa'.idria,
and Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul of Constantinople, with the " most
impious Ecthesis" and the "most impious Type," which Sergius
and Paul respectively had persuaded Heraclius and the reigning
emperor to issue.'' Martin followed up this council by announcing
its decisions to the emperor, to the patriarchs, to the bishops of
Africa, and to other important persons both in the east and in the
west.* The pope's language throughout these letters is in a tone
of extreme denunciation, although he may perhaps have thought
to guard himself against the emperor's resentment by professions
of great reverence for his person, and by referring the Ecthesis
and the Type to Sergius and Paul as their authors.*
While the council was sitting, the exarch Olympius arrived at
Rome, with instructions to enforce the signature of the Type, and,
e The Acts, in Hardouin, iii. 687, ^ Hard. iii. 783, seqq., 891, seqq.
seqq., embody some documents already '" lb. ?25. (Genes, xviii. 23.)
quoted. " lb. 700-717.
1' Hard. iii. 713. ° lb. 9:^0-1.
i lb. iii. 771, seqq.; 853, seqq. As >' Cc. 10, 14.
the pseudo - Dionysian writings were '10.15. See above, p. 42, note ^
quoted, Baronius takes occasion to in- ■" C. 18.
\eigh against the " perfrictam frontem ^ Hard. iii. 625-34, 655, 933, &c.
recentiorum hgereticorum," who have ' Schrockh, xx. 430.
impugned them. 649. 19,
48 SEIZURE AND BANISHMENT OF MARTIN. ^ook HI.
if possible, to carry off the pope to Constantinople. He did not,
however, execute his commission, probably because he meditated a
revolt, and was willing to pay court to the papal party ; and he
was soon after killed in Sicily on an expedition against the Sara-
cens.'' Martin, notwithstanding the fresh provocation which he had
given to the court, appears to have been left in peace for three
years and a half, until a new exarch, Theodore Calliopas, appeared,
who seized him and despatched him towards the eastern capital.
The tedious journey lasted from the 19th of June, 653, to the
17th of September in the following year. The pope was treated
without any consideration for his office, his age, or the weakness
of his health. Although his conductors often landed for recreation,
he was never allowed to leave the vessel except at Naxos, where
he remained a year on shore, but debarred from such comfort as
he might have received from the visits or from the presents of his
friends. On reaching Constantinople he lay for a day on the
deck, exposed to the mockery of the spectators who crowded the
quay; and he was then removed to a prison, where he was
confined six months.-^ During this time he was subjected to re-
peated examinations, which, however, did not relate to charges of
erroneous doctrine, but to political offences, such as an alleged
connexion with Olympius, and even with the Saracens. He was
subjected to extreme cruelty ; he was paraded about the streets as
a criminal sentenced to death; and would probably have been
executed but for the intercession of the patriarch Paul, who was
then dying, and, on receiving a visit from the emperor, expressed
his fear lest this unworthy treatment of a bishop opposed to him
might tell against him at the judgment-day.^' Martin, who had
borne his trials with much dignity and courage, was then banished
to Cherson,^ where he lingered for a time in want of the neces-
saries of life. Two letters are extant in which he pathetically
complains of the neglect in which he was left by his flock, and by
the many who had formerly partaken of his bounty.'' In this exile
he died, in September Q6b.^
Maximus, the most learned and most persevering opponent of
Monothehsm, was carried to Constantinople with two disciples in
the same year with Martin = (a.d. 653). The three were kept in
" Anastas. 139; Baron. 649. 49-51; Paul, Pyrrhus received the patriarchate,
Pagi xi. 423. ^"t held it only for a few months.
^ Accounts by Martin himself and ' See vol. i. p. 507.
another, in Hardouin, iii. 673, seqq., " Hard. iii. 686-8.
688: Pagi, xi. 431, 451-3. '' Pagi, xi. 464.
y Hard iii 68;5 On the death of ' lb. xi. 435. The documents re-
CnAP. II. A.D. 653-666. MAXIMUS.
49
prison until after the banishment of the pope, and were then
brought to examination. Against Maximus, too, an attempt was
made to establish a political crime by the charge of a
connexion with Gregory, governor of Africa, who had
revolted.*^ But the accusations were chiefly of a theological or
ecclesiastical kind. Among other things, it was imputed to him that
he had oflfended against the imperial privileges by denying that the
emperor possessed the priesthood ; by uttering an anathema against
the Type, which was construed into anathematising the emperor
himself; and by denying that the imperial confirmation gave
validity to canons. To these heads he answered, that the emperor
could not be a priest, inasmuch as he did not administer the sacra-
ments, and was spoken of as a layman in the offices of the church ;
that his anathema against the Type applied only to the false
doctrine which it contained ; and that, if councils became valid by
the emperor's confirmation, it would be necessary to receive the
Arian councils to which such sanction had been given.*^ "Are you
alone to be saved," it was asked, "and are all others to perish?"
"God forbid," he answered, "that I should condemn any one, or
should claim salvation for myself only ! But I would rather die than
have on my conscience the misery of in any way erring as to the
faith." ^ Maximus and his companions were inflexible in their
opinions, although kindness as well Us severity was employed in
order to influence them, and although they were pressed by the
authority of the new pope, Eugenius, who had complied with the
wishes of the court.^ They were sent into exile at Bizya in Thrace ;
and, after having been there subjected to great severities, were
again carried to Constantinople, where they underwent a fresh
examination.'^ Their invincible constancy was punished by the
loss of their tongues and of their right hands ; they were banished
to Lazica ; and after a time they were separated, for the purpose
of adding to their sufferings. Maximus sank under the cruel
treatment which he received in August 662 ; one of his disciples
(who both bore the name of Anastasius) is said, notwithstanding
his mutilations, to have still effectively served the faith both by
speech and by active correspondence, until his death in 666.'
Constans II., by whose authority these barbarities were sanc-
lating to Maximus are printed, with a s lb. 613. Eugenius had been chosen
translation by Anastasius the Librarian, during the lifetime of Martin. See
in vol. cxxix. of the Latin ' Patro- Hefele, iii. 215.
logia.' ^ Patrol, cxxix. 619-621.
d Patrol, cxxix. 603. ' lb. 657, 683; Pagi, xi. 503-4, 519-
■^ lb. 609, 611, 613. 20; Hefele, iii. 205-214.
f lb. Gll-3.
E
50 COUNCIL UNDER AGATHO. Book HI.
tioned, had put his own brother to death, and by this and other
acts had provoked the detestation of his eastern subjects. Yielding
to the general feeling, he withdrew from Constantinople in the
year 663, and visited Rome, where he was received with great
honour by the bishop, Vitalian.'" After having stripped oif the
brazen roof of the Pantheon (which had been a church since the
reign of Phocas), and having plundered it and other churches of
their precious ornaments, the emperor passed into Sicily, where he
indulged his tyranny and vices without control, until in 668 he was
murdered in a bath at Syracuse.™ The fate of pope Martin had
disposed his successors, Eugenius and Vitalian, to peaceful courses,
A.D. and the controversy smouldered until Adeodatus, the
672-677. successor of Vitalian, again broke off communion with
Constantinople ; " whereupon the patriarchs Theodore of Constan-
tinople and Macarius of Antioch excited a commotion by attempting
to strike out of their diptychs the name of Vitalian, the only recent
pope who had been commemorated in them."
The son and successor of Constans, Constantine IV., who is
styled Pogonatus (the Bearded), was distressed by the divisions of
the Church, and resolved to attempt a remedy. He therefore
wrote to Donus, bishop of Rome, desiring him to send
^■^' ""^ ■ some delegates to Constantinople, for the purpose of
conferring on the subjects in dispute.^ Before this letter arrived
at Rome, Donus had been succeeded by Agatho, who, on
June, 678. j.g^.gjy^jjg j^.^ assembled a council. Among the hundred
and twenty-five prelates who attended, were the Lombard pri-
mate, Mansuetus of Milan, two Prankish bishops, and
A.D. 680. ^^^ famous Wilfrid 'of York; the rest were subjects of
the empire.'^ Monothelism was condemned, and two prelates with
a deacon were sent to Constantinople as representatives of the pope,
bearing with them a letter to the emperor, which was intended to
serve a like purpose with Leo's famous epistle to Flavian in the
Eutychian controversy ; " while the council was represented by
three bishops, with other clerks and monks.^ The pope in his
letter expresses regret that the unquiet circumstances of Italy
prevent the possibility of deep theological study, and professes to
^ Anastas. 141 ; Muratori, a.d. 663. p Hard. iii. 1043-7.
Baronius makes amusing excuses for i See Inett, i. 92, seqq. Pagi places
this, 663. 3-5. the council in 679 ; Jaffe and Hefele
^ Theophanes, 538 ; Paul Warnef. (iii. 229), in March, 680.
Hist. Langob. vi. 11; Anastas. 141. ' Dorner, ii. 229, 248. See vol. J.
" Neand. v. 266. pp. 463, 471.
" Walch,ix. 376. See Hard. iii. 116.3, >* Hard. iii. 1076-7.
1167.
Ghai'. 11. A.D. 663-681. SIXTH GENERAL COUNCIL. 51
rely, not on the learning of his deputies, but on their faithfulness
to the doctrine of earlier councils and fathers.'
Constantine now determined, instead of the conference which
had been intended, to summon an " ecumenical" synod — by which
terra, however, it would seem that he meant nothing more than one
which should represent the whole empire ; for no subjects of other
governments were present." This assembly — the Sixth General
Council, and Third Council of Constantinople '^ — met in a room of
the palace, which, from its domed roof, was styled TrullusJ The
sessions were eigliteen in number, and lasted from November 7th,
680, to September 16th in the following year. The emperor pre-
sided in person at the first eleven sessions and at the last ; ^ in his
absence, the presidential chair was unoccupied. At the earlier
meetings, the number of bishops was- small ; but it gradually rose
to nearly two hundred. Among them were George, patriarch of
Constantinople, and Macarius of Antioch (vv^hose dignity was little
better than titular) ;^ while the sees of Alexandria and Jerusalem
were represented by two presbyters. Twelve high officers of the
empire, and some monks, were also present.^
The proceedings were conducted with a decency and an impar-
tiality of which there had been little example in former assemblies
of the kind, and the emperor sustained his part in a very creditable
manner.*^ The principal documents of the controversy were read,
and extracts from the writings of the Monothelites were compared
with passages intended to refute or to support them, or to prove
their identity in substance with heresies which had been already
condemned.'^ At the eighth session, the patriarch of March 7,
Constantinople professed his adhesion to the views of *^'^^-
Agatlio and the Roman synod, and the bishops of hi» patriarchate
followed the example.*" But Macarius of A ntioch still maintained
the doctrine of a single theandric will and operation — that, as the
mind moves the body, so in Christ the divine will directed the
humanity.* He produced a collection of authorities in favour of
» Hard. iii. 1077. ^ Hard. iii. 1056.
" lb. 1049 ; Walch, ix. 391. " Walch, ix. 428 ; Schrockh, xx.
" The sixth is the last which auy 44.5 ; Giesel. I. ii. 475.
Anglican writers acknowledge as a ^ Hard. iii. 1152-4; 1202, seqq. ;
General Council. 122G-1304.
y Hard. iii. 1055. On the word, see « lb. 1157, 1163-6.
Baron. 680. 41, with Pagi's notes; f lb. 1171. Macarius held that this
Hefele, iii. 236. was consistent with the Chalcedonian
^ Pighius, a Romanist, ventures to call doctrine of the two natures, inasmuch
the genuineness of the Acts in question as the one nature was active, and the
on account of the part thus ascribed to other was a passive instrument. Dor-
the emperor! Walch, ix. 388-9. uer, ii. 207, 231.
" See Gieseler, I. ii. 470.
E 2
52 CONDEMNATION OF MONOTHELISM, Book III.
his opinion ; hut the council, after examining these, pronounced
them to be spurious or garbled, or, where genuine, to be misap-
plied,— as when words which had really been used to express the
relations of the Divine Persons in the Trinity were transferred to
the relations of the Saviour's Godhead and manhood/ As the
Syrian patriarch persisted in his opinion, declaring that he could
not abandon it even on pain of being cut in pieces and east into
the sea, he was deposed and excommunicated, with a disciple
named Stephen ; and, while the emperor was hailed as a new Con-
stantine the Great, a new Theodosius, a new Marcian, anathemas
were loudly uttered against Macarius as a second Apollinaris and
Dioscorus.'^
The fifteenth session was marked by a singular incident. An
aged monk named Polychronius presented a confession of faith,
April 26, and undertook to prove its correctness by raising a dead
^^^- man to life. He said that he had seen a vision, in which
a person of dazzling brightness and of terrible majesty had told
him that whosoever did not confess a single will and theandric
operation was not to be acknowledged as a Christian. The synod
adjourned to the court of a public bath, and a corpse was brought
in on a bier. Polychronius laid his creed on the dead man's
breast, and for a long time whispered into his ears ; no miracle,
however, followed. The multitude, who had been admitted to
witness this strange experiment, shouted out anathemas against
Polychronius as a deceiver and a new Simon ; but his confidence
in his opinions was unshaken by his failure, and the synod found
it necessary to depose him.'
The faith on the subject in dispute was at length defined. The
Monothelite^were condemned as holding a heresy akin to those of
Apollinaris, Severus, and Themistius ; as destroying the perfection
of our Lord's humanity by denying it a will and an operation.'^
The doctrine of the Incarnation was laid down, according to the
earlier decisions of the church ; and to this it was added,7— " We
in like manner, agreeably to the teaching of the holy fathers,
declare that in Him there are two natural wills and two natural
operations, without division, change, separation, or confusion.
8 Hard, iii, 1149, 1175, seqq. See xxi.) Macarius, Polychronius, and
Hefele, iii. 115-8. others were sent to Rome, where two of
•» Hard. iii. 1166, 1175, 1182, 1198, the party retracted, and were absolved
1327-8, 1413. by Leo II. ; but the others, being obsti-
* lb. 1374-8. Eufinus relates that uate, were imprisoned in monasteries.
. the famous monk Macarius the elder Anastas. de Leone II. (Patrol, cxxviii.
confuted a heretic by raising a dead 847.)
man to life. Hist. Monach. 28. (Patrol. ^ Hard. iii. 1398-9.
Chap. II. a.d. 681. AND OF POPE HONORIUS, 53
And these two natural wills are not contrary, as impious heretics
pretend ; but the human follows the divine and almighty will, not
resisting or opposing it, but rather being subject to it; for, ac-
cording to the most wise Athanasius, it was needful that the will
of his flesh should be moved, but that it should be subjected to his
divine will. ... As his flesh, although deified, was not destroyed
by his Godhead, so too his human will, although deified, was not
destroyed." ™ . . . An anathema was pronounced against the chief
leaders of the Monothelites. The name of Honorius had been
unnoticed by the Roman councils — a fact which significantly proves
that, while desirous to spare his memory, they did not approve of
the part which he had taken in the controversy. John IV. in his
letter to Constantino, the son of Heraclius, had endeavoured to
clear his predecessor by the plea that he had only meant to deny
the existence of two contrary wills in the Saviour, " forasmuch as
in His humanity the will was not corrupted as it is in ours ;"" and
Maximus, in his conference with Pyrrhus, had been unwilling to
give the Monothelites the benefit of a Roman bishop's authority."
But the general council, after examining the letters of Honorius,
declared that " in all things he had followed the opinions of Sergius
and had sanctioned his impious doctrines ; " and the Monothelite
pope was included in its anathema.^
The decisions of the council were confirmed by the emperor, and
severe penalties were enacted against all who should contravene
them.^i Pope Agatho died in January 662, while his legates
were still at Constantinople ; but his successor, Leo H., zealously
•^ lb. 1400. 108), Noel Alexandre (x. 463-8), and
° lb. 611. Against this plea, see others take a (more or less) simi-
Walch, ix. 127-132; Hefele, iii. 149. lar line, and are refuted by Walch,
0 Max. ap. Baron, xi. 645. ix. 409-418 ; Schroekh, xx. 446-8 ;
p Hard. iii. 1331-4. The condenina- Gieseler. I. ii. 477-8; Dorner, ii. 217-
tion of Honorius has caused great diffi- 220. There is an essay in favour
culty to some Roman controversialists, of Honorius by Molkenbuhr (Patrol.
Baronius pretends that the acts of the Ixxx.). In our own time, Dollinger
council are interpolated, and that the (i. 157-8) and Hefele (who argues the
name of Honorius has been substituted matter very fully and with great can-
in them for that of Theodore, the pre- dour, iii. 150-2, 264-284) give up the
decessor of George in the patriarchate pope, although they suppose that he
of Constantinople (681. 13-21; 682. 4). thought more soundly than he expressed
The groundlessness of this is shown by himself ; even Rohrbacher can only
Pagi, who himself maintains that Hono- excuse him by representing him as
rius was personally orthodox, and that the dupe of Sergius, and concludes his
he was condemned only on account of remarks on the subject by saying that
his " economy" in attempting to stifle " Nous y voyons un avertissement divin
the discussion of the question (xi. 31-32), a tous ses successeurs, de bieu peser les
Bellarmine (De Rom. Pont. v. 11), paroles de leu'rs ecrits, et de ue jamais
Gamier (Dissert, ii. in Lib. Diurn. trailer Icj^erement les questions de doc-
Patrol, cv.), Petau (De Incarn. I. xxi. trine." (x. 88, 167-8, 381.)
144), Conibefis (in Auctar. Bibl. Pa- i Hard. iii. 1445-1457.
trum, iii.), Muratori (Annali, IV. i.
54 COUNCIL "IN TKULLO." Book 111.
exerted himself to procure the reception of the council by the
churches of the west. In letters to the emperor, to the Spanish
bishops, and to others, Leo expressed his approval of the con-
demnation of Honorius, on the ground that that pope, instead of
" purifying the Apostolic Church by the doctrine of apostolical
tvadition," had "yielded its spotlessness to be defiled by profane
betrayal of the faith." '
The last two general councils, unlike those of earlier times, had
confined themselves to matters of faith, and had not passed any
canons relating to other subjects. In order to supply this defect,
Justinian II., who in 685 succeeded his father Constantino Pogo-
natus,^ assembled a new synod, which is known by the name of
Trullan, from having been held in the same domed hall with the
late general council, and by that of Quinisext, as being supple-
mentary to the fifth and sixth councils.* Its hundred and two
canons were subscribed by the emperor and by the four eastern
patriarchs ; and immediately after the imperial signature, a space
was left for that of Sergius, bishop of Rome. It does not appear
whether Sergius had been invited to send special deputies to the
council ; " his two ordinary representatives at Constantinople sub-
scribed, and Basil, metropolitan of Gortyna, in Crete, professed to
sign as representing the " v/hole synod of the Roman Church." ^'
But among the canons were six which offended the pope, as incon-
sistent with the rights or the usages of his Church.-' The 2"*^,
in enumerating the earlier canons which were exclusively to be
pbserved, sanctioned eighty-five under the name of apostolical,
whereas Rome admitted only fifty ; ^ and it omitted many synods
which were of authority in the west, together with the whole body
of papal decretals. The IS*"* allowed those of the clergy who had
"" Hard. iii. 1476. So he elsewhere says ' Gibbon, iv. 405.
that Honorius " flammam hseretici dog- ' The most probable date is 691
matis non, ut decuit apostolicam aucto- (Pagi, xii. 120 ; Hefele, iii. 299). Some
ritatem, incipientera extinxit, sed negli- place it in 692 (see Walch, ix. 44) ;
gendo confovit" (1730). Baronius has others, as early as G86 (see Hefele, 1. c.) ;
recourse to his familiar device of de- Hardouin, as late as 706.
daring the letters to be forged (683. 14). " Schrockh, xix. 509.
Pagi owns their genuineness, but says " Hard. iii. 1697-9. On these signa-
that Honorius is only censui-ed in them turcs see Pagi, xii. 122 ; De Marca, V.
for supineness and connivance — not for x. 3; Hefele, iii. 314.
heresy. But, even if Leo's words did y Schrockh, xix. 5o8 ; Giesel. I. ii.
not necessarily imply more than this, 480.
his meaning certainly went further, ^ See Drey, Ueber die Constitut. u.
since he unreservedly recommends the Kanones der Apostel, 203-9, 419. In
decisions of the council, and names the decree of Gelasius as to books
Honorius witli Theodore of Pharan, allowed or forbidden (see vol. i. 536),
Sergius, &c., among those who were the whole of the Apostolical Canons
condemned as traitors to the faith, are condemned. (Patrol, lix. 163.)
(1730.) See Hefele, iii. 279, seqq.
Chap. II. a.d. 685-695.
JUSTINIAN II. ^»^
married before their ordination as subdeacons to retain their wives.*
The 36"' renewed the decrees of the second and fourth general
councils as to the privileges of the see of Constantinople. The 65"'
ordered that the " apostolical " canon which forbade fasting on any
Saturday except Easter -eve should be extended to Rome, where all
the Saturdays of Lent had until then been fast-days. The 67"'
forbade the eating of blood. The 82"'^ prescribed that the Saviour
should be represented in his human form, and not under the sym-
bolical figure of a lamb.^ In contradicting Roman usages, the
13"' and 55"' canons expressly stated that they were such, and
requu-ed the Roman Church to abandon them ; it would seem,
indeed, as if the eastern bishops were bent, as at Chalcedon, on
moderating the triumph of Rome in the late doctrinal question by
legislating on other matters in a manner which would be unpala-
table to the pope f and the recognition of these canons by the east
only, where they were quoted as the work of the sixth general
council, was the first manifest step towards the separation of the
Greek and Latin Churches.*^
On receiving the canons, Sergius declared that he would rather
die than consent to them. The protospathary Zacharias was com-
missioned to seize him and send him to Constantinople. But a
rising of the people, and even of the soldiery, who looked more to
the bishop of Rome than to their distant imperial master, compelled
Zacharias in abject terror to seek the protection of his intended
prisoner.'^ About the same time, the vices of Justinian, the
exorbitant taxation which was required to feed his ex- ^ ^ ^^^
penses, and the cruelties which were committed in his
name by his ministers, the eunuch Stephen and the monk Theo-
dosius, provoked a revolt, by which a general named Leontius was
raised to the throne. From regard for the memory of Constantine
Pogonatus, Leontius spared the life of Justinian ;' but the deposed
emperor's nose was cut off (a mutilation which had become common
in the east), and he was banished to the inhospitable Chersonese.^
" From this time the bishops of the (a.d. 872-892) sanctioned such of the
Greek Church \vere chosen from among TruUan canons as were not contrary to
the monks. Finlay, ii. 113. the Roman decrees or canons or togood
b "MM. Raoul-Kochette and Didron morals. (Anast. Praef. ad bynod. vu.
observe, that the council wished to Patrol, cxxix. 196.) See the Preface to
effect an entire substitution of history Theodore the Studite, m Sirmondi Opera
for symbolism" (Lord Lindsay on Varia, tom. v. b. c, and Nat. Alexand.
Christian Art, i. 72), and from about x. 473, seqq.
this time Eaoul-Rochette dates the intro- "^ Anastas. 149.
duction of the crucifix (ibid. 91). See ' Niceph. Cpol. 26. Schlosser ques-
vol. i. p. 346. tions this motive, but seemmgly without
<^" Giesel. I. ii. 479. reason, 109.
•' Giesel. I. ii. 481. Pope John VIII. ^ Theophanes, .'i{.2-G.
56 JUSTINIAN II. Book 111.
Leontius, after a reign of three years, was put down by Tiberius
Apsimar, and was committed to a monastery. The Chersonites,
in fear that the schemes which Justinian was undisguisedly forming
for the recovery of his throne might draw on them the suspicion
and anger of the new emperor, resolved to put the exile to death
or to send him to Constantinople ; but the design became known
to him, and he sought a refuge among the Chazars of the Ukraine,
where he married a sister of the reigning prince. Even among
these remote barbarians, however, he found that he was
'in danger from the negotiations of Apsimar ; and his
desperation urged him to attempt the execution of the design which
he had seemed to have abandoned.^ While crossing the Euxine
in a violent storm, his companions exhorted him, as a means of
obtaining deliverance, to promise that, if restored to the empire,
he would forgive his enemies. "May the Lord drown me here,"
he replied, " if I spare one of them ! " and when his daring enter-
prise had been crowned with success, the vow was terribly fulfilled.
Leontius was brought forth from his monastery ; he and Apsimar
were laid prostrate in the circus, and, as the emperor looked on
the games, his feet pressed the necks of his fallen rivals, while the
multitude shouted the words of the 91^* Psalm — " Thou shalt tread
upon the lion and the adder." The two were then dragged about
the streets of the city, and at length were beheaded.' All who
had taken part in the expulsion of Justinian were mercilessly
punished ; many of them were tied up in sacks, and were cast into
the sea. The patriarch Callinicus, who had been driven by the
tyrant's oppression to favour the rebellion of Leontius, was deprived
of his eyes and nose, and was banished to Rome."^ For some
unknown reason, Felix, archbishop of Ravenna, was blinded,
deposed, and sent into exile in Pontus ; ™ and Constantino of Rome
— the seventh Greek refugee from the Mahometan conquests who
successively filled the see " — might well have trembled when in 710
he was summoned to Constantinople. Perhaps Justinian may have
required the pope's presence with a view of enforcing the Trullan
Council on the west ; perhaps he may have meant to secure his
own authority in Italy against a repetition of such scenes as that
which had taken place in the pontificate of Sergius." But Con-
^ Niceph. Cpol. 27. a.d. 709. Felix was restored by Phi-
' Theophanes, 574 ; G. Hamartolus, lippicus. Agnell. 1. c. 707.
pp. 622-3 ; Schlosser, 110-4. " The election of so many Greeks
■■ Nic. Cpol. 28; Pagi, xii. 191 ; Gib- seems to indicate an influence of the
bon, iv. 406-8. exarchs. Miirat. a.d. 70.5.
■n Agnellus, Patrol, cvi. 704 ; Muratori, " Giese). I. ii. 488; Milman, ii. 142.
Chai>. II. A.D. 695-711. PHILIPPICUS. 57
stantine's ready and courageous obedience appears to have dis-
armed the tyrant. Justinian received the pope as an equal ; it is
even said that, at the first meeting, he fell down and kissed his
feet ; '' and Constantino returned home with a confirmation of all
the privileges of his Church. It has been conjectured that these
favours were not obtained without the pope's consenting to the
canons of the Quinisext council in so far as they were not directly
contrary to the Roman traditions.*^
Justinian's abuse of his recovered power excited his subjects to a
fresh rebellion, which began by an outbreak of the Chersonites, on
whom he had intended to avenge by an exemplary cruelty the
treachery which they had meditated against him during his exile.*'
In 711 he was again dethroned and was put to death. His young
son Tiberius, who had been crowned Augustus, fled to the church
of the Blachernse, hung the relics which were regarded as most
sacred around his neck, and clasped the altar with one hand and
the cross with the other ; but a leader of the insurgents pursued
him into the sanctuary, plucked the cross from him, transferred the
relics to his own neck, and dragged the boy to the door of the
church, where he was immediately slain. Thus ended the dynasty
of Heraclius, about an hundred years after the accession of its
founder.''
The revolution raised to the throne an adventurer named
Bardanes, who on his accession took the name of Philippicus.
Bardanes was of a Monothelite family, and his early impressions
in favour of the heresy had been confirmed by the lessons of
Stephen, the associate of Macarius of Antioch.* It is said that,
many years before, he had been told by a hermit thai he was one
day to be emperor ; and that he had vowed, if the prophecy should
be fulfilled, to abrogate the Sixth General Council.'* He refused
to enter the palace of Constantinople until a picture of the council
should have been removed ; he publicly burnt the original copy of
its acts, ordered the names of Honorius, Sergius, and the others
whom it had condemned, to be inserted in the diptychs,"^ ejected
In 706, Justinian had sent the Trullan 514-5. As to the treatment of the
canons to John VII., desiring him to council by later popes, see Hefele, iii.
lay them before a council, and to accept 317.
or reject them in detail; but the pope, ■■ Nic. Cpol. 29-30; Schlosser, 119-
" humana fragilitate timidus," declined 123.
the task, and sent them back untouched. ' ' Nic. Cpol. 31; Theophanes, 583;
He died soon after. Anastas. in Patrol. Gibbon, iv. 408-9 ; Schlosser, 124-5.
exxxviii. 930 ; Murat. A.D. 706. ' Agatho Diac. ap. Hard. iii. 1836;
V Anastas. 153. Dean Milman re- Walch, ix. 430. See p. 52.
gards this as a western fiction, ii. 85. " Theophanes, 581.
'1 Anast. 153; Pagi, xii. 220 ; Murat. " An account of these proceedings is
Ann. IV. i. 292-3 ; Schrockh, xix. given by a deacon named Agatho, who
58 THE MARONITES. Book III.
the orthodox patriarch Cyrus, and required the bishops to subscribe
a Monothelite creed. The order was generally obeyed in the east,
but at Rome it met with different treatment. Constantine refused
to receive it ; the people would not allow the emperor to be named
in the mass, nor his portrait to be admitted into a church, where,
instead of it, they hung- up a representation of the Sixth Council ;
and, on the arrival of a newly-appointed commander from Constan-
tinople, an outbreak took place, which was only suppressed by the
pope's interposition on the side of authority.^ Philippicus, after a
reign of a year and a half, during which he had given himself up
to extravagance and debauchery, was deposed and blinded.
His successor, Anastasius, was a Catholic ; and John, who
had been intruded into the patriarchate of Constantinople on the
deprivation of Cyrus, now sued for the communion of Rome, pro-
fessing that he had always been orthodox at heart, and that his
compliance with the late heretical government had arisen from a
wish to prevent the appointment of a real Monothelite.^ The
pope's answer is not known ; but in 715 John was deprived, and
Germanus, bishop of Cyzicum, was appointed to the patriarchal
chair ,^ Anastasius was dethroned in 716 by Theodosius III., and
Theodosius, in the following year, by Leo the Isaurian, whose reign
witnessed the commencement of a new and important controversy.
The readiness with which the formulary of Phihppicus was
received by the eastern bishops and clergy, may be regarded not
only as a token of their subserviency, but also as indicating that the
Monothehte party at that time possessed considerable strength.''
The public profession of Monotheiism, however, soon became
extinct, its only avowed adherents being the Maronite comnmnity
in Syria. A monastery, dedicated to a saint of the name of
Maron,° stood between Apamea and Emesa as early as the sixth
century ; and in the end of the seventh it was under the government
of another Maron, who died in 701.'^ The name of Maronites,
which originally belonged to the members of this monastery, was
gradually extended to all the inhabitants of the district of Lebanon,'^
a population chiefly composed of refugees from the Saracen con-
quests. Among these the Monothelite opinions were held ; and,
had -written the original acts. Hard. iii. " See Theodoret, Hist. Relig., IG.
1836, seqq. '' Schrockh, xx. 452-4.
y Anastas. 153 ; Schlosser, 127. ' See Walch, ix. 477. Against the
'■ Hard. iii. 1837. Pagi defends the identification of Maronites with Mar-
patriarch's " economy," xii. 234. duitcs (as by Walch, ix. 485 ; Schrockh,
" Baron. 714.3-4; Pagi, xii. 255-261. xix. 44; xx. 454), see Gicselcr, I. ii.
^ Giesel. I. ii. 482. 483.
Chap. II. a.d. 711-717. THE MARONITES. ^^
while the other Christian communities of Syria had each its political
attachment — the Jacobites bein^ connected with the Mahometan
conquerors, and the Catholics (or Melchites) with the emperor —
the Maronites preserved their independence together with their
peculiar doctrines, under the successors of Maron, who styled them-
selves patriarchs of Antioch. Thus the community continued until,
in the age of the Crusades (a.d. 1182), they submitted to the
Latin patriarch of Antioch, and conformed to the Roman church,*"
which in later times has been indebted to the Maronites for many
learned men.^
f They were then about 40,000 in from the charge of Monothelism, But
number. Will. Tyr. xxii. 8 (Patrol. Pagi (xi. 311-3, 602-4; xii. 77; xviii.
cci.) ; Gibbon, iv. 383-5; Wilkins, III. 211-2) is said to be the only consider-
ii. 204. able non-Maronite authority among the
e Of these the Assemanni are the Romanists who takes this view. See
most famous. They and other Maro- Walch, ix._ 476 ; Schrockh, xx. 454-6 ;
nites attempt to clear their ancestors DoUinger, i. 163.
( 60 ) Book 111.
CHAPTEE III.
THE WESTERN CHURCH FROM THE DEATH OF GREGORY THE GREAT
TO THE PONTIFICATE OF GREGORY THE SECOND.
■ A.D. 604-715.
I. The relations of the papacy with the empire during the period
between the first and the second Gregories may in some degree be
understood from the foregoing chapter.
The Monothehtc controversy for a time weakened the influence
of Rome, both through the error of Honorius in favouring the
heretical party and through the collisions between the papacy and
the imperial power. But although Martin suffered severely in
person for his proceedings in the Council of Lateran, these pro-
ceedings— the assembling of such a synod without the emperor's
sanction, and the bold condemnation of his ecclesiastical measures
— remained as important steps in the advance of the papal clkims ;
and in no long time the authority of the Roman name was re-
established by the sixth general council.'^ At that council the title
of Ecumenical or Universal Bishop, which Gregory had not only
denounced in others but rejected for himself, was ascribed to
Agatho by his representatives,^ and the bishops of Rome thence-
forth usually assumed it.°
Agatho obtained from Constantine Pogonatus an abatement of
the surn payable to the emperor on the appointment of a pope ; '^
and the same emperor granted to Benedict II. that, in order to
guard against a repetition of the inconveniences which had been
felt from the necessity of waiting for the imperial confirmation,
the pope should be consecrated immediately after his election-^
Yet the confirmation by the secular power still remained necessary
for the possession of St. Peter's chair,' and disputed elections gave
the exarchs of Ravenna ample opportunities of interfering in the
establishment of the Roman bishops ; ^ if indeed the meaning of
" Walch, ix. 292; Giesel. I. ii. 487. stasius (144) — an expression which may
•> Hard. iii. 1424-6. mean either that the payment was
*= It occurs in the profession of faith lessened or that it was abolished.
to be made by a bishop according to '^ lb. 146.
the ' Liber Diurnus,' about a.d. 682-5, ' As appears from the Liber Diuruus,
c. iii. tit. 6 (Patrol, cv.) ; Giesel. I. (See vol. i. p. 550.) Giesel. I. ii. 487.
ii. 487. * Milmau, ii. 83.
'' " Relevata est quantitas," says Ana-
Chap. III. a.d. G04-715.
THE PAPACY. 61
the edict for the immediate consecration of the pope were not that
the exarch's ratification should be suflScient, without the necessity
'of referring the matter to Constantinople.**
The political influence of the popes increased in proportion as
the emperors were obliged by the progress of the Saracens to con-
centrate their strength for the defence of their eastern dominions,
and to devolve on the bishops of Rome the care of guarding against
the Lombards. The popes now possessed some fortresses of their
own, and from time to time they repaired the walls of Rome.'
The Italians came to regard them more than the sovereigns of
Constantinople ; and such incidents as the rising of the soldiery
against the attempt to carry off Sergius, a similar rising in the
pontificate of John VI.,'*^ and the refusal of the Romans to recog-
nise the authority of Philippicus, are significant tokens of the power
which the bishops of Rome had acquired in their own city.™
The desolation of the churches of Palestine by the Saracens,
and the withdrawal of the patriarchs from Antioch and Jerusalem
to the enjoyment of a titular dignity within the empire, furnished
the popes with a pretext for a new interference in the afikirs of the
east. A bishop of Joppa had taken it on himself, perhaps with
the imperial sanction, to fill up some vacant sees. In opposition
to him, Theodore of Rome commissioned Stephen bishop of Dor
(whose name has occurred in the history of the Monothelite con-
troversy) ° to act as his vicar in the Holy Land. The execution
of the commission was resisted by -the influence of the patriarchs of
Alexandria and Antioch ; but similar delegations were afterwards
given by other popes, although it does not appear with what
effect."
The differences between the popes and the court encouraged
the archbishops of Ravenna to set up pretensions to independence,
which they rested on the eastern principle that the civil importance
of their city entitled it to such ecclesiastical dignity.^ The claim
caused considerable difficulty to the popes, but was at length set
at rest, in 683, by Leo II., who obtained an imperial order that
the archbishops should repair to Rome for consecration.*^ The
schism of Istria, which had arisen out of the controversy on the
Three Articles in the middle of the sixth century,'' was, after many
^ Note in Mosheim, ii. 83. But see " Hard. iii. 639, 642, 717 ; Baron.
Pagi, xii. 40. 643. 13 ; Walch, ix. 214 ; Giesel. I. ii.
' Schrockh, xix. 513 ; Giesel. I. ii. 487-8 ; Hefele, iii. 207.
485-6. " » Giesel. I. ii. 489. See Agnell. Hist.
'' A.D. 701. Anastas. 151. * Pontiff. Ravenn.— Patrol, cvi. 270, &c.
•" Giesel. I. ii. 488. •» Agnell. 689 ; Anastas. 145.
" Pp. 44, 47. •■ See vol. i. p. 531 ; ii. pp. 4, 13.
62 SPANISH CHURCH. Book III.
temporary accommodations, finally healed by Sergius in 698/
But in the Lombard kingdom, although Catholicism was esta-
blished from the reign of Grimoald (a.d. 662-G71), the churcli"
still remained independent of Rome, and the entire relations of
the Lombards with the papacy were not of any cordial or satisfac-
tory kind.'
II. The history of the Spanish Church for a century after its
abjuration of Arianism consists chiefly in the records of its synods.
These assemblies did not confine themselves to the matters of
ecclesiastical regulation, but also took an active concern in the
affairs of state." As the sovereignty was elective, the voice of the
bishops was influential in the choice of kings ; and the kings, who,
from the time of Recared, were solemnly crowned by the chief
pastors of the church,'' were naturally desirous to fortify their
throne by the support of the clergy. Hence the bishops acquired
very great political importance : they were charged with the over-
sight, not only of the administration of justice, but of the collection
of taxes.^ By this relation between the ecclesiastical and the
secular powers, the Church became nationalised, and the connexion
with Rome, in which the Catholic bishops had at first found a
means of influence and strength, was gradually weakened during
the lapse of time from the period of the reconciliation.'' Gregory
had bestowed the pall on his friend Leander, bishop of Seville, but
no record is found of its arrival in Spain ; * later bishops of Seville
do not appear to have applied for it ; ^ and the primacy of Spain
was transferred by the royal authority from that city to the capital,
Toledo."^
The most eminent men of the Spanish Church during this time
were Isidore, bishop of Seville {Hispalensis), and Ildefonso, bishop
of Tolttdo. Isidore, the brother and successor of Leander, held
his see from 595 to 636, and was a voluminous writer. His works,
which are very miscellaneous in character, are little more than
compilations, and are valuable chiefly for the fragments of earlier
writings which are preserved in them. But his learning and
s Anastas. 150; see Pagi, xii. 1C9 ; poses that Leander may have died be-
Giesel. I. ii. 410. lore its arrival. I. ii. 495.
' Giesel. I. ii. 489-490. '" See as to Isidore, Arevalo, ' Isido-
" Schrockh, xix. 451, seqq. riana,' i. 22 (Patrol. Ixxxi.).
" Lembke, i. 85. '' Giesel. 1. c. There is a fable that a
y Planck, ii. 263-5 ; Giesel. I. ii. 494. bishop of Seville went into Africa, and
^ Planck, ii. 693, 701 ; Guizot, ii. turned Mahometan ; and that there-
331. upon King Chindasuiutha transferred
" Greg. Ep. ix. 121, Gieseler sup- the primacy. See Mariana, iv. 218.
Chap. III. a.d. 604-715. FRANCE. 63
genius were in his own day admired as extraordinary, and his
fame afterwards became such that in the ninth century his name
was employed to bespeak credit for the great forgery of the De-
cretals.'^ Ildefonso, who filled the see of Toledo in the middle of
the seventh century, distinguished himself in asserting the perpetual
virginity of the Saviour's mother. His exertions are said to have
been rewarded by her appearing in splendour over the altar of his
cathedral, and presenting him with a magnificent vestment, to be
worn at the celebration of the Eucharist on her festivals.®
In the first years of the eighth century, king Witiza forbade
appeals to Rome, authorised the marriage of the clergy, and ob-
tained for his measures the sanction of a synod held at a.d. 7oi-
Toledo in 701 ; and it is said that he threatened such ^*^-
of the clergy as should oppose these measures with death.^ This
prince is described as a prodigy of impiety, tyranny, and vice ; ^
but it has been shown that the darkness of his reputation appears
more strongly in later writers than in those who lived near his own
time ; ^ and it has been conjectured that he may have only meant
to prevent the recurrence of complaints against the immorality of
the clergy by reviving the liberty of marriage, which had always
existed during the Arian period of the Spanish Church.' But,
whatever may have been his motives or the details of his acts, the
efiects of these were soon brought to an end by the Arab conquest
of Spain, which dethroned his successor Roderick.'^ The
mountaineers of the north alone retained their indepen-
► dence with their Christianity. The Christians who fell under the
Mahometan dominion received the same humiliating toleration in
Spain as elsewhere ; and in their depressed condition they were
glad once more to look for countenance to the see of Rome.
III. In France the disorders of the time tended to lessen the
connexion of the Church with Rome. Such diflerences as arose
were necessarily decided on the spot ; and there is hardly any
trace of intercourse with the papal see between the pontificates of
•i Mariana, iv. 209. See the coUec- to it. iii. 326.
tion of testimouies in his honour, s Mariana, iv. 308 ; Baron. 701. 11-2.
Patrol. Ixxxi. 198-205 ; Ixxxii. 65-70. •> See Giesel. I. ii. 495.
For the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, see ' lb. -497. The vulgar story repre-
below, Book IV. c. i. s. 4. sents him as having sanctioned a Maho-
« Cyrila, Vita Ildef. 7 (Patrol, xcvi.) ; metan license as to the marriage both
Mariana, iv. 233-42. of clergy and of laity. Pseudo-Liut-
f Mariana, iv. 305-6 ; Baron. 702. 12 ; prand, Chron. 174, 181. (Patrol, cxxxvi.)
Planck, ii. 703. The synod is doubtful. ^ Isid. Pacens. Chron. Mv. 749 (Pa-
(Schrockh, xix. 463.) Hefele takes no trol. xcvi.); Pagi, xii. 229; Gibbon, v.
notice of the law as to marriage ascribed 155-7.
64 FRANCE. Book III.
the first and the second Gregories.'" The same troubles which
led to this effect caused a general decay of discipline both among
the clergy and in the monasteries." When men of the conquering
race began to seek after the emoluments and dignities of the
Church — a change which is marked by the substitution of Teutonic
for Roman names in lists of bishops from the seventh century ° —
they brought much of their rudeness with them, and canons against
hunting and fighting prelates began to be necessary.^
At the same time the wealth and temporal influence by which
such persons were attracted into the ranks of the clergy were con-
tinually on the increase. Vast gifts of land and of money were
bestowed by princes on churches and monasteries, sometimes from
pious feeling, sometimes by way of compromise for the indulgence
A.D. 628- of their vicious passions. Thus Dagobert, the last Mero-
638. vingian who possessed any energy of character, by the
advice of St. Eligius, his master of the mint, enlarged a little
chapel of St. Denys, near Paris, into a splendid monastery, fur-
nished it with precious ornaments, the work of the pious goldsmith,
and endowed it with large estates, which were partly derived from
•the spoil of other religious houses.*^ This prince, "like Solomon,"
says Tredegar, " had three wives and a multitude of concubines ; "
and the chronicler seems to consider it as a question whether his
liberality to the church were or were not sufficient to cover his
sins.'' Another writer, however, not only speaks without any
doubt on the subject, but professes to give conclusive information
as to the fate of Dagobert. A hermit on an island in the Medi-.
terranean, it is said, was warned in a vision to pray for the Frankish
king's soul. He then saw Dagobert in chains, hurried along by
a troop of fiends, who were about to cast him into a volcano, when
his cries to St. Denys, St. Michael, and St. Martin, brought to
his assistance three venerable and glorious persons, who drove off
the devils, and, with songs of triumph, conveyed the rescued soul
to Abraham's bosom.^
On the re-union of the monarchy under Dagobert's father,
Clotaire II., the bishops were summoned to an assembly of the
■" Guizot, ii. 167. ' Gesta Dagob. (cc. 23, 44). Barouius
" Pagi, xi. .576 ; Giesel. I. ii. 497. (647. 5) maintains the truth of this
° Pitra, Vie de S. L^ger, 150. story, which is represented on the
p Ozanam, Civ. Chret.chezles Francs, beautiful monument of Dagobert, erected
89. at St. Denys by St. Louis. Pagi dis-
■J Gesta Dagoberti, 17 (Patrol, xcvi.). believes the legend, but says that Dago-
■■ " Seems," I must say ; for the pas- bert repented betimes, and lived many-
sage is beyond my power of construing, years in piety. This, however, seems
Fredeg. Chron. c. 60 (Patrol. Ixxi.). very questionable.
Chap. III. a.d. 604-715. LEODEGAR. 65
leudes, and seventy-nine of them appeared at it. The laws passed
by the joint consent of the spiritual and temporal aristocracies
show traces of ecclesiastical influence, not only in the
increase of clerical privileges, but in the humane spirit
which pervades them.' From that time bishops appear mixing
deeply in political strife. Saints become conspicuous objects of
general interest." The severity of their lives acquires for them
i-everence and power, but this power is exercised in the rude con-
tentions of the age. One of the most famous of these saints,
Leodegar (or Leger), bishop of Autun, may be mentioned by way
of example.'' Leodegar was sprung from or connected with the
most powerful families of the Frankish nobility. He acquired
great credit with Bathildis, the saintly Anglo-Saxon, who rose
from the condition of a captive to be queen of Clovis II.
and regent of Neustria, and by her he was promoted
from the abbacy of St. Maixent to the see of Autun.^ He is cele-
brated for the austerity of his life, for his frequency in prayer, for
his eloquence as a preacher, for his bounty to the poor and to his
church, and for his vigilant administration of his episcopal oflSce.^
But he appears as the political chief of a powerful party of nobles ;
he takes the lead in setting up and in dethroning kings ; and, if he
did not actually bear the title of Mayor of the Palace, he for a time
exercised the power of the mayoralty in the Neustro-Burgundian
kingdom. After various turns of fortune, Leodegar fell into the
hands of his rival Ebroin, who caused his eyes to be put out — an
operation which he bore with perfect calmness, singing psalms
during the execution of it.^ Two years later, by order of Ebroin,
he was exposed to tortures, his lips were cut off, his tongue was
cut out, and he was dragged over sharp stones with such violence,
that for a time he was unable to stand. Notwithstanding the loss
of his organs of speech, however, the bishop was able to speak as
well as ever.*^ His sufferings and his merits excited a general
enthusiasm in his favour, and Ebroin, in alarm, resolved on his
death. A great council of bishops was summoned, and Leodegar
was accused before it of having been concerned in the death of
Childeric II. — a prince who had owed his throne to him, but had
afterwards imprisoned him in the monastery of Luxeuil, and, during
' Michelet, i. 364 ; Giesel. I. ii. 447. y Vita Batliild. (Patrol. Ixxxvii.) ;
» Sismondi, ii. .56-8. Ursin. 1 ; Pitra, 109, 244.
" See the old Lives, by Ursinus and ^ Vita Anon. 1.
another, Patrol, xcvi. ; also ' Vie de ' lb. 10.
S. Leger,' by Dom Pitra, Paris, 1846; '' lb. 13; Pitra, 341.
and Milman, ii. 158, seqq.
P
66 IRISH CHURCH. Book III.
Leodeg-ar's confinement, had been put to death by the party with
which the bishop was connected.'^ He firmly denied the charge,
and referred to God as his witness."* But his guilt was considered as
certain ; his robe was rent, in token of degradation from his
A.D. 678. ^Y^QY ; and, although a bright light appeared around his
head in attestation of his innocence and sanctity, he was beheaded
by order of Ebroin." Leodegar was revered as a martyr, and is
said to have performed innumerable miracles after death. Yet
among his opponents also were some who are ranked in the
number of saints — such as Audoen (or Ouen), bishop of Rouen,
the friend and biographer of St. Eligius, Prsejectus (Prix) of
Clermont, and Agilbert of Paris. Ouen's part in the struggle is
celebrated for the short and significant answer which he gave
when consulted by Ebroin — "Remember Fredegund," '' — words
which may have been intended only to recommend the imitation
of that famous queen's readiness and decision, but which we can
hardly read without thinking also of the unscrupulous wickedness
by which her purposes were accomplished.
IV. The Irish Church, from which Columba had gone forth to
labour in Scotland, and Columban in Gaul and Italy, was in these
ages fruitful in missionaries, of whom many further notices will
occur hereafter. But its internal history, however full of interest
for the antiquarian inquirer, offers little that can find a place in
such a narrative as this. It will be enough to mention here cer-
tain peculiarities of administration which not only throw light on
the condition of the Irish Church, but serve also to explain the
" unusual arrangement " s of St. Columba's foundation at lona,
and to account both for the commonness of the episcopal title
among the Irish missionary clergy, and for the irregular character
of their proceedings.
In the early Irish Church it was held that the power of ordina-
tion belonged to the bishops alone ; but the episcopate was merely
a personal distinction, which conveyed no right of local jurisdiction.''
The number of bishops was unlimited,' and, like the chorepiscopi
<^ Sismoncli, ii. 68-9. e Beda, iii. 4. See vol. i. p. .543.
^ Vita, 14 ; Pitra, 378. i" For the substance of this paragraph
^ Vita, 14-5. In the account of his I am indebted to the Rev. R. King's
death, Pitra chiefly follows a very legend- ' Memoir Introductory to the Early His-
ary " Passion." Rohrbacher even exceeds tory of the Primacy of Armagh;' Ar-
his usual absurdity of manner in an magh, 1854. Comp. Ware, ' Antiq. of
attack on Sismondi for some inaccura- Ireland,' 232-6.
cies as to this saint, x. 327. ' Bernard. Vita S. Malachia?, 19
f Gesta Regum Franc. 45 (Patrol. (Patrol, clxxxii.) ; King's Primer, 986-6.
xcvi.).
Chap. III. a.d. 604-715. ENGLAND. 67
of other countries, they were consecrated by a single bishop.** The
position of Irish bishops, therefore, was widely different, both in
spiritual and in temporal respect?, from that of bishops elsewhere.
The care of the ecclesiastical property was from early times com-
mitted to officers who were styled Erenachs ; and, by a remarkable
variation from the usual order of the Church, the spiritual govern-
ment was exercised by a class of persons who, as having succeeded
to the churches of eminent early missionaries, were styled their
Coarbs or successors.™ These coarbs occupied positions which had
originally been held by abbots ; and while some of them were
bishops, they more commonly belonged to the order of presbyters.
The office of erenach was not transmitted from father to son, but
according to the system of tanistry — a tanist, or successor, being
chosen during the lifetime of each holder." The dignity of coarb
was not originally restricted to particular families ; but from the
tenth century it seems to have become for the most part hereditary
— passing from a deceased possessor to his brother, his nephew, or
(as the marriage of the clergy was usual in the Irish Church) to
his son.° The erenachs were originally taken from the ranks of
the clergy, but the office gradually fell into the hands of laymen ; ^
and at length — probably in consequence of the Danish invasions
in the tenth century, when the power of defending the Church's
possessions became a chief qualification for ecclesiastical govern-
ment— the laity were even admitted to the office of coarbs ; so
that, according to a complaint of St. Bernard, the church of
Armagh was held by eight laymen in succession.'^
V. The early history of Christianity in the various Anglo-Saxon
kingdoms is marked by much similarity of circumstances. Mis-
sionaries meet with a friendly reception : the king, after some
prudent hesitation, becomes a convert, but his successors relapse
into heathenism ; until, after a time, the throne is filled by a prince
who had learnt the truths of the Gospel in exile, and the profession
of the faith is restored. Matrimonial alliances exercise the same
^ Lanfranc, Ep. 38 (Patrol, cl.) ; King informs me that until about the
Anselm. Cantuar. Epp. iii. U2, 147 (ib. year 1000 the title Coarb is never used,
clix.) ; Joh. Tinxnuth. in King, Primer, except in connexion with the name of a
1007. Lanigan supposes that there was person (e. g. "Coarb of Patrick");
an order of bishops consecrated in afterwards it is sometimes, although
the canonical manner, and that besides seldom, connected with the name of a
these there was an order of chorepiscopi place (c. g. " Coarb of Armagh"),
consecrated by oue bishop. But Mr. " King, Mem. 19.
King shows that there is no ground for " Ib. 21.
this. (Memoir, 9-11.) p Ib. 26.
■" King, Memoir, Preface, and pp. i Ib. 22-3; Bern. Vita Malach. 19.
6, 17. Comp. Lauigan, iv. 80-6. Mr. See below. Book V. c. xi. 6.
f2
68 ENGLISH CHURCH. Book III.
influence in the spreading of religion which had before been seen
among the barbarian conquerors of Gaul, Spain, and Italy. Among
the evidences by which the Gospel was recommended, we find
frequent mention of miracles, and not uncommonly the argument
from temporal interest — the experience of the fruitlessness of
serving the pagan deities, and the inference that they had no
power to help or to punish/
In the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons two rival agencies were
concerned — that of the Irish or Scottish, and that of the Roman
party/ Some of the differences as to usage between the Roman
missionaries and the native clergy have already been mentioned —
among them, the variation as to the time of Easter, produced by
the adhesion of the Britons to a cycle which at Rome had long been
obsolete.' Another subject of contention was the form of the tonsure.
It was not until monachism became popular that any tonsure was
introduced ; nor was it common among the western clergy until
the sixth century." But a far earlier origin was now claimed for
the fashions which contended in Britain. The Romans, who shaved
the crown, of the head, in imitation of the crown of thorns, deduced
their practice from St. Peter ; " while that of the Scots and Irish,
who shaved the front as far as the ears, in the form of a crescent,
was traced by its opponents to Simon Magus — a derivation which
the Scots appear not to have disputed, contenting themselves with
insisting on the virtues of some who had used their tonsure.^ The
degree in which the Irish were affected by these diffierences may be
inferred from the statement of Laurence, the successor of Augustine,
that an Irish bishop named Dagan refused, when in England, to
partake of food with the Italian clergy, and even to eat under the
same roof with them.'' Honorius and other bishops of Rome
endeavoured to allay these differences by writing to the bishops of
the national party. '^ They succeeded in gaining the Jrish,'^ and
"■ For instance, the speech of the iii. 69 ; Villanueva, n. in S. Patric.
Northumbrian priest Coifi (Beda, ii. 34-8. Mabillon says that the Scottish
13 J. The argument, however, might tonsure was ascribed to Simon because
be turned against Christianity also ; it -was " qualis Simoni Mago aliisque
thus the East Saxons apostatised during hominibus calvis sponte nascitur-" (iii.
a pestilence. Beda, iii. 30. prsef. p. ix.) The authority for the
•'' On the shortcomings of the Romans sorcerer's baldness is not cited. A
in their missionary work, see Hook, i. more probable explanation is given by
113-120. Thomassin (I. ii. 28. 14) and Smith,
' Vol. i. p. 544; vol. ii. p. 20. See the editor of Bede (Patrol, xcv. 331),
Smith's Dissertation in Patrol, xcv. — that the objectionable tonsure was re-
317, seqq. ferred to Simon as having been, accord-
" Thomassin, I. ii. 27. 13-14 ; Smith, ing both to Scripture and to legend, the
1. e. 328-9. adversary of St. Peter. See vol. i. p. 41.
" Greg. Turon. de Miraculis, i. 28. ^ Beda, ii. 4.
>■ Ceolfrid, Ep. ad Naitan. ap. Bed. » lb. 19.
V. 21 ; Lingard, A. S. C. i. 54 ; Lanigan, ^ The Roman Easter was received in
Chap. in. a. d. 604-635. SCOTTISH MISSIONARIES. 69
even some of the Britons ; but the Scots continued obstinately to
hold out.
Paulinus, the first archbishop of York, had, after the defeat and
death of his convert Edwin of Northumbria, withdrawn to
the bishoprick of Rochester, while the northern king-dora
fell back into idolatry.*^ Oswald, who in 635 ascended the North-
umbrian throne, had been converted while an exile in Scotland,
and, in undertaking the conversion of his subjects, naturally looked
to the same Church through which he had himself received his
knowledge of the Gospel.*^ At his request a bishop was sent from
lona ; but the^nissionary was a man of stern character, and, after
a short trial, withdrew in anger and despair at the obstinacy of
the Northumbrians. The fathers of lona^ met in consultation,
and he indignantly related to them the failure of his enterprise ;
when, after he had finished, one of the monks, in a gentle tone of
voice, told him that he had proceeded wrongly, and ought rather
to have condescended to the rudeness and ignorance of those to
whom he had been sent. Immediately the brethren exclaimed
that the speaker, Aidan, was right ; that the method which he
had suggested was the true one, and that he was himself the fittest-
person to execute it.^ He was forthwith consecrated as a bishop,^
and was recommended to Oswald, who assigned the island of Lin-
disfarne for his residence. Here Aidan established a system
closely resembling that of lona ; the bishops, with their staft" of
clergy, living according to monastic rule, in a commlmity governed
by an abbot.'' Oswald zealously assisted his labours in spreading
the Gospel ; and, as Aidan was but imperfectly acquainted with
the language of the country, the king himself, who had learnt the
the south of Ireland about a.d. 633 ; xciv.) ; Hist. Eccles. iv. 27. See vol. i-
but the northern Irish held out longer, p. 543. Dr. Lingard speaks of the
Beda, iii. 3 ; Lanigan, ii. 389; Reeves, system of Lindisfarne as identical with
n. on Adamnan, p. 27. Archbishop that of lona ( A. S. C. i. 154) ; but accord-
Ussher has published a letter from an ing to Mr. Grub there was " this im-
Trish monk named Cummian to Segenus, portant diiference, that at Lindisfarne
abbot of lona, a.d. 634, in defence the abbot, who presided over the monas-
of the change. Appendix to ' Religion stery, occupied his pi'oper place in sub-
of Ancient Irish,' in Works, iv. 432- ordination to the bishop." (i. 77.) Mr.
443. Grub's own quotations from Bede,
"^ Beda, ii. -0. however, seem to prove that, while the
'' lb. iii. 3. monks were under the bishop's spiritual
•^ See Grub, i. 76. care, the abbot was supreme in the
f Beda, iii. 5. government of the monastery — the
s Against the extravagant assump- bishop being in this respect under him.
tion of presbyterian writers that Aidan The real difference appears to have
received his episcopal consecration from been that the bishops of Lindisfarne
presbyters (Cunningham, i. 81-3), see had diocesan authority, which the Scot-
Grub, i. 153-6. tish bishops of that time (like the Irish)
>• Beda, Vita S. Cuthb. 16 (Patrol, had not.
70 SCOTTISH MISSIONARIES IN ENGLAND. Book 111.
Celtic during his exile, often acted as interpreter while the bishop
delivered his religious instructions.'
Aidan's settlement at Lindisfarne was followed by a large immi-
gration of Scottish missionaries into England. Bede — Roman as
he is in his affections, and strongly opposed to their peculiarities —
bears hearty witness to the virtues of these northern clergy — their
zeal, their gentleness, their humility and simplicity, their earnest
study of Scripture, their freedom from all selfishness and avarice,
their honest boldness in dealing with the great, their tenderness
and charity towards the poor, their strict and self-denying life.''
"Hence," he writes, with an implied allusion to th^ degeneracy of
his own time, " in those days the religious habit was held in great
reverence, so that wheresoever any clerk or monk appeared, he was
joyfully received by all as the servant of God ; even if he were met
with on his journey the people ran to him, and, with bended neck,
were glad to be either signed with his hand or blessed by his
mouth ; and they diligently gave ear to his words of exhortation.
And if perchance a priest came to any village, forthwith the
inhabitants gathered together, and were careful to seek from him
the word of life." "" Of Aidan himself the historian says that he
thoroughly endeavoured to practise all that he knew of Christian
duty ; and that, even as to the paschal question, while he erred
in differing from the Catholics, he earnestly studied to unite with
them in celebrating the great facts of our redemption through the
passion^ resurrection, and ascension of the Saviour." Aidan's suc-
cessors were of like character. By them Christianity was not only
spread over Northumbria; but other kingdoms, as Mercia and
Essex, even to the northern bank of the Thames, were evangelised
by missionaries who derived their orders immediately or more
remotely from St. Columba's foundation at lona."
But colHsions with the Roman party were inevitable. Oswy,
the brother and successor of Oswald, who had learnt his Chris-
tianity and had been baptised in Scotland, married a Kentish
princess, Eanfleda. The royal pair adhered to the customs of
their respective teachers ; and thus, while Oswy was celebrating
the Easter festival, the queen was still engaged in the penitential
exercises of Lent.r The king's eldest son and colleague, Alfrid,
strongly took up the Roman views, and expelled the Scottish
' Beda, iii. 3. priestly domination was carried among
•^ iii. 2, 4, 17, 26. the Anglo-Saxons ! i. 55.
■" iii. 2G. See Wordsworth, Eccles. " Beda, iii. 17.
Sonnets, pt. i. 19. Hume refers to the " lb. 21, 22, 24.
passage as showing the height to which '' lb. 25.
Chap. III. a.d. 635-664. CONFERENCE AT WHITBY. 71
monks from a monastery at Ripon in order to substitute Roman-
isers, under Wilfrid, a priest of Northumbrian birth, who, having
become discontented with the customs of Lindisfarne, had been
sent by Eanfleda's patronage to Rome, and had returned to his
native country with a zealous desire to propagate the
usages of the Roman Church ."i The paschal question
was discussed in a conference at Streaneshalch (Whitby), in the
presence of Oswy and his son. On the part of the Scots appeared
Colman of Lindisfarne, with Cedd, a Northumbrian, who had been
consecrated as bishop by Aidan's successor Finan, and had effected
a second conversion of Essex ; " and they were strengthened by the
countenance of the royal and saintly abbess Hilda, in whose
monastery the conference was held. On the other side stood
Agilbert, a native of France, who had studied in Ireland, and
had held the see of Dorchester in Wessex," with Wilfrid, whom
the bishop, on the plea of his own inability to speak the language
of the country fluently, put forward as the champion of Rome.
Wilfrid argued from the custom of that Church in which St. Peter
and St, Paul had lived and taught, had suffered and had been
buried, St. John, to whom the other party traced its practice,*
had, he said, observed it from a wish to avoid offence to the Jews ;
but the churches which that Apostle had governed had, since the
Council of Nicsea, conformed to the Roman usage ; and neither
St. John, nor even the founder of lona, if alive, would maintain,
in opposition to Rome, a practice which was observed only by a
handful of insignificant persons in a remote corner of the earth.
On Wilfrid's quoting our Lord's promise to bestow on St. Peter
" the keys of the kingdom of heaven," Oswy asked Colman whether
these words had really been spoken to the Apostle, The bishop
assented, and owned, in answer to a further question, that he could
not produce any such grant of authority to St. Columba. " I tell
you then," said the king, " that Peter is the doorkeeper whom I
will not gainsay, lest perchance, if I make him my enemy by dis-
regarding his statutes, there should be no one to open the door of
heaven to me."" The Roman party was victorious, and, while
1 lb 25 • V. 19 ; Life of Wilfrid, by mistake to identify the Scottish practice
Eddi, 2-7, i'n Gale,' Hist. Brit. Veteres, i. with that of the Quartodecimans. See
Wilfrid was born iu C34. Eadmer, vol. i. p. .544.
Vita Wilf 4. (Patrol, clix.) For his first » Beda, iii. 25. Archdeacon Churton
iourney to Rome, see Pagi, xi. 514-5. (p. 78) and Mr. Martineau (p. 80)
r i^eda, iii. 22. speak of these words as a jest, and sup-
s lb 7.' He had resigned it in 661. pose that the council assented to them
Note iu Godwin, De Prajsulibus, 279. as such. But there is no grouud for
' It was, however, as we have seen, a this, except the wish of the writers to
72 WILFRID. Book III.
some of the Scots conformed, Colman and others withdrew to their
own country.''
The bishoprick thus vacated was bestowed on Tuda, who had
been ab-eady consecrated in the southern part of Ireland, where
the Roman usages were established ; ^ and when Tuda, in less
than a year, was carried off by a pestilence,^ Wilfrid was appointed
to succeed him. But the zealous champion of Roman customs
chose to take his title from York, which Gregory the Great had
marked out as the seat of an archbishop,'' rather than from the
Scottish foundation of Lindisfarne ; and as the bishops of England
were all more or less tainted by a connexion with Scottish or Irish
orders, he was not content to receive his consecration at their
hands. He therefore passed into France, where he was conse-
crated, with great pomp, by Agilbert, now bishop of Paris,"" and
twelve other prelates.'' On his return to England, the vessel in
which he was embarked was stranded on the coast of Sussex. The
savage and heathen inhabitants rushed down to plunder it, headed
by a priest, who, " like another Balaam," '^ stood on a rising ground
uttering s}>ells and curses. But the priest wa& killed by a stone
from a sling ; the crew repelled three attacks, and, as the as-
sailants were preparing for a fourth, the returning tide heaved oif
the vessel, which then made its way prosperously to Sandwich.
Wilfrid now found that his scruples as to ordination had cost him
dear ; for, during his absence, the Northumbrian king had bestowed
the bishoprick on Ceadda (or Chad), who had been consecrated in
England, and had entered on his see. He, therefore, retired to
his monastery of Ripon, where he remained for some years, except
when invited to perform episcopal functions in a vacant or unpro-
vided diocese.''
In the year 664 (the same year in which the conference took
place at Whitby) a great plague carried oif the first native arch-
bishop of Canterbury, Frithona, who, on his elevation to the see,
had assumed the name of Adeodatus or Deusdedit.' The kings of
Northumbria and Kent agreed to send a presbyter named Wighard
to Rome for consecration to the primacy ; but Wighard died there,
and pope Vitalian, apparently in compliance with a request from
save the king's character for theological '' Agilbert has already been mentioned
argument, while they leave his decision in this character, p. (56. See Pagi, xi.
and that of the assembly without a 540; Hussey, u. in Bed. p. 167.
motive. '^ Eddi, 12; Beda, iii. 28; iv. 19.
^ Beda, iii. 26-8. '' Eddi, 13.
y lb. 26. <= lb. 14.
' lb. 27. f Beda, iv. 1 ; Godwin, 40.
" Seep. !9.
Chap. III. a.d. 664-9. THEODORE OF CANTERBURY.
73
the kings, chose Theodore, a native of Tarsus, to take his place.^
Theodore was ab-eady sixty-six years of age. He was of eminent
repute for learning ; but his oriental birth suggested some sus-
picions,'' and he was not consecrated until, by allowing
his hair to grow for four months, he had qualified him-
self for receiving the Latin tonsure instead of the Greek." Theo-
dore arrived in England in 669, and held his see for twenty-one
years, with the title and jurisdiction of Archbishop of all England ;
for York had had no archbishop since Paulinus. Under Theodore
the churches of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, which until then had
been independent of each other, were for the first time united ;
and in other respects his primacy is memorable in the history of
the English church. The resort of English students to the monas-
teries of Ireland, as seminaries superior to any that could be found
in their own country,'^ was now checked by the establishment of
schools, in which the learning and the science of the age were
taught, and it is said that not only Latin, but the Greek primate's
native tongue, was spoken as fluently as English."" To Theodore
has also been ascribed the division of the country into parishes ;
and although this idea is now generally abandoned, it seems to
be admitted that he may have paved the way for the parochial
division by introducing the right of patronage, which had been
established in his native church by Justinian."
The archbishop visited every part of the country. On reaching
Northumbria, he inquired into the case of Chad, and disallowed
his consecration — partly, it would seem, because it was not derived
from a purely Roman source, and partly on account of Wilfrid's
prior claims to the see. The bishop meekly replied, " If you
judge that I have not received the episcopate rightly, I willingly
retire from my office, of which, indeed, I never thought myself
worthy, but which, although unworthy, I agreed to undertake for
the sake of obedience to command." Theodore was
struck with this humility ; he reordained him through
all the grades of the ministry ; and, while ^Wilfrid took possession
of the Northumbrian diocese, Chad, after a short retirement in
the monastery of Lastingham, was appointed by the king of
K Beda, iii. 29 ; iv. 1 ; Milman, ii. 30. the whole head. Thomassin, I. ii. 28.
•> The more naturally, as the visit of 10-11 ; Martene, ii. 15.
Constaiis to Rome (p. 50) had taken ^ Beda, iii. 27.
place shortly before. Hook, i. 148. . '" lb. iv. 2.
' The Greek tonsure, which was re- " See vol. i. p. 554 ; Collier, i. 262 ;
ferred to St. Paul as its author, consisted ' luett, i. 154 ; Lappenb. i. 190.
in shaving (or rather in closely clipping)
74 WILFRID. Book III.
Mercia, on the archbishop's recommendation, to the see of Lich-
field.°
Gregory's scheme for the ecclesiastical organisation of England
had never taken effect. The bishopricks had originally been of
the same extent with the kingdoms, except that in Kent there was
a second see at Rochester.^ Theodore was desirous of increasing
the episcopate, and, in a council at Hertford, in 673, proposed a
division of the dioceses ; but, probably from fear of opposition, he
did not press the matter.*^ Soon after this council, Wilfrid again
fell into trouble. Egfrid, the son and successor of Oswy, was
offended because the bishop, instead of aiding him to overcome
the inclination of his first queen for a life of virginity, had encou-
raged her in it, and had given her the veil ; and the king was
further provoked by the suggestions- of his second queen, who invi-
diously dwelt on Wilfrid's wealth, his influence, and the splendour
of his state."^ The primate lent himself to the royal schemes, and
not only disregarded the rights of Wilfrid, by erecting, the sees of
Hexham and Sidnacester (near Gainsborough) within his diocese,
but superseded him by consecrating' a bisliop for York
A D fi77 -8 .
itself, as well as bishops for the two new dioceses which
had been separated from it.^ Wilfrid determined to seek redress
from Rome. A storm, which carried him to the coast of Friesland,
saved him from the plots which, through Egfrid's influence, had
been laid for detaining him in France ; * and he remained for some
time in Frisia, where his labours were rewarded by the conversion
of the king, Aldgis, with most of the chiefs and some thousands of
the people. On his arrival at Rome, in 679, his case was investi-
Oct. 679. gated by pope Agatho, with a council of fifty bishops. It
(Jaffe.) ^g^g decided that, if his diocese were divided, the new
sees should be filled with persons of his own choosing, and that
those who had been intruded into them should be expelled ; " and
Wilfrid was invited to take a place in the council against the
Monothelites, where he signed the acts as representative of the
whole church of Britain."
The Roman Council had denounced heavy penalties against all
who should contravene its decisions ; kings, in particular, were
o Beda, iv. 2-3. « Eddi, 25-6.-
V See Lingard, A. S. C. i. 86; Lap- " Wilkins, i. 44-7; Eddi, 29-31. For
penberg, i. 183. documents relating to Wilfrid, see Pa-
'1 Wilkins, i. 43 ; Inett, i. 96 ; Lin- trol. Ixxxix. 46, seqq.
gard, A. S. C. i. 132-3. ." Hard. iii. 1131. See Pagi, xi. 628 ;
" " Beda, iv. 19 ; Eddi, 23; Inett, i. 89. Collier, i. 248 ; Inett, i. 99 ; Hefele, iii.
'^ Beda, iv. 1 2 and notes ; Eddi, 23 ; 229 ; and p. 50 of this volume.
see Johnson, i. 118.
Chap. III. a.d. 6V3-702.
WILFRID. 75
threatened with excoramunieation. But Egfrid, instead of submit-
ting, imprisoned Wilfrid on his return from Italy, and only offered
to release him, and to restore him to a part of his old diocese, on
condition of his renouncing the papal statutes. The imprisonment
lasted nine months, at the end of which Wilfrid was set at liberty
through the influence of the queen, who had been smitten with
dangerous illness for possessing herself of his reliquary/ He now
sought a field of labour at a distance from his persecutors — the
kingdom of Sussex, the scene of his perilous adventure in returning
from France many years before. Until this time the only Chris-
tian teachers who had appeared in Sussex were six poor Irish
monks, who had a little monastery at Bosham, but made no pro-
gress in converting the inhabitants. The king, however, Ethel-
walch, had lately been baptised in Mercia, and gladly patronised
the new preacher of the Gospel. The people of Sussex were in-
debted to Wilfrid for the knowledge of fishing and other useful
arts, as well as of Christianity. He established a bishoprick at
Selsey, and extended his labours to the Isle of Wight and into the
kingdom of Wessex.^
Theodore, at the age of eighty-eight, feeling the approach of
death, began to repent of the part which he had taken against
W^ilfrid. He sent for him, begged his forgiveness, re- ^ ^ ^^^
conciled him with Aldfrid,'' the new king of North-
umbria, and urged him to accept the succession to the primacy.
Wilfrid professed a wish to leave the question of the primacy to
a council ; but he recovered the sees of York and Hexham, with
the monastery of Ripon.^ The archbishop died in the same year,
and was succeeded by Berctwald ; and after a time Wilfrid was
again ejected for refusing to consent to certain statutes which had
been enacted by the late primate. He withdrew into Mercia,
where he remained until, in 702, he was summoned to appear
before a synod at Onestrefield, in Yorkshire. On being required
by this assembly to renounce his episcopal office, and to content
himself with the monastery of Ripon, the old man indignantly
declared that he v/ould not abandon a dignity to which he had
been appointed forty years before. He recounted his merits
towards the Church — saying nothing of his zealous labours for the
spreading of the Gospel, of his encouragement of letters, or of the
stately churches which he had erected, but insisting on his oppo-
y Eddi, 33-8. viously mentioned. Mabill. v. 702.
' Beda, iv. 13, 16; v. 19; Eddi, -tO-1. ^ Eddi, 41-2.
* A different person from Alfrid pre-
76 WILFRID. B<;oK III.
sitiou to the Scottish usages, on his introduction of the Latin chant,
and of the Benedictine rule ; and again he repaired to Rome, while
his partisans in England were put under a sort of excommunica-
tion. *= The Pope, John VI., was naturally inclined to favour one
whose troubles had arisen from a refusal to obey the decrees of
Theodore except in so far as they were consistent with those of
the Apostolic see. And when, at Easter 704, the acts of Pope
Agatho's synod against the Monothelites were publicly read, the
occurrence of Wilfrid's name among the signatures, with the coin-
cidence of his being then again at Rome, as a suitor for aid against
oppression, raised a general enthusiasm in his favour.*^ He would
have wished to end his days at Rome, but by the desire of
John VIL, whose election he had witnessed, he returned to
England, carrying with him a papal recommendation addressed to
Ethelred of Mercia and Aldfrid of Northumbria.'^ The primate,
Berctwald, received him kindly ; but Aldfrid set at nought the
pope's letter, until on his deathbed he relented, and the testimony
of his sister as to his last wishes procured for Wilfrid a restoration
to the see of Hexham, although it does not appear that he ever
recovered the rest of his original diocese. In 709 Wilfrid closed
his active and troubled life at the monastery of Oundle.*
The Roman customs as to Easter and the tonsure gradually
made their way throughout the British Isles. In 710 they were
adopted by the southern Picts, in consequence of a letter addressed
to King Naitan (or Nectan) by Ceolfrid, abbot of Jarrow.= It
was in vain that Adamnan, abbot of Zona, who had been converted
to the Roman usages in Northumbria, attempted, in the last years
of the seventh century, to introduce them into his monastery ; ^ but
he was more successful among his own countrymen, the northern
Irish, who at his instance abandoned their ancient practice about
697 ;' and at length, in 716, Egbert, an English monk who had
received his education in Ireland,*^ induced the monks of St. Co-
lumba to celebrate the Catholic Easter.™ The ancient British
Church adhered to its paschal calculation until the end of the
eighth century, but appears to have then conformed to the Roman
" Eddi, 43-7. " This," says Fuller, « Patrol. Ixxxix. 59.
"maybe observed iu this Wilfrid ; his ' Eddi, 54-61; Beda, iv. 20; Pagi,
Trdpfpya were better than his epya, his xii. 201 ; Lingard, A. S. C. i- 144.
casual and occasional were better than s Beda, v. 21.
his intentional performances; which •" lb. v. 15; Eeeves's Adamnan, xlviii.
shows plainly that Providence acted ' Beda, v. 15; Reeves, li., 27.
more vigorously in him than his own ^ Beda, iii. 4.
prudence." i. 13.S. ™ lb. v. 22. He died on Easter-day,
'• Eddi, 51; Beda, v. 19. 729. lb.
Chap. III. a.d. 604-716. ARTS AND LEARNING IN ENGLAND. 77
usage; and, if disputes afterwards arose on the subject, they
excited Uttle attention, and speedily died away."
Christianity had had a powerful effect on the civilisation of the
Anglo-Saxons,° and through the exertions of Theodore, Wilfrid,
and others, arts and learning were now actively cultivated in
England. Benedict Biscop, the founder of the abbey of Wear-
mouth, who was the companion of Wilfrid in his first visit to Rome,
brought back with him the arch-chanter John, by whom the
northern clergy were instructed in the Gregorian chant, the course
of the festivals, and other ritual matters." From six expeditions
to Rome Benedict returned laden with books, relics, vestments,
vessels for the altar, and religious pictures.'^ Instead of the
thatched wooden churches with which the Scottish missionaries
had been content,'" Benedict and Wilfrid, with the help of masons
from France, erected buildings of squared and polished stone, with
glazed windows and leaded roofs.^ Wilfrid built a large structure
of this kind over the little wooden church at York, in which
Paulinus had baptised the Northumbrian king Edwin, but which
had since fallen into disrepair and squalid neglect.* At Ripon
he raised another church, which was consecrated with great pomp
and ceremony ; two kings were present, and the festivities lasted
three days and nights." Still more remarkable than these was his
cathedral at Hexham, which is described as the most splendid
ecclesiastical building north of the Alps.^ Benedict Biscop's
churches were adorned with pictures brought from Italy. Among
them are mentioned one of the Blessed Virgin, a set of scenes from
the Apocalypse, representing the last judgment, and a series in
which subjects from the Old Testament were paralleled with their
antitypes from the New ; thus, Isaac carrying the wood for his
sacrifice corresponded to our Lord bearing the Cross, and the
Brazen Serpent to the Crucifixion.^
Monasteries had now been founded and endowed in great
numbers. In some of them recluses of both sexes lived, although
in separate parts of the buildings.^ Many ladies of royal birth
became abbesses or nuns ; and at length it was not unusual for
English kings to abdicate their thrones, to go in pilgrimage to
" Lingard, A. S. C. i. G3. ' Beda, VV. Abb. 5 ; Hussey, n. in
" Milman, ii. 18. Bed. p. 319.
V Beda, Hist. Eccl. iv. 18; Vitae Ab- » Eddi, 16.
batum, 6. " lb. 17.
1 Beda, VV. Abb. 3 ; Lingard, A. S. C. " lb. 22. Ricard. Hagustald. ap.
i. 207; Southey, Vindicise, 61, seqq. Twysden, 290-1.
■■ Beda, iii. 25. See Reeves's Adamnan, y Beda, VV. Abb. 9.
p. 177. ^ Lingard, A. S. C. i. 21 1, 214.
78 BEDE — ALDHELM — CAEDMON. Dook III.
Rome, and there to end their days in the monastic habit.^ But
among the Anglo-Saxons, as elsewhere, the popularity of monach-
ism was accompanied by decay.'' Bede, in his Epistle to Egbert,
archbishop of York (a.d. 734), draws a picture of corruptions in
discipline and morals, both among monks and clergy, which con-
trasts sadly with his beautiful sketch of the primitive Scottish
missionaries. Among other things he mentions a remarkable
abuse arising out of the immunities attached to monastic property.
Land among the Anglo-Saxons was distinguished as folkland or
hocland. The folkland was national property, held of the king on
condition of performing certain services, granted only for a certain
term, and liable to resumption ; the bocland was held by book
or charter, for one or more lives, or in perpetuity, and was
exempted from most (and in some cases from all) of the duties with
which the folkland was burdened. The estates of monasteries
were bocland, and, so long as the monastic society existed, the
land belonged to it. In order, therefore, to secure the advantages
of this tenure, some nobles professed a desire to endow monasteries
with the lands which they held as folkland. By presents or other
means they induced the king and the witan (or national council)
to sanction its conversion into bocland ^ they erected monastic
buildings on it, and in these they lived with their wives and
families, styling themselves abbots, but having nothing of the
monastic character except the name and the tonsure.*"
Among the men of letters whom the English church produced
in this age the most celebrated is Bede. The fame which he had
attained in his own time is attested by the fact that he was invited
to Rome by Sergius I., although the pope's death prevented the
acceptance of the invitation ; ^ and from the following century he
has been commonly distinguished by the epithet of Venerable.^
Born about the year 673,*^ in the neighbourhood of Jarrow, an off-
shoot from Benedict Biscop's abbey of Wearmouth, he became an
inmate of the monastery at the age of seven, and there spent the
remainder of his life. He tells us of himself, that, besides the
regular exercises of devotion, he made it his pleasure every day
" Beda, iv. 19; v. 7; Baron. 709. 5. questioned, as by Lingard (A. S. C. ii.
^ See Bede's account of Coldingham, 190-2, and note K) ; but see Mr. Hardy's
iv. 25 ; Inett, i. 126-7 ; Lingard, A. S. C. note on Malmesbury, and Mr. Steven-
i. 230. son's Preface to transl. of Bede, xiv.-
"^ Beda, Ep. ad Egbert, c. 7 ; Lingard, xvi., where the writer retracts an opi-
A. S. C. i, 226-7, 407-413; Kemble, i. niou which he liad before expressed
292-304 ; ii. 22.5-8 ; Lappenberg, i. 578- against the story, Comp. Mabillon,
80; Hallam, Supplem. Notes, 264, and Patrol, xc. 16.
his quotation from Allen. "^ Stevenson, Preface, xxii.
'' Will. Malmesb. 57-8. This has been f Pagi, xii. 402.
Chap. 111. a.d. 604-734. BAVARIA.
79
" either to learn or to teach or to write something." ^ He laboured
assiduously in collecting and transmitting the knowledge of former
ages, not only as to ecclesiastical subjects but in general learning.
His history of the English Church comes down to the year 731,
— within three years of his own death, which took place on the eve
of Ascension-day, 734, his last moments having been spent in dic-
tating the conclusion of a version of St. John's Gospel.'^
Aldhelm, bishop of Sherborne, who died in 709, was distin-
guished as a divine and as a poet.' And Caedmon, originally a
servant of St. Hilda's abbey, at Streaneshalch, displayed in his
native tongue poetical gifts which his contemporaries referred to
miraculous inspiration.'^ The Anglo-Saxons were the first nation
which possessed a vernacular religious poetry ; and it is remarked
to the honour of the Anglo-Saxon poets, that their themes were
not derived from the legends of saints, but from the narratives of
Holy Scripture.™
VI. During this period much was done for the conversion of
the Germanic tribes, partly by missionaries from the Frankish
kingdom, but in a greater degree by zealous men who went forth
from Britain or from Ireland. Of these, Columban and his dis-
ciple Gall, with their labours in Gaul and in Switzerland, have
been already mentioned."
(1) The conversion of the Bavarians has been commonly re-
ferred to the sixth century, so as to accord with the statement
that Theodelinda queen of the Lombards, the correspondent of
Gregory the Great, was a Bavarian princess, and had received
an orthodox Christian training in her own land. But even if this
statement be mistaken,** it is certain that the Bavarians had the
advantage of settling in a country which had previously been
Christian (for such it was even before the time of Severin) ; '^
and the remains of its earlier Christianity were not without effect
on them.
In 613 a Frankish council, in consequence of reports which had
reached it, sent Eustasius, the successor of Columban at Luxeuil,
with a monk named Agil, into Bavaria, where they found that
e Hist. V. 24. 1.54-5 ; Southey, Vindic. 197, seqq. For
^ Cuthbert. Vita Bedse (Patrol, xc. translated specimens of Caedmon see
41); Stevenson, Pref. to Bede, xvii. xix. ; Conybeare's Anglo-Saxon Poetry, and
Lingard, A. S. C. ii. 200, 416 ; Southey, Turner, Hist. Anglos, iii. 314-324.
Vindiciffi, c. iii. ■" Milman, ii. 40-1 ; Giesel. I. ii. 501.
' Lingard, A. S. C. ii. 184-9. His " Pp. 26-31.
works are in the Patrologia, Ixxxix. " See p. 13, note v,
■■ Beda, iv. 24 ; Lingard, A. S. C. ii. p See vol. i. p. 495.
80 BAVARIA — THURINGIA. Book 111.
many of the inhabitants were infected with heretical opinions which
are (perhaps somewhat incorrectly) described as Photinian/^
About the middle of the seventh century, Emmeran, a bishop
of Aquitaine, was stirred by reports which reached him as to the
heathenism of the Avars in Pannonia, to resign his see, with the
intention of preaching the Gospel in that country. Accompanied
by an interpreter skilled in the Teutonic dialects, he made his way
as far as Radaspona (Ratisbon), where he was kindly received by
Theodo, dwke of Bavaria. Theodo, who was already a Christian,
represented to the bishop that the disturbed state of Pannonia
rendered his undertaking hopeless ; he entreated him to remain in
Bavaria, where he assured him that his zeal would find abundant
exercise ; and, when argument proved ineffectual, he forcibly
detained him.' Emmeran regarded this as a providential intima-
A.D. 649- tion of his duty; and for three years he preached with
652. great diligence to the Bavarians, At the end of that
time he set out for Rome, but it is said that he was pursued, over-
taken, and murdered by the duke's son, in revenge for the dishonour
of a sister, which the bishop, although innocent, had allowed the
princess and her paramour to charge on him."
In the end of the century, Rudbert, bishop of Worms, at the
invitation of another duke named Theodo, undertook a
mission into the same country. He baptised Theodo,
and founded the episcopal city of Salzburg on the site of the old
Roman Juvavium.*^ To the labours of Rudbert is chiefly due the
establishment of Christianity in Bavaria. It would seem, how-
ever, that he eventually returned to his original diocese of
Worms.'^^
(2) The Christianity of the Thuringians has, like that of the
Bavarians, been referred to the sixth century.^ The country and
its rulers were, however, still heathen, when, in the latter part of
1 Jonas, Vita Eustas. 3, seqq. (Patrol. Rettb. ii. 201.
Ixxxvii.) ; Neauder, v. 51-3; Kettb. ii". "^ So Kettberg (ii. 210-1) infers from
187-9. the words of the 'Convei-sio Bagoario-
" M. Amedee Thierry thinks that rum ' — " ad propriam remeavit sedem."
Theodo wished, for political reasons, to But the editor in Pertz's collection, Dr.
prevent the conversion of the Avars. Watteubach, supposes that Salzburg is
Hist. d'Attila, ii. 134-6. meant. Thei'e has been much disputing
■^ Vita Emmerammi, rewritten by Me- whether Rudbert flourished in the sixth
ginfred, in the 11th century (Patrol, or in the seventh century ; but it would
cxli.). The story is full of improbabi- seem that the earlier date is chiefly
lities (see Schrockh, xix. 1 58 ; Rettb. ii. maintained from motives of local par-
191). tiality. See Pagi, xii. 155-8 ; Giesel. I.
'Vita, ap. Mabill. iii. 339, seqq.; ii. 506; Rettberg, ii. 193-9.
Bouquet, iii. 632 ; Conversio Bagoario- " See Schrockh, xvi. 264-5 ; Rettb. ii.
rum, c. i. ap. Pertz, xi. ; Pagi, xii. 271; 297-8.
Chap. III. AMANDUS. SI
the seventh century, an Irish bishop named Kyllena or Kilian
appeared in it at the head of a band of missionaries, and met with
a friendly reception from the duke, Gozbert, whose residence was
at Wiirzburg. After a time, it is said, Kihan went to Rome, and,
having been authorised by pope Conon to preach where-
soever he would, he returned to Wiirzburg, where Goz-
bert now consented to be baptised. The duke, while yet a heathen,
had married his brother's widow, Geilana ; and, although he had
not been required before baptism to renounce this union (which
was sanctioned by the national customs), Kilian afterwards urged a
separation as a matter of Christian duty. Gozbert was willing to
make the sacrifice ; but Geilana took advantage of his absence on
a warlike expedition ^ to murder Kilian, -with two com-
panions who had adhered to him. The bodies of the
martyrs were concealed, but their graves were illustrated by
miracles ; and the vengeance of Heaven pursued the ducal house,
which speedily became extinct.''
(3). The tribes to the north of France were visited by mis-
sionaries both from that country and from the British Isles.
Among the most eminent of these was Amandus, a native of Aqui-
taine, who was consecrated as a regionary (or missionary) bishop
about the year 628, and laboured in the country near the Scheld.
The inhabitants are described as so ferocious that all the clergy
who had attempted to preach to them had withdrawn in despair.""
Amandus was fortified with a commission from king Dagobert, which
authorised him to baptise the whole population by force ; but he
made little progress until, by recovering to life a man who had been
hanged, he obtained the reputation of miraculous power.'^
In consequence ot riavmg ventured to reprove Dagobert
for the number of his wives and concubines, he was banished ; but
the king, on marrying a young queen, discarded the others, re-
s' Pagi, xii. 89. The only points which can be regarded
^ Thig circumstance is said to be an in- as certain are the mission of Kilian and
terpolation in the Life. Mabill. ii. 992. his murder in the neighbourhood of
» Pagi, xii. 106. Wiirzburg. Rettb. ii. 304. 7. See the
^ Vita Kiliani, ap. Mabill. ii. 991-3. notes on Menard's Martyrology, Jul. 8.
This story may be traced in its gradual (Patrol, cxxiv.) ; Schroclih, xix. 144-7 ;
growth, from the notice in Raban Lanigan, iii. 1 15-121.
Maur's Martyrology (July 8, Pa- •■ Vita S. Amandi, 6 (Patrol. Ixxxvii.).
trol. ex.), through that of Notker There is also a metrical Life in vol.
(Patrol, cxxxi.), &c. Besides the le- cxxi., and one in prose, written in the
gendary appearance of the part which Tith century by Philip de Harveng, in
relates to Gozbert and his family, the vol. cciii.
expedition of an /mA bishop to Rome is "* Vita, 7-8; Neand. v. 54-6; Rettb. i.
a circumstance which savours of inven- 554.
tion later than the time of Boniface. "^ Pagi, xi. 206-7.
G
82
AMANDUS— LIVIN — ELTGIUS. Book III.
called Amandus, entreated his forgiveness, and, on the birth of a
prince, engaged him to baptise the child. It is said that at the
baptism, when no one responded to the bishop's prayer,
the mouth of the little Sigebert, who was only forty days
old, was opened to utter "Amen."^ Amandus, who preferred
the life of a missionary to that of a courtier, hastened to return
to his old neighbourhood, where, although he had to endure many
hardships, with much enmity on the part of the heathen popula-
tion, and was obliged to support himself by the work of his own
hands, his preaching was now very effectual. After a time his zeal
induced him to go as a missionary to the Slavons on the Danube ;
but, as he was received by them with an indifference which did
not seem to promise either success or martyrdom, he once more
resumed his labours in the region of the Scheld, and, on the death
of a bishop of Mastricht, he was appointed to that see in the year
647.^ He found, however, so much annoyance both from the dis-
orders of the clergy and from the character of the people, that
he expressed to pope Martin a wish to resign the bishoprick.
Martin, in a letter ' which is significant as to the position of the
Roman see, endeavoured to dissuade him from this desire. He
requests Amandus to promulgate the decisions of the Lateran
synod against the Monothelites, which had just been held,"^ and,
with a view to fortifying himself against the empire, he urges the
bishop to aid him in strengthening the connexion of king Sigebert
with Rome. Notwithstanding the pope's remonstrances, however,
Amandus withdrew from his see, after having held it three years,
and he spent the remainder of his days in superintending the
monasteries which he had founded."'
About the same time with Amandus, and in districts which
bordered on the principal scene of his labours, two other celebrated
missionaries were exerting themselves for the furtherance of the
Gospel. One of these was Livin, an Irishman, who became bishop
of Ghent, and was martyred about the year 650 ; " the other was
Eligius (or Eloy), bishop of Noyon. Eligius was originally a gold-
smith, and, partly by skill in his art, but yet more by his integrity,
gained the confidence of Clotaire II. He retained his position under
' Pagi, xi. 337. 428 ; Rettb. i. .'j55. In a written codicil,
s Vita Amandi, 14-5; Gesta Dagob. he directs that he should be buried in
24 (Patrol, xcvi.) ; Vita Sigeb. 4-5 (ib. his monastery of Elnon, and imprecates
Ixxxviii.). curses on any one who should remove his
•" Vita, 9-10. bones. Patrol. Ixxxvii. 1273.
■' Hard. iii. 945-8. " Vita S. Livini ap. Mabill. ii. 449
^ See p. 47. (wrongly ascribed to St. Boniface).
'" Vita, 10, 11, 16; Pagi, xi. 412,
Chap. III. FRISIA. 83
Dagobert,'' to whom he became master of the mint, and coins of
his workmanship are still extant.^' While yet a layman he was
noted for his piety. The Bible always lay open before him as he
worked ; his wealth was devoted to religious and charitable pur-
poses ; he made pilgrimages to holy places ; he built monasteries ;
he bought whole shiploads of captives — Romans, Gauls, Britons,
Moors, and especially Saxons from Germany'' — and endeavoured
to train them to Christianity.'' Such was his charity that strangers
were directed to his house by being told that in a certain quarter
they would see a crowd of poor persons around the pious gold-
smith's door ; ^ and already, it is said, his sanctity had been
attested by the performance of many miracles.^ After having
spent some time in a lower clerical office, he was consecrated
bishop of Noyon in 640, his friend and biographer Audoen (or
Ouen) being at the same time consecrated to the see of Rouen."
The labours of Eligius extended to the neighbourhood of the
Scheld. The inhabitants of his wide diocese were generally rude
and ferocious ; part of them were heathens, while others were
Christians only in name, and the bishop had to encounter many
dangers and to endure many insults at their hands."^ His death
took place in the year 659.^
(4). Among the tribes which shared in the ministrations of
Eligius were the Frisians, who then occupied a large tract of
country.^ The successful labours of Wilfrid among them at a later
time (a.d. 678), have already been mentioned;^ but the king
whom he converted, Aldgis, was succeeded by a heathen, Radbod.^'
Wulfram, bishop of Sens, at the* head of a party of monks, under-
took a mission to the Frisians.*^ He found that they were accus-
" Vita S. Elig., i. 5, 9, 14 (Patrol, as a piece of Christian teaching by
Ixxxvii.). Ascribed to St. Ouen, but Mosheim, Maclaine, Dr. Robertson, and
probably altered or re-written by a later other writers of the last century, whose
hand (ib. 478; Rettb. ii. 508). misrepresentations have been repeatedly
p Barth^lemy, in his translation of exposed, especially by Dr. Maitland, in
the Life (Paris, 1847), gives engravings his vii"' Letter on "the Dark Ages."
of some of these. It is printed not only in the Life of
1 See Barthelemy, note, p. 338. Eligius, but in the Appendix to St. Au-
>■ Vita, i. 10, 15-18, 21. gustine's works (Patrol, xl. 1169-1190).
^ Ib. 20, 37, &c. ' Ib. 22-31. and is said to be in great part derived
" lb. ii. 2; Gallia Christ, quoted in from the sermons of St. Csesarius of
Patrol. Lxxxvii. 485-6 ; Pagi, xi. 345. Aries, which were very popular in Gaul.
"" Vita, ii. 3, seqq.; Barthelemy, 358. Bfihr, ii. 468. '■ Vita, ii. 3.
y The sermon of Eligius, ' De Recti- " Page 74. •> Rettb. ii. 502, 512.
tudine CatholicsD Conversationis,' — or ' Life, by Jonas, in Mabill. iii. 357,
rather the composition which his bio- seqq. The date is uncertain. Pagi
grapher gives as containing the essence gives 689 (xii. 177); Baronius, 700;
of many of his sermons (Vita, ii. 15-6 ; DoUinger, about 712 (i. 314). Neander
Barthcl. 412), — is celebrated on account thinks that Wulfram was probably later
of the injustice done to its character than Willibrord, v. 60.
g2
84 WULFRAM — WILLIBRORD. Book III.
tomed to offer human sacrifices, the victims being put to death by
hanging-. In answer to the taunt that, if his story were true, the
Saviour of whom he spoke '^ could recall them to life, he restored
five men who had been executed, and, after this display of power,
his preaching made many converts. Radbod had allowed one of
his children to be baptised, and had himself consented to receive
baptism ; but, when one of his feet was already in the font, he
adjured the bishop in God's name to tell him in which of the
abodes which he had spoken of the former king and nobles of the
nation were. Wulfram replied, that the number of the elect is
fixed, and tliat those who had died without baptism must neces-
sarily be among the damned. " I would rather be there with my
ancestors," said the king, " than in heaven with a handful of
beggars;" he drew back his foot from the baptistery, and re-
mained a heathen.*'
But the chief missionary efforts among the Frisians proceeded
from the British Islands. Egbert, a pious Anglo-Saxon inmate of
an Irish monastery (the same who afterwards persuaded the monies
of lona to adopt the Roman Easter), *^ conceived the idea of preach-
ing to the heathens of Germany. He was warned by visions, and
afterwards by the stranding of the vessel in which he had embarked,
that the enterprise was not for him ; but his mind was still intent
on it, and he resolved to attempt it by means of his disciples.'^ One
of these, Wigbert, went into Frisia in 690, and for two years
preached with much success. On his return, AVillibrord,
a Northumbrian, who before proceeding into Ireland had
been trained in Wilfrid's monastery at Ripon, set out at the head
of twelve monks, — a further opening for their labours having been
made by the victory which Pipin of Heristal, the virtual sovereign
of Austrasia, had gained over Radbod at Dorstadt. Pipin received
the missionaries with kindness, gave them leave to preach in that
part of the Frisian territory which had been added to the Prankish
kingdom, and promised to support them by his authority. After
a time Willibrord repaired to Rome with a view of obtaining the
"^ " Christus tuus." Jonas, 6. and, as tim versions of the main story
« Jonas, 9-11. Neander (v. 60) sup- are found, -which differ considerably
poses that Radbod was not sincere in his from each other, but agree in showing
desire of baptism, and that he spoke " in that one who is reprobate would, even
a half bantering way." But there is no at the last moment, be excluded from
trace of this in the original writer, and baptism and salvation, Rettberg thinks
his report of the adjurations which the that the whole is an invention devised
king used is decisive against the sup- in behalf of the rigid predestinarian
position. That Radbod (as Jonas re- doctrine (ii. 515-0). In this he is fol-
iates) died within three days after his lowed by Ozanam, 167.
rejection of baptism is certainly untrue ; ' See p. 76. s Reda, v. 9.
Chap. III. a.d. 689-739. WILLIBRORD. 85
papal sanction and instructions for his work, as also a supply of
relics to be placed in the churches which he should build.*^ On
his return, the work of conversion made such progress, that Pipin
wished to have him consecrated as archbishop of the district in
which he had laboured, and for this purpose sent him a second
time to Rome. The pope, Sergius, consented, and, in-
stead of Willibrord's barbaric name, bestowed on hira
that of Clement. The archbishop's see was fixed at Wiltaburg,'
and he appears to have succeeded in extirpating- paganism from
the Frankish portion of Frisia.'' He also attempted to spread the
Gospel in the independent part of the country, and went even as
far as Denmark, where, however, his labours had but little effect.
In his return he landed on Heligoland, which was then called
Fositesland, from a god named Forseti or Fosite.™ The island
was regarded as holy ; no one might touch the animals which
lived on it, nor drink, except in silence, of its sacred well : but, in
defiance of the popular superstition, Willibrord baptised three
converts in the well, and his companions killed some of the con-
secrated cattle. The pagan inhabitants, after having waited in
vain expectation that tlie vengeance of the gods would strike the
profane strangers with death or madness, carried them before
Radbod, who was then in the island. Lots were cast thrice before
any one of the party could be chosen for death. At length one
was sacrificed, and Willibrord, after having denounced the errors
of heathenism with a boldness which won Radbod's admiration,
was sent back with honour to Pipin." The renewal of war between
Radbod and the Franks interfered for a time with the work of the
missionaries. After the death of the pagan king, in 719, circum-
stances were more favourable for the preaching of the Gospel in
the independent part of Frisia ; and Willibrord continued in a
course of active and successful exertion until his death in 739.''
Among his fellow-labourers during a part of this time was Boni-
face, afterwards the apostle of Germany.
'' lb. V. 10-1; Alcuin. Vita Willib. i. Franks), may both be right; and that
3-6 (Patrol, ci.). Dr. Lingard (A. S. C. ii. 333), who sets
' Utreclit then belonged to Eadbod, Bede aside in favour of Alcuin, is mis-
while Wiltaburg, on the oppysite side taken in identifying the towns,
of the llhiue, was Frankish (Gieseler, '' Schroekh, xix. 152.
II. i. 24). It would seem, therefore, '" He was supposed to be the son of
that Bede, who states that Pipiu gave Balder. Thorpe, Northern Mythology,
the archbishop Wiltaburg (v. 11 ), and i. 30.
Alcuiu (i. 12), who says that Charles " Alcuin, i. 9-10.
Martel gave him Utrecht (which had in ° Iiettb. li. 52U-1.
the interval come into possession of the
( S6 )
CHAPTER IV.
ICONOCLASM.
A.D. 717-775.
The gradual advance of a reverence for images and pictures/
from the time when art began to be taken into the service of the
Church, has been related in the preceding volume.^ But when it
had reached a certain point, art had' little to do with it. It was
not by the power of form or colour that the religious images
influenced the mind ; it was not for the expression of ideal purity
or majesty that one was valued above another, but for superior
sanctity or for miraculous virtue.<= Some were supposed to have
fallen down from heaven ; some, to have been the work of the
evangelist St. Luke ; and to others a variety of legends were
attached. Abgarus, king of Edessa, it was said, when in corre-
spondence with our Lord," commissioned a painter to take the
Saviour's likeness. But the artist, dazzled by the glory of the
countenance, gave up the attempt ; whereupon the Saviour himself
impressed his image on a piece of linen, and sent it to the king.
This tale was unknown to Eusebius, although he inserted the
pretended correspondence with Abgarus in his history ; ® and the
image was said, in consequence of the apostasy of a later king, to
have been built up in a wall at Edessa, until, after a concealment
of five centuries, it was discovered by means of a vision. By it,
and by a picture of the Blessed Virgin, " not made with hands,"
the city was saved from an attack of the Persians.' Cloths of a
like miraculous origin (as was supposed) were preserved in other
places ;^ and many images were believed to perform cures and
other miracles, to exude sweat or odoriferous balsam, to bleed, to
weep, or to speak.
When images had become objects of popular veneration, the
=» In the account of the controversies should be impregnable (De Bello Pers.
as to "images," the word will be used ii. 12);* but he does not mention the
to express paintings as well as works of image.
sculpture. ' Evagrius, v. 27 ; Cedren. 176-7.
b Pp. 345-6, 567-8. g Gibbon, iv. 465-7 ; Neand. v. 278.
"^ Milman, ii. 90-3. Heraclius took one with him in his
•■ See -vol. i. p. 3. Persian expedition. Georg. Pisida de
^ i. 13. Procopius, two centuries Exp. Pers. i. 139, seqq. (Patrol. Gr.
later, says that our Lord was popularly xcii.)
believed to have promised that Edessa
Ohap. IV. A.n. 717. LEO THE ISAURIAN, 87
cautions and distinctions which divines laid down for the regulation
of it were found unavailing. Three hundred years before the time
which we have now reached, Augustine, while repelling the charge
of idolatry from the Church, had felt himself obliged to acknow-
ledge that many of its members were nevertheless " adorers of
pictures;"'^ and the superstition had grown since Augustine's day.
It became usual to fall down before images, to pray to them, to
kiss them, to burn lights and incense in their honour, to adorn them
with gems and precious metals, to lay the hand on them in swearing,
and even to employ them as sponsors at baptism.'
' The moderate views of Gregory the Great as to the use and the
abuse of images have been already mentioned.'' But although, of
the two kindred superstitions, the reverence for relics was more
characteristic of the western, and that for images of the eastern
Qmrch,™ the feeling of the West in behalf of images was now
increased, and the successors of Gregory were ready to take a
decided part in the great ecclesiastical and political movements
which arose out of the question.
Leo the Isaurian, who had risen from the class of substantial
peasantry through the military service of Justinian II., until in 717 "
he was raised by general acclamation to the empire, was a man of
great energy, and, as even his enemies the ecclesiastical writers do
not ^eny, was possessed of many noble qualities, and of talents
which were exerted with remarkable success, both in war and in
civil administration," In the beginning of his reign he was
threatened by the Arabs, whose forces besieged Constantinople
both by land and by sea ; but he destroyed their fleet by the new
invention of the " Greek fire," ^ compelled the army to retire with
numbers much diminished by privation and slaughter, and by a
succession of victories delivered his subjects from the fear of the
Arabs for many years.''
It was not until after he had secured the empire against foreign
enemies that Leo began to concern himself with the affairs of
religion. In the sixth year of his reign'" he issued an edict
ordering that Jews and Montanists should be forcibly baptised.
h See vol. i. p. 346. Finlay, ii. 17, 29.
' Basnage, 1335; Schiockh, xx. 515-6 ; ° Gibbon, iv. 410-1 ; Schlosser, 140-2 ;
Neand. v. 278 ; Schlosser, 410. Finlay, vol. ii., c. 1.
'' Page 26. To the same purpose is p As to this, see Gibbon, iv. 182-4.
part of another letter, which, however, t Nic. Cpol. .35; Theophan. 607-613 ;
labours under suspicion — ix. 52, Ad Finlay, ii. 17-22.
Secundinum. "■ Schlosser, 161. I have generally
"' Neand. v. 278. ' followed this writer as to the order and
" Theophan. 600-6; Pagi, xii. 263; dates of the proceedings under Leo.
88 LEO THE ISAURIAN. Book 111.
The Jews submitted in hypocrisy, and mocked at the rites which
they had undergone.^ The Montanists, with the old fanaticism of
the sect whose name they bore/ appointed a day on which, by
general concert, they shut themselves up in their meeting-houses,
set fire to the buildings, and perished in the flames.
From these measures it is evident that Leo seriously mis-
conceived the position of the temporal power in matters of religion,
as well as the means which might rightly be used for the advance-
ment of religious truth. In the following year, after a
consultation with his officers, he made his first attempt
against the superstitious use of images."^ The motives of this
proceeding are matter of conjecture."^ It is said that he was
influenced by Constantino, bishop of Nacolia, and by a counsellor
named Bezer, who had for a time been in the service of the caliph,
and is described as an apostate from the faith.^ Perhaps these
persons may have represented to him the difficulties which this
superstition opposed to the conversion of Jews and Mahometans,
who regarded it as heathen and idolatrous ; ''- they may, too, have
set before him the risk of persecution which it must necessarily
bring on the Christian subjects of the caliphs.^ Leo had seen that
towns which relied on their miraculous images had fallen a prey
to the arms of the Saracens, and that even the tutelar image of
Edessa had been carried off by these enemies of the cross.^ And
when, by whatsoever means, a question on the subject had been
suggested, the inconsistency of the popular usages with the letter
of Holy Scripture was likely to strike forcibly a direct and un-
tutored mind like that of the emperor."" But in truth it would
seem — and more especially if we compare Leo's measures against
images with those against Judaism and Montanism — that his object
^ See Schrockh, xix. 316. Manicbseans, p. 42, ed. Ruder.
' Whether they were the same sect " Schlosser, 106. The chronology is
■with the Montanists of earlier history, doubtful. See Hefele, iii. 345, who
is a question. Dean Milman supposes questions the statements as to a con-
them to have been probably Manichte- sulfation. 346.
ans (ii. 96). Baronius also thinks that = See Walch, x. 204 ; Gfrorer, ii.
they may have been Manichaeans, and 102.
supposes that they were called Mon- i Theophan. 617-8.
tanists (JAovravovs, Theophan. 617), '^ Walch, x. 216-8; Schlosser, 161.
from having been driven to take refuge See Hefele, iii. 343.
among the mountains (722. 1). But see ^ Spanheim, ' Historia Imaginum Re-
Pagi's note to the contrary. The sect stituta ' (Miscellanea Sacrse Antiquitatis,
may have been identical with the early vol. i. Lugd. Bat. 1703), p. 729.
Montanists, although its doctrines may "^ Gibbon, iv. 467. It is said to have
have undergone much change in the been bought from the Saracens, and
course of five centuries and a half Peter transferred to Constantinople, by the
of Sicily, in the ninth century, however, emperor Romanus Lecapenus. Cedren.
mentions the Montanists as distinct from 178. " Giesel. II. i. 2.
Chap. W. a.i>. 723-6. IMAGES FORBIDDEN. 89
was as much to establish an ecclesiastical autocracy as to purify
the practice of the Church.'^
The earlier controversies had shown that the multitude could be
violently agitated by subtle questions of doctrine which might have
been supposed unlikely to excite their interest. But here the
matter in dispute was of a more palpable kind. The movement
did not originate with a speculative theologian, but with an
emperor, acting on his own will, without being urged by any party,
or by any popular cry. An attack was made on material and
external objects of reverence, on practices which were bound up
with their daily familiar religion, and by means of which the
sincere, although unenlightened, piety of the age was accustomed
to find its expression. It merely proposed to abolish, without pro-
viding any substitute, without directing the mind to any better and
more spiritual worship ; and at once the people, who had already
been discontented by some measures of taxation, rose in vehement
and alarming commotion against it. The controversy which had
occupied the Church for a century was now forgotten ; Monothelites
were absorbed among the orthodox when both parties were thrown
together by an assault on the objects of their common veneration.^
Leo would seem not to have anticipated such an excitement.
He attempted to allay it by an explanation of the edict which had
been issued. It was not, he said, his intention to do away with
images, but to guard against the abuse of them, and to protect
them fi-om profanation, by removing them to such a ^ ^
height that they could not be touched or kissed.* But
the general discontent was not to be so easily pacified, and events
soon occurred which added to its intensity. A Saracen army,
which had advanced as far as Niciea, was believed to be beaten off
by the guardian images of the city.° A volcanic island was thrown
up in the ^Egean, and the air was darkened with ashes — prodigies
which, while the emperor saw in them a declaration of heaven
against the idolatry of his subjects, the monks, who had possession
of the popular mind, interpreted as omens of wrath against his
impious proceedings.^ The monkish influence was especially
strong among the islanders of the Archipelago. These rose in
behalf of images ; they set up one Cosmas as a pretender to the
d Finlay, ii. 10. 67. cultu Imaginum,' Francof. 1608, p. 16.
<= Baron. 722.3; Walch, x. 73; Baron. 726. 1-5 ; Schlosser, 167. Walch
Schrockh, xx. 513 ; Neand. v. 273, 306 ; (x. 225-6) and Hefele (iii. 347) question
Uollinger, i. 348 ; Giesel. II. i. 5-6 ; this.
Milman, ii. 87-9. *-' Theophan. 624.
f Goldast. ' Imporialia Decreta do '■ Nic. Cpol. 37.
90 GERMANUS — "THE SURETY." Book III.
throne, and an armed multitude, in an ill-equipped fleet, appeared
before Constantinople. But the Greek fire discomfited the dis-
orderly assailants ; their leaders were taken and put to death ; *
and Leo, provoked by the resistance which his edict had met with,
issued a second and more stringent decree, ordering that all images
should be destroyed, and that the place of such as were painted on
the walls of churches should be covered with whitewash.''
The emperor, relying on the pliability which had been shown on
some former occasions by Germanus, patriarch of Constantinople,™
had made repeated attempts to draw him into the measures against
images." But Germanus, who was now ninety-five years of age,
was not to be shaken. He reminded Leo of the oath which he
had taken at his coronation, to make no innovations in religion.
It is said that in a private interview he professed a conviction that
images were to be abolished, " but," he added, " not in your
reign." " In whose reign, then ? " asked Leo. " In that of an
emperor named Conon, who will be the forerunner of Antichrist."
" Conon," said the emperor, " is my own baptismal name." ° Ger-
manus argued that images were meant to represent, not the Trinity,
but the Incarnation ; that, since the Saviour's appearance in human
form, the Old Testament prohibitions were no longer applicable ;
that the Church had not condemned the use of images in any
general council : and he referred to the Edessan impression of our
Lord's countenance, and to the pictures painted by St. Luke. " If
I am a Jonas," he said, " throw me into the sea. Without a general
council, I can make no innovation on the faith." He
refused to subscribe the new edict, and resigned his see,
to which his secretary Anastasius was appointed.^
A serious disturbance soon after took place on the removal of a
noted statue of the Saviour, which stood over the " Brazen Gate "
of the imperial palace, and was known by the name of
A-D- 730. ^^ ^^^ Surety." '' This figure was the subject of many
marvellous legends, and was held in great veneration by the people.
■' Theophan. 624; Schlosser, 170-1. of the promise to Conon that he should
Mr. Finlay thinks that this insurrec- be emperor, Fiulay, ii. 29-32.
tion was provoked by heavy taxation, i' ISic. Cpol. 38; Vita Steph. jiin.
and that the question of images was in Patrol. Gr. c. 1085 ; Theophan.
added to the grievance, ii. 43. 626-9 ; Baron. 726. G ; Pagi, xii. 387-8 ;
'' Gibbon, iv. 468. See Walch, x. Walch, x. 172, 182, 240; Schlosser,
22.5-6. ■ 175-6.
m Giesel. II. i. 3. "^ ' Pi.vTi(poivr\Ty\s. This name was de-
" See the letters of Germanus, Hard, rived from a tale of its having miracu-
iv. 240-261. lously become security for a pious sailor
o Theophan. 626-7. Against this story who had occasion to borrow money,
see Basnage, ii. 1345. For the legena Hefele, iii. 348.
Chap. IV. a.d. 726-730. JOHN OF DAMASCUS. 91
When, therefore, a soldier was commissioned to take it down,
crowds of women rushed to the place, and clamorously entreated
him to spare it. He mounted a ladder, however, and struck his
axe into the face ; whereupon the women dragged down the ladder,
the soldier was either killed by the fall or by their hands, and his
body was torn in pieces.'' They were now excited to frenzy, and,
having been joined by a mob of the other sex, rushed to the new
patriarch's house with the intention of murdering him. Anastasius
took refuge in the palace, and the emperor sent out his guards,
who suppressed the commotion, but not without considerable
bloodshed.^ " The Surety " was taken down, and its place was
filled with an inscription, in which the emperor gave vent to his
enmity against images.*
This incident was followed by some proceedings against the
popular party. Many were scourged, mutilated, or banished ; and
the persecution fell most heavily on the monks, who were especially
obnoxious to the emperor, both as leaders in the resistance to his
measures, and because the images were for the most part of their
manufacture. Leo is charged with having rid himself of his con-
troversial opponents by shutting up schools for general education
which had existed since the time of the first Christian emperor,"
and even by burning a splendid library, with the whole college of
professors who were attached to it.'^
But beyond the emperor's dominions the cause of images found
a formidable champion in John of Damascus, the most celebrated
theologian of his time.^ John, according to his legendary bio-
grapher, a patriarch of Jerusalem who lived two centuries later,
•■ Gregor. II. ap. Hard. iv. 11. rdraToi. &vSp€s) is suspicious. Basnage
^ Theophan. 622-3. See the various (1346) says that the library was really
accounts in Walch, x. 178-180. The destroyed by an accidental fire, which
women who perished on this occasion he places under Basiliscus, and Mr.,
were afterwards canonised. Schlosser, Finlay under Leo (ii. 52). Walch re-
178-9. gards the story as fabulous (as does also
' Theod. Studita, p. 136. Georgius Hefele, iii. 346), but thinks that the
Hamartolus tells us that the emperor schools may have been suspended for a
wrote on an image of Christ, " O, time by Leo (x. 184, 231-4J. Schlosser
Saviour, save thyself and us!" and however, upholds it. 163-4.
threw it into the sea, which rebuked y Baron. 727, 18-20. John was author
his impiety by conveying the image to of the earliest work of systematic theo-
Rome. cxlviii. 15. logy, 'A Correct Exposition of the
» Theophan. 623. _ Orthodox Faith.' {"EKdoais uKpifi^s tTjs
^ G. Hamart. cxlviii. 13; Cedren. 6p0o56^ov Triarews.) This was long the
454. Spanheim, who defends the icono- standard authority in the Greek church,
clasts against all accusations, asserts In the west, it became known from the
that this is a fiction of the 11th century. I2th century by a Latin translation
Hamartolus, who was unknown to and John is considered as the ancestor
Spanheim, shows that it was current in of the schoolmen. Schrockh, xx. 230-
the 9th century; but his manner of -327; Hagenbach, i. 390-1 ; Gfrorer ii.
introducing the story (<|)oo-l Se rives tckt- 107 ; Giesel. vi. 438. '
92 . JOHN OF DAMASCUS— Book III.
was a civil officer, high in the service of the caliph of Damascus,
when his writings against the emperor's measures provoked Leo to
attempt his destruction.'' A letter was counterfeited in imitation
of his handwriting, containing an offer to betray Damascus to the
Greeks, and this (which was represented as one of many such
letters) Leo enclosed to the caliph, with expressions of abhorrence
against the pretended writer's treachery. The caliph, without
listening to John's" disavowals of the charge, or to his entreaties
for a delay of judgment, ordered his right hand to be cut off; and
it was exposed in the market-place until evening, when John
requested that it might be given to him, in order that by burying it
he might relieve the intolerable pain which he suffered while it hung
in the air. On recovering it, he prostrated himself before an image
of the Virgin Mother, prayed tlrnt, as he had lost his hand for the
defence of images, she would restore it, and vowed thenceforth to
devote it to her service. He then lay down to sleep ; the " Theo-
tokos" appeared to him in a vision, and in the morning the hand
was found to be reunited to his arm. The caliph, convinced of
John's innocence by this miracle, requested him to remain in his
service ; but John betook himself to the monastery of St. Sabbas,
near Jerusalem, where the monks, alarmed at the neophyte's great
reputation, were perplexed how to treat him, and subjected him to
a variety of degrading, and even disgusting, trials. But his spirit
of obedience triumphed over all ; he was admitted into the
monastery, and was afterwards advanced to the order of presbyter.
Of the three Orations in which John of Damascus asserted the
cause of images, two were written before, and the third after, the
forced resignation of Germanus.'' He argues that images were
forbidden to the Jews lest they should fall into the error of their
heathen neighbours, or should attempt to represent the invisible
•Godhead ; but that, since the Incarnation, these reasons no longer
exist, and we must not be in bondage to the mere letter of Scrip-
ture.^ True it is that Scripture does not prescribe the veneration
of images ; but neither can we read there of the Trinity, or of the
Coessentiality, as distinctly set forth ; and images stand on the
same ground with these doctrines, which have been gathered by
the fathers from the Scriptures. Holy Scripture countenances
images by the directions for the making of the Cherubim, and also
by our Lord's words as to the tribute -money. As that which bears
' Vita Joh. Damascen. 15-20, in his nage, 1279 ; Spanheim, i. 740.
works, ed. Le Quien, Paris. 1712, t. i. •'' Walch, x. 17«.
pp. x.-xiii. Against this tale, see Bas- '' Orat. i. 7, 8, l(i ; ii. 7, 8.
Chap. IV. a.d. 729-30.
HIS ORATIONS. 93
Caesar's image is Caesar's, and is to be rendered, to him ; so, too,
that which bears Christ's image is to be rendered to Christ, foras-
much as it is Christ's.<= That images are material, is no good
reason for refusing to reverence them; for the holy places are
material, the ink and the parchment of the Gospels are material,
the eucharistic table, its vessels and its ornaments,— nay, the very
body and blood of the Saviour,— ^are material.'^ " I do not," says
John, " adore the matter, but the Author of matter, who for my
sake became material, that by matter He might work out my
salvation." ^ Images, he continues, are for the unlearned what
books are for those who can read ; they are to the sight what
speech is to the ears.^ He distinguishes between that sort of
worship which is to be reserved for God alone,^ and that which
for His sake is given to His angels and saints or to consecrated
things.'' He rejects the idea that, if the images of the Saviour
and of the Blessed Virgin are to be allowed, those of the saints
should be abolished ; if (he holds) the festivals of the saints are
kept, if churches are dedicated in their honour, so, too, ought
their imao-es to be reverenced.' • He adduces a host of authorities
from the fathers, with much the same felicity as his quotations
from Scripture,"" while the story of Epiphanius and the painted
curtain,"' which had been alleged by the iconoclasts, is set aside
on the ground that the letter which contains it might be a forgery,
or that Epiphanius might have intended to guard against some
unrecorded local abuse ; that the Cypriot bishop's own church still
used images, and that, in any case, the act of an individual does
not bind the whole church.'' He denies that the emperor has any
authority to legislate in ecclesiastical affairs: — "The well-being
of the state," he says, " pertains to princes, but the ordering of the
church to pastors and teachers ;" and he threatens Leo with scrip-
tural examples of judgment against those who invaded the rights
of the church.*^
In Italy, the measures of Leo produced a great agitation. The
allegiance of that country had long been gradually weakening.
The exarchs were known to the people only as taxgatherers who
drained them of their money, and sent it off to Constantinople ; for
defence against the Lombards or other enemies, the Italian sub-
<^ lb. i. 20; ii. 20, 21 ; iii. 11. ^ lb. i. 27 seqq.; ii. 23 ; iii. 39. See
(1 lb. ii. 14 ; cf. i. 15. Dupin, vi. 102 ; Schrockh, xx. 547-8.
Mb. i. 16. ' f lb. i. 17. «> ggg vol. i. p. 346.
s Aarpeia, service. " Orat. i. 26. In ii. 18, he says abso-
h Orat. i. 14; iii. 16-39. lutely that the letter is forged.
' lb. i. 19, 21; ii. 11, 15. " lb. ii. 12.
94 AGITATION IN ITALY. Book HI.
jects of the empire were obliged to rely on themselves, without any
expectation of effective help from the emperor or his lieutenant.^
The pope was the virtual head of the Italians ; and the connexion
which the first Gregory and his successors had laboured to establish
with the Frankish princes, as a means of strengthening themselves
against the empire, had lately been rendered more intimate by the
agency of the great missionary Boniface.^ But the ancient and
still undiminished hatred with which the Romans regarded their
neighbours the Lombards weighed against the motives which
might have disposed the popes to take an opportunity of breaking
with the empire ; and Gregory II., although he violently opposed
Leo on the question of images, yet acted in some sort the part of a
mediator between him and his Italian subjects.'"
Gregory, on receiving the edicts against images, rejected them.
The people of Ravenna expelled the exarch, who sought a refuge
A.D. 726- ^t Pavia. Liutprand, king of the Lombards, eagerly
■^•^o. took advantage of the disturbances to pour his troops
into the imperial territory, and, sometimes in hostility to the
exarch, sometimes in combination with him against the pope,
endeavoured to profit by the dissensions of his neighbours. The
exarch was killed in the course of the commotions. The pope,
hoping for the conversion of Leo (as it is said by writers in the
Roman interest®), restrained the Italians from setting up a rival
emperor; and, when Liutprand, in alliance with a new exarch,
appeared before the walls of Rome, he went out to him, and pre-
vailed on the Lombard king to give up his design against the city.
Thus far, therefore, it would appear that the Emperor was chiefly
indebted to Gregory for the preservation of his Italian dominions.*
But the relations between these potentates were of no friendly
kind. It is said that repeated attempts were made by Leo's order
to assassinate Gregory ; perhaps the foundation of the story may
have been that, as the pope himself states, there was an intention
of carrying him off to the east, as Martin had been carried off in
the preceding century." On the resignation of Germanus, Gregory
refused to acknowledge his successor,^ and wrote to Leo in a style
p Schrockh, xix. 518 ; MilmaB, ii. account (^ii. 204-7) is the clearest. See
143. also Baron. 726. 25, seqq. ; Walch, x.
1 Schrockh, xix. 519-20. See the 248-255,280; Schrockh, xix. 52, seqq. ;
next chapter. Schlosser, lfi7-9; Giesel. II. i. 32-3;
"■ Schlosser, 172-4. = Auastas. 156. Hefele, iii. 352, seqq.
' lb. 157; P. Waniefr. de Gestis " Greg. II. ap. Hai'd. iv. 11 ; Anastas.
Langob. vi. 49. The history of these 156-7; Walch, x. 283-5; Schrockh,
movements is very intricate, and is full xix. 521 ; xx. 548.
of matter for dispute. Dean Milman's " Schlosser, 1 77.
CHAP. IV. A.D. 726-730. GREGORY II. 95
of vehement defiance/ He urges the usual arguments in behalf
of images, and reproaches the emperor with his breach of the most
solemn engagements. " We must," he says, " write to you grossly
and rudely, forasmuch as you are illiterate and gross Go
into our elementary schools, and say, ' I am the overthrower and
persecutor of images ;' and forthwith the children will cast their
tablets at you, and you will be taught by the unwise that which
you refuse to learn from the wise." Leo, he says, had boasted of
being like Uzziah ; ^ that, as the Jewish king destroyed the brazen
serpent after it had existed 800 years, so he himself had cast out
images after a like time ; and the pope, without raising any ques-
tion either as to Jewish or Christian history, makes him welcome
to the supposed parallel. It would, he says, be less evil to be
called a heretic than an iconoclast ; for the infamy of the heretic
is known to few, and few understand his offence ; but here the
guilt is palpable and open as day. Leo had proposed a council,
as a means of settling the question ; but he is told that the proposal
is idle, inasmuch as, if a council were gathered, he is unfit to take
the part of a religious emperor in it. To say, as he had said, " I
am emperor and priest," might become one who had protected and
endowed the church, but not one who had plundered it, and had
drawn people away from the pious contemplation of images to
frivolous amusements ; emperors are for secular matters, priests
for spiritual. The pope mocks at the threat of carrying him off to
Constantinople ; he has but to withdraw twenty-four furlongs from
the walls of Rome into Campania, and his enemies would have to
pursue the winds. Why, it had been asked, had the six general
councils said nothing of images ? As well, replies Gregory, might
you ask why they said nothing of common food and drink ; images
are matters of traditional and unquestioned use ; the bishops who
attended the councils carried images with them. The emperor is
exhorted to repent and is threatened with judgments ; he is charged
to take warning from the fate of the Monothelite Constans, and
from the glory of that prince's victims, the martyrs Maximus and
Martin.
The sequel of Gregory's proceedings is matter of controversy.
y His two letters (Hard. iv. 1-18) Hefele, however, is inclined to agree
were first published by Baronius (xii. with Baronius as to the earlier of the
346-359), but were wrongly referred by letters (iii. 370-2). Their genuineness
him to the year 726, whereas they were has been questioned, but is generally
really written about 729, according to allowed. Walch, x. 174; Schrockh,
Muratori (IV. i. 343) and JafiFe', or xx. 535-6.
within the last four months of 730, '' The mistake will be readily seen,
according to Pagi. (xii. 345, 390.)
96 GREGORY in. Book Iir.
Extreme Romanists and their extreme opponents agree in stating
that the pope excommunicated the emperor, withdrew his Italian
subjects from their allegiance, and forbade the payment of tribute —
by the rightful exercise of apostolical authority, according to one
party ; by an anti-Christian usurpation according to the other."
But more temperate inquirers have shown that these representa-
tions are incorrect. The popes of that a^e made no pretension to
the rig-lit of dethroning princes or absolving subjects from their
allegiance ; Gregory, in his second letter, while he denies that the
emperor is entitled to inteifere with the Church, expressly disclaims
the power of interfering with the sovereign. The story as to
the withdrawal of tribute seems to have grown out of the fact of a
popular resistance to an impolitic increase of taxation.*' Although
Gregory condemned iconoclasm, it appears that he did not pro-
nounce any excommunication against the emperor ; and, even if he
excommunicated him, the sentence w^ould have been unheeded by
the Church of Constantinople. The utmost that can be established,
therefore, appears to be, that, by raising a cry agauist Leo as a
heretic and a persecutor, he rendered him odious to his Italian^
subjects, and so paved the way for that separation from the empire
which followed within half a century.*^
In the following year Gregory II, was succeeded by a third
pope of the same name, for whom it was still held necessary that,
before his consecration, the election should be confirmed
by the exarch.*^ Gregory III., a Syrian by birth, was
zealous in the cause of images, and laboured to increase the
popular veneration of them. He remonstrated with Leo against
his iconoclastic proceedings, and held a council of ninety-
eight bishops, which anathematised all the enemies of
images, but without mentioning the emperor by name.*" Leo,
indignant at the pope's audacity, imprisoned his envoys, and
resolved to send a fleet to reduce Italy into better subjection.
a Baronius says that the pope, after (who, however, questions whether there
long forbearance, found that it was time were any neiu tax) ; Milman, ii. 150 ;
to lay the axe to the root of the tree, Hefele, iii. 358.
and to say, " Cut it down ;" thus giving "^ See Nat. Alex. xi. 169-174; De
bis successors an example not to~ suffer Marca. III. xi. 3 ; Muratori, Ann. IV. i.
obstinately heretical princes to reign 34-i ; Pagi, xii. 390 ; Walch, x. 263-275,
(730.5). See also Bellarmine, De Rom. 280-2; Giannone, i. 405-7 ; Gibbon, iv.
Pontif. V. 8 ; and, on the extreme pro- 473-4 ; Schrockh, xix. 522-7 ; xx. 531 ;
testant side, the Magdeburg Centuries, note in Mosheim, ii. 164; Milman, ii.
Cent. VIII., pp. 380, 518 (ed. Basil. 147-9 ; Hefele, iii. 358-9.
1624); or Spanheim, 732-4. Thefoun- <* Pagi in Patrol. Ixxxix. 559; Mil-
dation of this account comes from the man, ii. 150.
Greek writers, as Theophanes (621-9), ' Anastas. 158; Walch, x. 175;
G. Hamartolus, cxlviii. 18. Schrockli, xx. 548.
'' Pagi, xii. -390 ; Walch, x. 249
Chap. IV. A.Ty.l33-Ui. CONSTANTINE COPRONYMUS. 97
But the fleet was disabled by storms, and the emperor was obliged
to content himself with confiscating the jDapal revenues
(or " patrimony") in Sicily, Calabria, and other parts of
his dominions, and transferring Greece and Illyricum from the
Roman patriarclyite to that of Constantinople/
Gregory III. was succeeded in 741 by Zacharias, and Leo by
his son Constantine, whose reign extended to the unusual length
of thirty-four years. This prince (who is commonly distinguished
by the name Copronpnus, derived from his having in infancy
polluted the baptismal font)^ is charged by the ecclesiastical
writers with monstrous vices, and with the practice of magical
arts ; '^ while his apologists contend that he was remarkably chaste
and temperate.' The characteristics which are beyond all con-
troversy, are his vigour, his ability, and his cruelty." In war he
successfully defended his empire against Saracens, Bulgarians, and
other enemies, and under him its internal administration was
greatly improved."'
The Saracen war, and the discontents arising out of the question
as to images, encouraged the emperor's brother-in-law, Artavasdus,
to pretend to the throne ; it would seem, indeed, that he was
almost forced into this course by the jealousy of Constantine."
Artavasdus appealed to the popular affection for images, and
restored them in all places of which he got possession. He was
crowned by the patriarch Anastasius, who, holding the cross in his
hands, publicly swore that Constantine had avowed to him a belief
that our Lord was a mere man, born in the ordinary way."
Pope Zacharias acknowledged Artavasdus as emperor ; '' but, after'
having maintained his claim for three years, the rival of Constan-
tine was put down, and he and his adherents were punished with
great severity. Anastasius was blinded, and was exhibited in the
hippodrome, mounted on an ass, with his face towards the tail ;
yet, after this, Constantine restored him to the patriarchate, by
way, it would seem, of proclaiming his contempt for the whole
body of the clergy.^
It is said that (Constantine expressed Nestorian opinions, and a
I Hadrian I. in Patrol, xcviii. 1292 ; ^ Theojjhan. 683-5.
Pagi, xii. 731 ; Walch, x. 262 ; Schlosser, "> Gibbon, iv. 411-2 ; Schlosser, 222-4.
19(1-5 ; Giesel. II. i. 33. " Schlosser, 201. " Theophan. 639.
e Theophan. 613. This story has, p He dated by the year of Arta-
however, been questioned, and other \'asdus' reign, e. g. Ep. 6 (Patrol.
reasons have been given for the name. Ixxxix.). Schrockh, xix. 543. But
See Ducange, s. v. Cuballmus. this, says Hefele, did not imply partisan-
h Theophan. 636, 685, 694. ship. iii. 378.
' Basnage, 155C-7 ; Walch, x. 361. 'i Theophan. 647-8 ; Milman, ii. 110.
H
98 COUNCIL AT CONSTANTINOPLE. Book III.
disbelief in the intercession of the Blessed Virgin and of the saints.
But if so, the words were spoken in conferences which were in-
tended to be secret ; and it was the emperor's policy to feel his
way carefully before taking any public step in matters of religion/
On the question as to images, he wished to strengthen himself by
the authority of a general council, and summoned one to meet in
the year 754, having in the preceding year desired that, by way of
preparation, the subject should be discussed by the provincial
assemblies of bishops.*" The see of Constantinople was then vacant
by the death of Anastasius — a circumstance which may have tended
to secure the ready compliance of some who aspired to fill it."^ The
remaining three patriarchs of the East were under the Mahometan
dominion, and Stephen of Rome disregarded the imperial citation.
In the absence of all the patriarchs, therefore, the bishops of
Ephesus and Perga presided over the council, which was held in a
palace on the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus, with the exception of
the final sitting, which took place in the church of the Blachernae."
The number of bishops, although collected from the emperor's
dominions only, amounted to three hundred and thirty-eight,^ and
their decisions, after sessions which lasted from February to August,
are described as unanimous — a proof rather of the subjection in
which the episcopate was held than of any real conviction.
The assembled bishops professed to rest their judgment on the
authority of the fathers, from whose writings extracts were read.
They declared all representations made for religious purposes by
the art of painter or sculptor to be presumptuous, heathenish, and
idolatrous.^ Those who make such representations of the Saviour,
it is said, either limit the incomprehensible God to the bounds of
created flesh, or confound the natures, like Eutyches, or deny the
Godhead, like Arius, or, with Nestorius, separate it from the man-
hood so as to make two persons.^ The eucharist alone is declared
to be a proper image of the Saviour — the union of the Divine
grace with the material elements typifying that of the Godhead
with his human form." All images, therefore, are to be removed
out of churches. Bishops, priests, or deacons contravening the
■■ Theophan. 671, 678; Neand. v. 213. Its definitions are in the sixth
307. See Gfriirer, ii. 139. session of the second Council of Nicsea,
s Basnage, 13.54. Hard. iv. 325, seqq.
t This remark of Schlosser (213) "^ Hard. iv. 345.
seems more reasonable than that of y lb. 380, 415. ' lb. 360-1.
Spaiihcini (754), — that, if Coiistantiiie " lb. 3G8-9. The inconsistency of
had wished to influence the Council, he this with the later Roman doctrine is
would hnve filled the patriarchal throne evident, as otherwise the humanity
with a tool. would be docetic.
" Theophan. 59, ed. Paris ; Schlosser,
Chap. IV. a.d. 754. REMOVAL OF IMAGES. 99
decisions of the council, whether by invoking images, by wor-
shipping them, by setting them up, or by secretly keeping them,
are to be deposed ; monks and lay persons offending in hke
manner are to be excommunicated.'' But it was ordered that no
one should deface or meddle with sacred vessels or vestments,
under pretext of their being adorned with figures, unless by per-
mission of the emperor or of the patriarch ; and that no person in
authority should despoil churches on this account, as had already
been done in some instances." With a view, perhaps, of clearing
themselves from the aspersions which were thrown on the emperor's
faith, the bishops formally declared the lawfulness of invoking the
Blessed Virgin and the saints.'' And they pronounced anathemas
against all religious art,*^ anathematising by name some noted
defenders of images — Germanus, George of Cyprus, and John of
Damascus, whom they designated by the name of Mamour^^ loaded
with a profusion of dishonourable epithets, and denounced with a
threefold curse.^
Fortified by the decisions of the council, Constantine now
ordered that all images should be removed. For the religious
paintings on church-walls, he ordered that other subjects, such as
birds and fruits, or scenes from the chase, the theatre, and the
circus, should be substituted.'^ He required the clergy and the more
noted monks to subscribe the decrees of the synod ;' and at a
later time an oath against images was exacted from all the inha-
bitants of the empire.'' It does not appear that any of the bishops
refused to comply ; but the monks were violent and obstinate in
their resistance, and the emperor endeavoured to subdue them by
the most barbarous cruelties.™ The zeal of the monks in behalf
of images provoked him even to attempt the extirpation of
monachism by forcing them to abandon their profession." Thus
we read that a number of monks were compelled to appear in the
hippodrome at Constantinople, each holding by the hand a woman
of disreputable character, and so to stand while^ the populace
b Hard. iv. 416-7. >■ Theophan. 659. Vita Stephani
<^ lb. 420-1. junioris, iu Patrol. Gr. c. 1113. Hence
•^ lb. 429-432. the biographer of Stephen speaks of
'^ lb. 424, seqq. him as having turned a cliurch into
f It would seem that this was the oTr<Dpo<pvXa,Kiov (Psalm Ixxxviii. i. lxx.),
name of John's father, or was slightly koI opveoa-Ko-n-elov. 1120.
varied from it, and was intended to be ' Schrockh, xx. 5G1-3.
understood as meaning a bastard. See '' a.d. 7ti6. Niceph. Cpol. 47. Walch,
Theophan. 342,ed. Paris; Georg.Hamart. x. 381. Neander (v. 307) supposes that
pp. 639. 651 ; Cedren. 456 ; Ducange, it was only enforced in Constantinople.
Gloss. Med. et Inf. Grajcitatis, s. v. ™ See Theophan. 684 ; Schrockh, xx.
Mavirovp ; Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. ix. 685. 5!;4, seqq.
e Hard. iv. 437 ; Theophan. 643. " Niceph. Cpol. 46.
H 2
100 ICONOCLASTIC PERSECUTION OF MONKS. Book III.
mocked at them and spat on them." The new patriarch, Constan-
tine, whom the emperor had presented to the council in that
character on the last day of its meeting," was ohliged publicly to
forswear images, and, in violation of the monastic vows which he
had taken, to attend the banquets of the palace, to eat and drink
freely, to wear garlands, to witness the gross spectacles, and to
listen to the indecent language and music, in which the emperor
delighted. Monasteries were destroyed, converted into barracks,
or applied to other secular uses.'' The governor of the Thracian
Theme, Michael Lachanadraco,*^ especially distinguished himself
by the energy of his proceedings against the monks. He assembled
a great number of them in a plain, and told them that such of
them as were inclined to obey the emperor and himself must forth-
with put on a white dress and take wives ; while those who should
refuse were to lose their eyes and to be banished to Cyprus. Some
of them complied, but the greater part suffered the penalty. Lach-
anadraco put many monks to death ; he anointed the beards of
some with a mixture of oil and wax, and then set them on fire ; he
burnt up monasteries, sold the plate, books, cattle, and other pro-
perty which belonged to them, and remitted the price to the
emperor, who publicly thanked him for his zeal, and recommended
him as an example to other governors.*^ Relics were to some
extent involved in the fate of images, although not so much as
consistency might have seemed to require.* Lachanadraco seized
all which he found carried about the person, and punished the
wearers as impious and disobedient. The relics of St. Euphemia,
at Chalcedon, which even as early as the time of the Fourth
General Council had been famous for miraculous virtue," and
were believed to exude a fragrant balsam, were thrown into the
sea, and the place where they had been preserved was defiled.
But it is said that they were carried by the waves to Lemnos,
where visions indicated the spot in which they were to be found,
and secured their preservation until more favourable times.^
The monks, on their part, no dt)ubt did much to provoke the
emperor and his officers to additional cruelty by violent and fana-
tical behaviour. Thus, one, named Peter " the Calybite," ^' made his
" Theophan. 675-6. p lb. eSQ. have reprobated in the opposite party.
1 lb. 675, 684. ■■ lb 684-.5. ' Giesel. II. i. 5.
s lb. 688-690. Spanheira sets off the " See vol. i. p. 468.
draijoons of Louis XIV.'s time against ^ Theophan. 679.
this iconoclastic draco. Basnage, by his y From icaAvjBr], a shed or hut. It
tone in speaking of persecution carried would seem that Theophanes has con-
on by iconoclasts, shows not a little of founded two monks, Andrew and Peter,
that persecuting spirit which he would See Ilefele, iii. 390, 394.
Chai'. IV. A.D. 754-767. THE PATRIARCH CONSTANTINE. 101
way Into the presence of Constantine, and upbraided him, as a new
Valens and Julian, for persecuting Christ in his members and in
his images. For this audacity Peter was scourged in the hippo-
drome, and was afterwards strangled.^ Another famous sufferer
was Stephen, who had lived as a monk for sixty years. He boldly
defied the emperor ; he remained unshaken by banishment or
tortures, and, by way of illustrating the manner in which insults
offered to images might be supposed to affect the holy persons whom
they represent, he produced a coin stamped with the emperor's head,
threw it on the ground, and trod on it. In consequence of this act
he was imprisoned ; but the sympathy of his admirers was displayed
so warmly that Constantine was provoked to exckiim, " Am I, or
is this monk, emperor of the world ? " The words were caught
up as a hint by some courtiers, who rushed to the prison and
broke it open. Stephen was dragged through the streets, by a'
rope tied to one of his feet, until he was dead, and his body was
then torn in pieces, which were thrown into a place appropriated
to the burial of heathens and excommunicate persons, of suicides
and of criminals.''
The patriarch Constantine, after all his compliances, was
accused of having held treasonable communications with Stephen,
and of having spoken disrespectfully of the emperor ; and on these
charges he was banished to an island, while Nicetas, an eunuch of
Slavonic origin, was raised to the patriarchate in his stead. In the
second year of his banishment, Constantine was brought
back to the capital. After having been beaten until he
could not walk, he was carried into the cathedral, where the
accusations against him were read aloud, and at every count of
the indictment an imperial functionary struck him on the face.
He was, then forced to stand in the pulpit, while Nicetas pro-
noun^d his excommunication ; after which he was stripped of the
pall, the ensign of his ecclesiastical dignity, and was led backwards
out of the church. On the following day he was carried into the
hippodrome ; his hair, eyebrows, and beard were plucked out ; he
was set on an ass, with his face towards the tail, which he was
compelled to hold with both hands, and his nephew, whose nose
had been cut off, led the animal around, while the spectators
hooted at and spat on the fallen patriarch. He was then thrown
violently to the ground, his neck was trodden on, and he lay pros-
» Theophan. 363, ed. Paris ; Basnage, phan. 674 ; Baron. 754. 26, seqq., with
1356. Pagi's notes; 762. 3; 765. 6-lU ; 767.
" Nic. Cpol. 46; see the Life of 9-19; Schlosser, 228.
Stephen in Patrol. Gr. c. ; also Theo-
102 THE PATRIARCH CONSTANTINE. Book III.
trate, exposed to the jeers of the rabble, until the games of the
day were over. A few days later, some patricians were sent to
question him in prison as to the emperor's orthodoxy, and as to
the decisions of the council against images. The wretched man,
thinking to soothe his persecutor's rage, expressed approval of
everything. " This," they said, " was all that we wished to hear
further from thy impure mouth ; now begone to cursing and
darkness ! " Constantine was immediately beheaded, and his
head, after having been publicly exposed for three days, was
thrown, with his body, into the same place of ignominy where
Stephen had before been buried.^
These details have been given as a specimen of the cruelties
which are ascribed to Constantine Copronymus. To the end of
his reign he was unrelenting in his enmity against the worshippers
*of images. In the year 775, while on a military expedition, he
was seized with a burning pain in his legs, which (it is said) forced
from him frequent cries that he already felt the pains of hell. He
died at sea, on his way to Constantinople.*^
^ Theophan. G 7 7-683. "^ lb. 693-4.
Chap. V. ( 103 )
CHAPTEE V.
ST, BONIFACE.
A.D. 716-755.
Among the missionary enterprises of the Anglo-Saxons had been
some attempts to convert the nations of Northern Germany.
Suidbert, one of the original companions of Willibrord, was con-
secrated in England during his master's first visit to Rome, and
v^rent forth to preach to the Boructuarians, who occupied a territory
between the Ems and the Yssel ; but the disorders of the country
obliged him to withdraw from it, and he afterwards laboured
on the Lower Rhine."" Two brothers, named Hewald, and dis-
tino-uished from each other by the epithets White and Black, are
also celebrated as having penetrated into the country of the Old
Saxons, and having there ended their lives by martyrdom.'' But
no great or lasting missionary success had been achieved to the
east of the Rhine in the lower part of its course until the time of
Boniface.'^
This missionary, whose original name was Winfrid,*^ was born
at Crediton, in Devonshire, of a noble and wealthy family, about
the year GSO.*" It was intended that he should follow a secular
career ; but the boy was early influenced by the discourse of some
monks who visited his father's house, and at the age of seven he
entered a monastery at Exeter, from which he afterwards removed
to that of Nutscelle (Nutshalling or Nursling) in Hampshire.*^
Here he became famous for his ability as a preacher and as an
expositor of Scripture.^ He was employed in important ecclesias-
tical business, and had the prospect of rising to eminence in
* Beda, v. 1 1 ; Vita Suidberti, ap. pope at his consecration. But it occurs
Leibnitz, Scriptores Eerum Brunsvic. ii. earlier, and was probably assumed when
222, seqq. ; Rettberg, ii. 395, 423, 525. he became a monk. Luden, v. 454 ;
>> Beda,v. 10. The details of the story Lingard, A. S. C. ii. 338; Rettb. i.
are legendary. See Rettb. ii. 397-9. 334-5.
■: Giesel. I. ii. 507 ; Rettb. i. 309. <= Not later than G83. See Rettb. i.
The chief authorities as to St. Boniface 330.
are his own correspondence, and the f Willib. 1-2 ; Kemble, ii. 452. The
lives by his disciple Willibald, and by disappearance of Nutscelle from the list
"Dthlon, a monk of Ratisbon, in the of English monasteries is traced to the
latter part of the eleventh century ; all ravages of the Danes. M'Cabe's Catho-
printed in the Patrologia, vol. Ixxxix. lie History of England, i. 616.
d The name of Boniface is generally « Willib. 2-3.
said to have been given to him by the
10-4 BONIFACE. BooKm.
the church of his own country ; but he was seized with an earnest
desire to labour for the extension of the Gospel, and, with two
companions, he crossed the sea to Frisia, in the year 716.^ The
state of things in that country was unfavourable for his design.
Charles Martel, the son of Pipin of Heristal by a concubine, had
possessed himself of the mayoralty of the palace in Austrasia, and
was now engaged in war with Radbod of Frisia, who had made an
alliance with Ragenfrid, the mayor of the Neustrian palace.' The
pagan prince had destroyed many churches and monasteries, and,
although he admitted Boniface to an interview, he refused him
permission to preach in his dominions.'' Boniface therefore returned
to Nutscelle, where the monks, on the occurrence of a vacancy
in the headship of their house, were desirous to elect him abbot.
But his missionary zeal induced him to withstand their impor-
tunities ; by the assistance of his bishop, Daniel of Winchester,
he secured the appointment of another abbot, and in the spring
of 717 he set out for Rome.™ A letter from Daniel procured him
a kind reception from Gregory IL, who held many conferences
with him during the following winter ; and in 718 Boniface left
Rome, carrying with him a large supply of relics, with a letter "
in which the pope authorised him to preach to the heathens of
Germany wherever he might find an opportunity. After having
surveyed Bavaria and Thuringia, he was induced by tidings of
Radbod's death to go again into Frisia, where for three
years he laboured under Willibrord. The aged bishop
wished to appoint him his successor; but Boniface declined the
honour, on the ground that, as he was not yet fifty years old, he
was unfit for so high an office, and that he must betake himself to
the sphere for which the pope had especially appointed him.° He
therefore took leave of WilUbrord, and passed into Hessia.
Two local chiefs, Detdic and Dierolf, who, although pro-
fessing Christianity, were worshippers of idols, granted him leave
to establish himself at Amanaburg, on the Ohm (A7nana^), where
in a short time he reclaimed them from their heathenish practices,
and baptised many thousands of Hessians. On receiving a report
of this success, Gregory summoned Boniface to Rome, and, after
having exacted a formal profession of faith, ordained him as a
h Willib. 4 ; Pagi, xii. 272. with this occasion a passage in the let-
' Willib. 4 ; Pagi, xii. 250, 266 ; Sis- ter of Bugga to Roniface (Ep. 3), and
mondi, ii. 112. supposes that Boniface acted on an inti-
^ Willib. 4. ™ lb. 5, niation received in a dream. But the
" Greg. II. Ep. i. Patrol. Ixxxix. connexion seems questionable.
" Willib. 6. Neandcr (v. 04) couueets >" Willib. 7. See liettb, i. 339-340.
Chap. V. a.p. 716-724. CONSECRATION AT ROME.
105
regionary bishop,'^ at the same time binding him to the papal
see by an oath, which was a novelty as imposed on a Nov. 30,
missionary, although, with some necessary changes, it was '^^^•
the same which had long been required of bishops within the proper
patriarchate of Kome.'' Standing at the tomb of St. Peter, to
whom the oath was addressed, Boniface solemnly pledged himself
to obey the apostle, and the pope as his vicar ; in no wise to consent
to anything against the unity of the Catholic Church ; in all things
to keep his faith to the apostle, and to the interests of the Eoman
see ; to have no communion or fellowship with bishops who might
act contrary to the institutions of the holy fathers ; but to check
such persons, if possible, or otherwise to report them faithfully to
his lord the pope.*
The bishop received from the pope a code of regulations for
the government of his church* (probably the collection of Diony-
sius Exiguus) ; and, having learnt by experience the importance of
securing the countenance of princes for missionary undertakings,
he carried with him a letter from Gregory to Charles Martel, who,
under the name of the effete descendants of Clovis, was the virtual
sovereign of their kingdom." He was also furnished by the pope
with letters to the nations among which his labours were to be
employed." Charles Martel received the missionary coldly ; such
enterprises as that of Boniface had no interest for the rude warrior,y
nor were the clergy of his court likely to bespeak his favour for
one whose life and thoughts widely differed from their own. Bo-
niface, however, obtained from Charles the permission which he
1 WilHb. 7; Othlon, i. 13-4. made far too much of a passage in
■■ See the ' Liber Diuruus,' iii. 8 (Pa- Othlon, where it is said that Koniface,
trol. cv.) ; De Marca, vii. 6 ; Schrockh, in applying to Carloman for support,
xix. 173-6 ; Neand. v. 66 ; Giesel. II. " poposcit ut Christianae religiouis cul-
i. 22. turam, quam pater ejus in promptissimo
" Patrol. Ixxxix. 803. animo coepit et excoluit, ipse quoque pro
' Willib. 7. Dei anioi'e, suique regni stabilitate . . ,
" Greg. Ep. 2. To the ordinary ac- eodem animo excoleret " (Othl. i. 33 ;
counts of the "do-nothing" Mero'viu- Perry, 284). The occasion on which
giau kings {e.i/. that given by Einhard, such words are said to have been used
Vita Caroli, 1.), Theophanes (619) and will warrant us in deducting largely
Cedrenus (453) add the Byzantine idea from their apparent meaning. Ou the
as to their long hair — that it grew along other hand, M. Michelet (ii. 11) ques-
tlieir backs, as in hogs ! Gregory of tions whether Charles was a Christian
Tours speaks of their " whips of hair " at all — but on no better grounds than
{jlagdla crinimn), vi. 24 ; viii. 10. that the epithet Martel reminds the his-
^ Greg. Epp. 3-7. torian of the ham/acr ascribed to Thor !
y I leave this as it stood before the Against this, see Martin, ii. 206. The
publication of Dr. Perry's work, in name does not appear in any writer
which the religion of Charles Martel is before the eleventh century. lb. ; Lu-
more favourably represented. In parti- den, iv. 469.
• cular, it seems to me that Dr. Perry has
106 BONIFACE IN Book III.
desired to preach beyond the Rhine, with a letter of protection/
which proved to be very valuable.''
In Hessia and Thuringia, the countries to which he now re-
paired, Christianity had already been long preached, but by isolated
teachers, and without any regular system.'^ The belief and the
practice of the converts were still largely mixed with paganism ;
Boniface even speaks of presbyters who offered sacrifices to the
heathen gods.*^ The preachers had for the most part proceeded
from the Irish Church, in which diocesan episcopacy was as yet
unknown, and the jurisdiction was separate from the order of a
bishop ; they had brought with them its peculiar ideas as to the
limitation of the episcopal rights ; '' they were unrestrained by any
discipline or by any regard for unity ; they owned no subjection to
Rome, and were vuider no episcopal authority. "^ Boniface often
complains of these preachers as "fornicators and adulterers " '^ —
words which may in some cases imply a charge of real immorality,
but which in general clearly mean nothing more than that the
Irish missionaries held the doctrine of their native church as to
the lawfulness of marriage for the clergy.^ He speaks, too, of
some who imposed on the people by pretensions to extraordinary
asceticism — feeding on milk and honey only, and rejecting even
bread.'' With these rival teachers he was involved in serious and
lasting contentions.
Among the collection of Boniface's correspondence is a letter
from his old patron, Daniel of Winchester,* containing advice for
^ Ep. 11. cause some of them have often been
" Ep. 12, c. 702 ; Rettb, i. 343. proved to be MauichEcaus, aud others to
t" Willib. 8 ; Eettb. i. 346-7 ; ii. 310. be rebaptised {i.e. Donatists). Neander
c His report of this is known from a (v. 62), Kettberg (i. 312), and others,
letter of Pope Zacharias to him. Zach. suppose this to have been carelessly
Ep. 11 (Patrol. Ixxxix. c. 44). Rett- copied by a scribe from a form of older
berg thinks that these were not. Chris- date, since it occurs almost in the same
tians who had fallen into idolatry, but words in an epistle of Gregory the
heathens who, without renouncing their Great (ii. 37), and in a form ascribed to
own religion, had taken up some Chris- Gelasius I. (Patrol, lix. 137 ; Lib. Diurn.
tian forms, (ii. 579.) See Schmidt, iii. 9, ib. cv.) Ozanam, however, thinks
i. 408. that the prohibition was applicable to
** See p. 66. the circumstances of Germany in the
^ Willib. 8; Eettb. i. 317. time of Boniface, and that the ascetic
f L\ g. Epp. 12, 27,49; Ep. Zach. 11. pretenders of whom Boniface complains
col. 944. were Manichscaus. (Civil. Chret. 192.)
s Schrockh, xix. 185 ; Theiner, i. 409, But he does not explain how the African
414 ; Ivettb. i. 320-3. church of the eighth century could have
^ Ep. 12. col. 701 ; Rettb. i. 313. In sent forth such persons, how it is that
the letter by which Gregory II. recom- Donatists are also mentioned in that
mended Boniface to the people aud age, or how it is that the same words
clergy of Germany (Greg. II. Ep. 4), are found in Gregory the Great and in
it is said that he is not to acknowledge the older Roman formularies.
Africans pretending to Jioly orders, be- ' Ep. 14.
Chap. V. a.d. 724-783. HESSIA AND THURINGIA.
107
the conduct of his missionary work. The bishop tells him that,
in discussions with the heathen, he ought not to question the
genealogies of their gods, but to argue from them that beings
propagated after the fashion of mankind must be not gods but
men. The argument is to be urged by tracing back the genea-
logies to the beginning ; by asking such questions as — " When was
the first god generated ? To which sex did this god belong ? Has
the generation of gods come to an end ? If it has ceased, why ?
Is the world older than the gods ? If so, who governed it before
they existed ?" The missionary must argue mildly, and must avoid
all appearance of insult or offence. He must contrast the truth of
Christianity with the absurdities of the pagan mythology. He
must ask how it is that the gods allow Christians to possess the
fairest places of the earth, while their own votaries are confined to
cold and barren tracts ; he is to dwell on the growth of the Chris-
tian church from nothing to the predominance which it has already
attained.
It would seem, however, that Boniface rarely had occasion to
enter into arguments of this sort, but was obliged to rely on
others of a more palpable kind."^ He found that an oak near
Geismar, sacred to the thunder-god Donar,™ was held in great
reverence by the Hessians, and that the impression which his
words made on the people was checked by their attachment to
this object of ancestral veneration. He therefore, at the sug-
gestion of some converts, resolved to cut down the tree. A multi-
tude of pagans assembled and stood around, uttering fierce curses,
and expecting the vengeance of the gods to show itself on the mis-
sionary and his companions. But when Boniface had hardly begun
his operations, a violent gust of wind shook the branches, and the
oak fell to the ground, broken into four equal pieces. The pagans
at once renounced their gods, and with the wood of the tree Boni-
face built a chapel in honour of St. Peter."
After this triumph his preaching made rapid progress. He
founded churches and monasteries, and was reinforced by many
monks and nuns from his native church, who assisted him in the
labours of conversion and Christian education." Gregory HI.,
soon after being raised to the popedom, in 732, conferred on him the
pall of an archbishop ;P and when in 738 Boniface paid a third
•< Rettb. i. 407-8. god, Woden, for him. i. 344.
"• The 77(0/; of Scandinavian mytho- ■• Willib. 8.
logy. (Grimm, Deutsche Mythologie, " lb.; Othlon, i. 25 ; Rettb. i. 403.
62-3, 172.) Asbeing tliegod ofthuuder i' Greg. 111. Ep. 1 (Patrol. Ixxxix.) ;
he is called Jupiter (Willib. 8), whence Willib. 8.
Rettberg wrongly substitutes the chief
108 CHARLES MAirrEL. B(x.kIII.
visit to Rome, he was received with the honour due to a missionary
who had by that time baptised a hundred thousand con-
verts." On his return northwards, he was induced by
Odilo, duke of Bavaria, to remain for a time in that country, where
he had already laboured about three years before/ He found
there a general profession of Christianity ; but there was only one
bishop, Vivilus by name ; there was no system of ecclesiastical
government ; and, as in other parts of Germany, he had to contend
with the rivalry of the irregular missionaries from Ireland. He
divided the country into four dioceses — Salzburg, Passau (which was
assigned to Vivilus), Ratisbon, and Freisingen ; ^ and, having thus
organised the Bavarian church, he returned to the more especial
scene of his labours.
The name of Charles Martel is memorable in the history of the
Church and of the world for having turned back the course of
Mahometan conquest. The Saracens of Spain had overrun the
south of France, had made their way as far as the Loire, and
were marching against Tours, with the intention of plundering
the treasures which the devotion of centuries had accumiilated
around the shrine of St. Martin, when they were met by Charles,
at the head of an army collected from many races — Franks,
Germans, Gauls, men of the north, and others. Flis
victory near Poitiers (although the slaughter has been
vastly exaggerated by legendary writers) ' put a stop for ever to
the progress of their arms towards the north ; and while they were
further weakened by internal dissensions, Charles, following up his
advantage, succeeded in driving them back beyond the Pyrenees,"
But the vast benefit which he thus conferred on Christendom was
purchased at a cost which for the time pressed heavily on the
Church of France. In order to meet the exigencies of the war,
he seized the treasures of churches, and rewarded the chiefs who
followed him with the temporalities of bishopricks and abbeys ;
so that, notwithstanding his great services to the Christian cause,
his memory is branded by the French ecclesiastical writers as
that of a profane and sacrilegious prince, and a synod held at
1 Greg. III. Ep. 7, col. 584 ; Willib. 9. tin, ii. 202-6 ; Hallam, Snpplem. Notes,
"■ Willib. 9; Pagi, xii. 428; Rettb. 24; Ludeu, iv. 105-6. The Arabian ac-
i. 346. counts ascribe the defeat to the Divine
* Willib. 9 ; Greg. III. Ep. 4, 7 ; vengeance for the cruelties of which the
Rettb. 349-350. invaders had been guilty. Conde, ' Do-
» It is said that the Infidels lost miuacion de los Arabes Qn Espaua,' 44,
375,000 men, and the Christians only ed. Paris, 1840.
1500. Paul. Warnef. De Gcstis Lan- » Gibbon, v. 186-9.
gob. vi. 46 ; see Sismondi, ii. 132 ; Mar-
Chap. V. a.d. 739-713. COUNCILS UNDER BONIFACE, 109
Quiercy in the year 858, assured one of his descendants that for
this sin Eucherius, bishop of Orleans, had seen him tormented
"in the lower hell." "
Boniface, although he found the name of the Frankish mayor
a powerful assistance in his labours beyond the Ehine/ was
thwarted at the Frankish court by the nobles who had got posses-
sion of ecclesiastical revenues, and by the rude, secular, fighting
and hunting bishops, who were most congenial to the character
of Charles.'' In a letter to Daniel of Winchester, he complains
of being obliged to have intercourse with such persons. The
bishop in reply wisely advises him, on scriptural authority, to
keep himself pure, and to bear with such faults in others as it may
not be in his power to amend.'^
Both Gregory III. and Charles Martel died in 741. The new
pope, Zacharias, extended Boniface's power by authorising him
to reform the whole Frankish church.'^ The sons of Charles were
glad to avail themselves of the assistance of Rome in a work of
which they felt the necessity ;*^ and fi-om Carloman, who had
succeeded to the mayoralty of Austrasia, while Pipin held that of
Neustria, Boniface received an amount of support which he had
hitherto in vain endeavoured to obtain,'^ He now erected four
bishopricks for Hesse and Thuringia f and in 742, at the request
of Carloman (as he says), was held a council for the reformation
of the church — the first Austrasian council which had met for
eighty years.^ This council was for some years followed by
others, collected from one or from both divisions of the Frankish
territory. They were not, however, composed of ecclesiastics only,
but were mixed assemblies of the national estates f and, while
Boniface was acknowledged in his high office as the pope's com-
missioner, the decrees were set forth by the Frankish princes in
their own name,'' and appointments which had been already made
by the papal authority were again made, afresh and indepen-
dently, by the secular power. Even the jurisdiction of Boniface
over other bishops was thus granted anew to him.' Their canons
^ Ep. ad Ludov. regem Germanise, •■ Rettb. i. 346-7.
ap. Hard. v. 469. The story is full of "= Ep. 49 ; Zach. Ep. 1 ; Rettb. i. SrA ;
anachronisms : e. g. the saint who is Hefele, iii. 462-3.
said to have seen the sufferings of Charles ^ Ep. 49, col. 745; Pagi, xii. 446,
after death, himself died before him. 478. There had been more recent
See Baron, 739. 2; 741. 16-21; Pagi, synods in Neustria. Kettb. i. 380.
xii. 466-470; Mabillon, iii. 59.5. s Rettb. i. 354, 363.
y Ep. 12. col. 702. h j<j_ g_ Cone. Germ. I. ap. Hard. iii.
^ Epp. 49, 75; Greg. II. Ep. 9. 1919; Cone. Suession. ib. 1932-4.
" Epp. 12-13. ' Cone. Germ. c. 1, ap. Hard. iii.
t" Zach. Ep. 6. 1920; Rettb. i. 354. The genuineness of
<^ Planck, ii. 726. these councils has been denied without
110
COUNCILS UNDER BONIFACE. Kook III.
were directed towards the establishment of order in the church
by providing for annual synods, by forbidding ecclesiastics to
hunt, to hawk, to serve in war ; by the enforcement of celibacy on
the clergy ; by subjecting the clergy to the bishops, and discoun-
tenancing such as were under no regular disciplined An attempt
was made to recover to their proper uses the ecclesiastical
revenues which had been alienated by Charles Martel. The first
council ordered their i-estoration,™ but this was not to be so easily
effected. The council of the following year was reduced
A D 743. . . .
to attempt a compromise, by allowing that, in considera-
tion of the wars and of other circumstances, the property should
for a time be retained by the lay holders, but that for each casata
a solidus should be paid to the ecclesiastical owners." But in the
later councils the subject does not appear, and it would seem that
the attempt was given up as hopeless.'^ The councils also made
enactments for the suppression of heathen practices,^ such as
divination, the use of amulets, needfire (i. e. the production of fire
by the friction of wood and tow),'' and the offering of sacrifices,
whether to the old pagan deities, or to the saints who, with some
converts, had taken their place — practices of which some, with a
remarkable tenacity, have kept their hold on the northern nations
even to our own day/
reason by some Romanists, on account Grimm, 'Deutsche Mythologie,' .570,
of the position assigned in them to the whei-e a great mass of learning on the
secular power. (SeeSchriickh, xix. 204.) subject is collected. In the 17th cen-
Their chronology is elaborately dis- tury it was iised in Aberdeenshire, where
cussed by Hefele, iii. 407, sqq. it was stigmatised as " a highland prac-
'' 7?. (/. Cone. Germ. cc. 1, 3, 4 ; Hard, tice." (Presbytery Book of Strathbogie,
iii. 1920. pub. by the Spalding Club, 1843, p. 117.)
'" Can. 1. Grimm (567) quotes Logan's 'Scottish
° Couc. Liptinense, c. 2. By some Gael ' for evidence that it is still used in
this council is placed at Lestines, near Caithness. Hefele seems to be wrong
Cambray, by others at Ettines, near (iii. 4G6) in identifying the needfire with
Binch, in Hainault (Perry, 300). The a Greek superstition condemned by the
casata, like the English hide of land, "was Trullan council, i. 65.
a quantity sufficient for the maintenance •■ See Grimm, passim ; Rettb. i. 370 ;
of one family (Ducange, s. v. C(isata). W. Miiller, ' Altdeutsche Religion,' Got-
The solidus is reckoned in the Ripua- ting. 1844, pp. 114, seqq. Quarterly Rev.
rian laws as the equivalent of two oxen ex. 169-171. The curious ' Indiculus
(Ozanam, 138); but its value varied paganiarumvel superstitionum,' annexed
much. See Ducange, s. v. ; Hefele, iii. to the Cone. Liptinense (Hard. iii. 1923 ;
469. Pertz, Leges, i. 19), was probably con-
° Lingard, A. S. C. ii. 347. See Perry, temporary, although not the work of that
299-304. council. See notes on it in Hefele, iii.
p Cone. Germ. I. c. 5 ; Cone. Liptin. 471-7. The like is to be said of the
c. 4 ; Cone. Suession. c. 6. vernacular form of baptismal professions
1 Nodfijr, from nothen, to compel, be- and renunciations — '• Forsachistu Dia-
cause the fire was forced out of the bolse, &c." — where after the devil are
wood (Wiirdtwein, in Patrol. Ixxxix. mentioned the old pagan gods, (ibid.)
814), or from not, need, because used in Rettb. i. 328, 360. Hefele says that this
times of calamity (Ducange, s. v.AV(7/Vij. form shows traces of Boniface's Anglo-
On the manner of producing it, see Saxon dialect, iii. 470, 478.
Chap. V. a.d. 742-4. FOUNDATION OF FULDA. Ill
In 742 Boniface laid tlie foundation of the great abbey of
Fulda, by means of Sturmi, a noble Bavarian, whom he had
trained up in his seminary at Fritzlar.^ The original intention
was unconnected with educational or missionary plans — to pro-
vide a place for ascetic retirement. Sturmi and his companions
were charged to seek out a remote and lonely position in the
Buchonian forest, between the four nations to which their master
had preached ; and, when they had fixed on a suitable spot, on
the banks of the river Fulda, they had to clear it by cutting down
trees, which furnished them with materials for a little chapel.'
Sturmi was afterwards sent to Monte Cassino and other Italian
monasteries, in order that he might become acquainted with the
best monastic systems," and the rule established at Fulda was
more rigid than that of St. Benedict. The monks were never to
eat flesh ; their strongest drink was to be a thin beer,"^ although
wine was afterwards allowed for the sick. They were to have no
serfs, but were to subsist by the labour of their own hands.^ The
new foundation soon became important, and was extended to pur-
poses beyond those which Boniface had had in view. Princes and
nobles enriched it with gifts of land, and both from the Frankish
kings and from the popes it enjoyed special privileges ; although
grave doubts have been cast on the documents by which some of
these are said to have been conferred, and especially on the grant
by which Zacharias is represented as exempting it from all juris-
diction save that of the apostolic see.^
Boniface continued to meet with difficulties. His scheme of
a regular organisation, by which bishops were to be subject to
metropolitans, and these to the successor of St. Peter, did not find
favour with the Frankish prelates. Of three on whom the pope
intended to confer the pall, and who had been persuaded to
apply for it, two afterwards refused it, probably in consequence
of having further considered the obligations to Rome which it
involved.'^ And he still had to encounter the opposition of irre-
gular or heretical teachers, whom he describes as far more numerous
^ Ep. 75; Egil. Vita S. Sturmii, ap. 91 ; Zach. Ep. 1.5. See Schrockh, xix.
Pertz, ii. 36G ; Rettb. i. 346. Pagi places 226-7; Bohmer, Regcsta Karol. 1. Rett-
the foundation in 744. xii. 516-7. berg regards these pieces as spurious or
' Vita Sturm, p. 367. interpolated. Such exemptions as that
'^ lb. p. 372. said to have been granted by Zacharias
^ lb. 371. Dr. Pertz adds a note which were not known until later, i. 613-622.
looks significant— " Cf. Me'moires du " Zach. Epp. 5, 6; Fleury, xlii. 37;
Baron de Poellnitz!" Planck, ii. 727 ; Neand. v. 88 ; Gieseler,
y Epp. 75 ; Rettb. i. 371-4. II. i. £5 ; Rettb. i. 362.
^ Pertz, ii. 370 ; Pipin. ap. Bonif. Ep.
112 ADELBERT AND CLEMENT. Book III.
than those of the Cathohc communion, and as stained in many
cases with the most infamous vices.*^
Of these opponents the most noted were Adelbert and Clement.*^
Adelbert was of Gaulish descent, and had obtained uncanonical
consecration as a bishop from some ignorant members of the
order. He is described as affecting extraordinary sanctity, and
the accounts of him lead us to suppose him a person of fanatical
character. He relied much on a letter which was written in the
name of the Saviour and was said to have been sent down from
heaven.'' He said that an angel had brought him some relics of
surpassing sanctity from the ends of the earth. In opposition to
the regular bishops and clergy, he held meetings in fields and at
wells ; and in such places he set up crosses and built little oratories.
He opposed the practice of pilgrimage to Rome. He prayed to
angels of names before unknown, such as Tubuel, Sabuoc, and
Simiel. He is said to have disparaged the saints and martyrs,
refusinof to dedicate churches in their honour, while, with a self-
importance which, however inconsistent, is certainly not without
parallels, he dedicated them in his own name instead.'' A life of
him, filled with tales of visions and miracles, was circulated;^ and
— whether from vanity or in order to 'ridicule the relics which
Boniface had brought from Rome^ — he distributed the parings of
his own nails and hair among his admii'crs. These, it is said,
spoke of his merits as something on which they might rely for
aid ; and, when they prostrated themselves at his feet, for the
purpose of confessing their sins, he told them that it was needless
— that he knew all things and had forgiven all their misdeeds, so
that they might go home in peace, with the assurance of pardon.
While Adelbert gathered his sect in Austrasia, Clement was
preaching in the German territory.'' Of this person, who was a
Scot from Ireland, we are told that he set at nought all canons
>' See Zach. Ep. 11, col. 944. " Rettberg is unnecessarily perplexed
<= The chief sources of information by the seeming inconsistency, (i. 315.)
respecting them are Bonif. Ep. 57, and Walch supposes the story to have grown
Coucil. Kom. ap. Hard. iii. 1935-41, or out of the circumstance that the name
Patrol. Ixxxix., 831 seqq. of " Adelbert's chapels" was popularly
^ It is not said that Adelbert was the used. x. 47.
writer of this letter. Walch (x. 24, 41) ' The opening of this is preserved in
identifies it with a letter for which a the acts of the Roman synod. Adelbert,
like origin was pretended in the time of it was said, was sanctified while yet in
Gregory the Great and with one which the womb ; and this grace was intimated
was condemned in a capitulary of Char- to his mother, during her pregnancy, by
lemagne, a.d. 789. (Pertz, Leges, i. fi5, a vision of a calf issuing from her right
c. 77.) The object of that letter was to side !
enforce a rigid observance of the Lord's « Walch, x. 48.
Day. '• Rettb. i. 324.
Chap. V. a.d. 714-7. ADELBERT AND CLEMENT. . 113
and all ecclesiastical authority ; that he despised the writings
of the most esteemed fathers, such as Jerome, Augustine, and
Gregory ; that he had two sons born in " adultery " {i. e. in
wedlock'), and yet considered himself to be a true Christian
bishop ; that he judaically held marriage with a brother's widow
to be lawful ; that he believed our Lord's descent into hell to have
delivered the souls of unbelievers as well as believers ; and that
on the subject of predestination he held horrible opinions, contrary
to the catholic faith. "^
Boniface brought the case of Adelbert before a Neustrian
council at Soissons in 744, and obtained a condemnation of the
heretic, with an order that the crosses which he had erected should
be burnt.™ But in the following year Adelbert as well as Clement
appears to have been in full activity. Boniface procured a censure
of both from another council," and reported the matter for inves-
tigation to Pope Zacharias, whom he requested to obtain from
Carloman an order that they should be imprisoned, and debarred
from communication with all faithful Christians." In consequence
of this application, the documents of the case were examined by
a Roman synod, which sentenced Adelbert to be deposed, put
to penance, and, in case of obstinacy, anathematised with all his
followers ; while Clement was to be forthwith subjected to depo-
sition and anathema.!' Two years later, however, the two again
appear ; it would seem that, besides enjoying a great amount of
veneration with the common people, who had persecuted Boniface
for his proceedings against Adelbert,-' they even had some influence
over Carloman himself ; '' and it was probably in consequence of
this that Zacharias now advised a course of dealing with them
which is hardly consistent with the decided condemnation before
passed on them.^ The further history of Clement is utterly
unknown ; as to Adelbert it is stated by a writer of questionable
authority that he was imprisoned at Fulda, and made his escape
from the abbey, but was murdered by some swineherds whom he
met with in his flight.'^
i Theiner, i. 416. Leges, i. 21.
^ Ep. 57. As might be expected, ° Cooc. German. IK. ap. Hard. iii.
Walch (x. 64), Schrockh (xix. 214-6), 193.'J.
and most especially Neander Cv. 78 ; " Ep. 57.
Mem. 467) and Baron Buusen (Zeichen p Cone. Rom. ap. Hard. iii. 1940-1 ;
der Zeit, i. 91-4), take up the cause of Zach. Ep. 10, c. 942.
Adelbert and Clement, and strain their i Ep. 57, c. 752.
powers of conjecture to draw forth a ■■ Anon. Mogunt. ap. Pertz, ii. 354 ;
favourable meaning from the unfavour- L'ettb. i. 314.
able representations by which alone we '^ Ep. 9. See Hefele, iii. 513.
know anything of these teachers. ' Anon. Mogunt. ap. Pertz, ii. 355;
■" Capital. Suession. 7, ap. Pertz, Rettb. i. 368-370.
I
1 14 VIRGIL OF SALZBURG. Book III.
Another person with whom Boniface came into collision was an
Irish ecclesiastic named Virgil.^ Virgil, when ordered by him to
rebaptise some persons at whose baptism the words of administra-
tion had been mutilated by an ignorant priest, appealed against
the order to Rome ; and Zacharias pronounced that the sacrament
was valid, inasmuch as the mistake did not proceed from heresy,
but only from grammatical ignorance.'' Some time after
this, Virgil was nominated to the see of Salzburg,y when
Boniface objected to him that he held the existence of another
world below ours, with a sun, a moon, and inhabitants of its own.
Zacharias condemned the opinion, and summoned Virgil to Rome ; "^
but it would seem that he was able to clear his orthodoxy, as he
was allowed to take possession of Salzburg and was eventually
canonised.*
The German church had now advanced beyond that stage in
which its primate might fitly be a missionary, without any determi-
nate see.'^ Boniface wislied to fix himself at Cologne — probably
with a view to Frisia, which, since the death of Willibrord, in
739, he had regarded as included within his legatine care ; and
to this he obtained the consent of the Frankish chiefs, and the
sanction of Pope Zacharias.'^ But before the arrangement could
be carried into effect, events occurred which caused it to be set
aside. In 744, the same year in which the see of Cologne became
» See Vit. S. Virgilii, ap. Mabill. iv. which reached the pope was, that he
.309. held the existence of men belonging to
" Zach. Ep. 7. The priest baptised a different species from ours — not par-
" in nomine Patria, et Filia, et Spiritua takers in the seed of Adam or in the
Sanct«." Christian redemption. (See Bayle, art.
y Virgil administered the diocese for Virgile de Sahbonrij ; Neand. v. 8C ;
two (or, as Rettb. ii. 234, argues, for Ozanam, 134; Whewell, Hist, of Induc-
ttoentji-two) years before receiving con- tive Sciences, i. 272, ed. 2 ; Rettb. ii.-
secration ; and in the mean time ordina- 236 ; Rohrbacher, xi. 39-40 ; Hefele, iii.
tions, &c., were p^n-formed for him by 523.) Dr. Newman, however, supposes
one of his countrymen named Dobda, him to have been charged with teaching
who was in episcopal orders. At length "the existence of the antipodes," and
Virgil yielded to the importunities of ttdls us that " the Holy See apparently
his flock and of the neighbouring evaded the question .... passing over, in
bishops, and was consecrated in 767 [?]. a matter not revealed, a philosophical
(Canisius, ed. Basnage, III. ii. 287.) opinion " (Lectures on University Sub-
The peculiar system of the Irish church, jects, Lond. 18.59, p. 280). But in truth
Avhich has been already explained (p. 66), Zacharias condemned very strongly the
disposes of the construction put on this opinion imputed to Virgil, — the pope's
case by Rettberg (ii. 234") and others. only doubt being whether Virgil really
^ Zach. Ep. 11, coll. 946-7. The case held it.
of Virgil is celebrated as a parallel to * Pagi (xii. 538, 549) and others
that of Gnlileo — his opinion, according deny the identity of St. Virgil with the
to those who so regard the matter, hav- object of Boniface's suspicion ; but Ma-
ing been, that he believed the roundness billon (iv. 308) and Lanigan (iii. 184)
of the earth and the existence of anti- maintain it.
podes. Writers anxious for the credit •> Rettb. i. 366.
of Konie reply that, whatever his opi- "^ Zach. Ep. 10, coll. 940, 942 ; Pagi,
nion may really have been, the report xii. 523 ; Neand. v. 89.
Chap. V. a.d, 745-752. ARCHBISHOPRICK OF MENTZ. 115
vacant by the death of Raginfrid,*^ Gerold, bishop of Mentz, was
slain in a warlike expedition against the Saxons, and his son,
Gewillieb, who until then had been a layman of Carloman's court,
was consecrated to the see. In the following year the new bishop
accompanied the Mayor of the Palace to war, with a resolution to
avenge his father's death ; he discovered the Saxon by whose hand
it had been caused, and, while the Frankish and the Saxon armies
were encamped on opposite banks of the Weser, invited him to
a conference in the midst of the stream. The two rode into the
water, and, at their meeting, the bishop stabbed the Saxon — an
act which was the signal for a battle, in which the Franks were
victorious. Gewillieb returned to his see as if he had done nothing
inconsistent with his episcopal character ; nor does it appear that
any disapprobation of it was felt by Carloman or his nobles."
But Boniface, after having so lately exerted himself to procure the
enactment of canons against clerical v/arriors, now felt himself
bound to enforce them, and submitted the case of Gewillieb to a
council, which declared the bishop guilty of blood. Gewillieb
yielded, resigned his see, and spent the remainder of his life in the
enjoyment of some lesser benefices ; and Boniface was unwillingly
obliged by the Frankish nobles to accept the bishoprick thus
vacated, as the seat of his metropolitan jurisdiction,^
instead of that which he had himself chosen. The
pope acquiesced in the change, and subjected to him, as archbishop
of Mentz, the dioceses of Worms, Spires, Tongres, Cologne, and
Utrecht, with all the nations of Germany which had received the
Gospel through his labours.^
In 747 Carloman resigned his power, and became a monk on
Mount Soracte, from which, on finding himself disquieted by the
visits of his countrymen, he afterwards withdrew to Monte Cassino.''
This change, by which the whole power of the Frankish kingdom
was thrown into the hands of Pipin, would seem to have operated
to the disadvantage of Boniface.' It has been very generally
believed that he officiated at the coronation of Pipin at Soissons,
when the Mayor of the Palace at length assumed the name of
King'' (a.d. 752) ; but the evidence of this is open to much doubt,
"i Hefele, iii. 494-5. i. 379.
« Othlon, i. 37 ; Anon. Mogunt. ap. ^ Einhard, Vita Carol. 2 ; Petr.
Pertz, ii. 3.54. Casin. in Patrol, clxxiii. 1070; Mabil-
f Cone. Germ. III. ap. Hard. iii. 1934- Ion, iv. 124-6 ; Baron. 747, 4-10.
6; Zach. Ep. 10, col. 942; Schrockh, ' Ptettb. i. 184-5.
xix. 232-3; Ludeu, iv. 107; Piettb. i. ^ Einhard, Annal. a.d. 750; Annal.
365-7 ; Hefele, iii. 511-2. Laurissens. a.d. 750 (Pertz, i. 138-9).
e Zach. Epp. 11, col. 947 ; 14 ; Rettb.
I 2
116 LAST YEARS OF BONIFACE. Book III.
and it has even been argued that, instead of promoting, he opposed
the revolution which transferred the crown from the descendants
of Clovis to another dynasty.™ The duties of his office began to
weigh heavily on him. He had still to struggle against much
opposition on the part of bishops and clergy," while his labours
were greatly disturbed by the frequent incursions of pagans,
by whom he reported to Pope Stephen in 752 that thirty
churches in his diocese had been burnt or demolished." He had,
with some difficulty, obtained permission from Rome to nominate
a successor to the see of Mentz when he should feel the approach
of death,!' and, with Pipin's consent, he now raised to it
A.D. 753. j^.^ countryman and disciple Lull, who, however, had a
much more limited authority than Boniface/i and did not receive
the pall till twenty years later.''
It had been Boniface's intention to spend his last days in his
monastery of Fulda,^ but he felt himself once more attracted to
Frisia, the scene of his early labours. He again set forth as a
missionary bishop, descended the Rhine, and, having consecrated
Eoban to the see of Utrecht,* laboured with his assistance among
the Frisian tribes. Many thousands were baptised, and Boniface
June 5, had appointed the eve of Whitsunday for the meeting
'^^^- of a large number of converts at a place near Dockum,
™ This is Rettberg's view. A short is not evident, inasmuch as the rite was
time before the change, Boniface sent practised both in the eastern empire and
Lull to Rome on a mission so confiden- in Spain ; and moreover, the founder of
tial that the purport of it could not the earlier dynasty appeai-s to have been
safely be committed to writing. (Ep. crowned by St. Remigius. (Testam. S.
7.5.) Rettberg argues that such a mis- Reraigii, ap. Flodoard. Hist. Rem. i.
sion was more likely to have been 18, Patrol, cxxxv. 67; Lehuerou, ' In-
against than in favour of the actual stitutions Carolingiennes,' ii. 329.) The
holder of power among the Franks, who tone of Boniface's letter to the arch-
wished to add the title to the reality chaplain Fulrad (Ep. 79) certainly
of sovereignty— that Boniface was de- seems to show that his i-elations with
sirous to withhold the pope from acting Pipiu were not such as might have been
on considerations of interest (i. 18G). expected if he had done the new king
He compares the chponicles which name the essential service which is gene-
Boniface as having crowned Pipin with rally supposed. Rettb. i. 384-.5. Comp.
those which omit his name, and plan- Schrcickh, xix. 234-6 ; Sismoudi, ii,
sibly accounts for the insertion of the 164-5 ; Neand. v. 94-5 ; Lingard, A. S.C.
statement in the former class (i. 384- ii. 349 ; Hefele, iii. 535-7.
392). Boniface's siiare in the affair had ° Zach. Ep. 11.
before been denied by some Galilean " Ep. 78; Zach. Ep. 10, col. 940_._
writers. Ozanam makes no other reply i' Ep. 49, col. 74(3 ; Zach. Epp. ii. 9 ;
to Rettberg as to the question whether 11, col. 947. _
Boniface promoted the change, than ^ Pagi, xii. 587.
that, as he sees no wrong in the conduct "■ Rettb. i. 575. See Flodoard, Hist.
ascribed to the archbishop, he thinks it Rem. ii. 17 ; Mabill. iv. 394-5.
unnecessary to clear him from it. He * Ep. 75.
says that Bonif;ice must have officiated ' Willib. 11 ; Mabill. iv. 3 ; Rettb. i.
at the coronation, because such cere- 39G ; Ik-fele, iii. 539. Perhaps, as Pagi
monies were new to the Franks, and (xii. G21) and others say, Boniface re-
must have been introduced from Eng- garded himself as bishop of Utrecht, and
land. The necessity of this, however, Eoban as his coadjutor. See Ep. 90.
Chai'.V. a.d. 752-5. MARTYRDOM OF BONIFACE. 117
in order that he might bestow on them the rite of confirmation.
But instead of the neophytes whom he expected, an armed band of
pagans appeared and surrounded his tent. The younger members
of his party were seizing weapons for defence, but he exhorted
them to give up the thoug-hts of preserving the life of this world,
and to submit to death in the' hope of a better life. The pagans
massacred the whole company — fifty-two in number. They carried
off from the tent some chests which they supposed to be full of
treasure, but which in reality contained books and relics ; and it
is said that, having drunk up a quantity of wine which they found,
they were excited to quarrel about the division of the fancied spoil,
and avenged the martyrs by almost exterminating each other.*^
Eoban had shared the fate of Boniface, but their missionary labours
were continued by Gregory, abbot of Utrecht,'' and before the end
of the century, the conversion of the Frisians was completed by
Lebuin, Liudger, and others. y
The body of Boniface was conveyed up the Rhine to Mentz, and
thence, in compliance with a wish which he had often expressed,^
was carried to the abbey of Fulda ; and, although no miracles are
related of him during his lifetime (unless the destruction of the oak
of Geismar be reckoned as an exception), his remains, both on the
v/ay to their resting-place and after they had been deposited there,
are said to have been distinguished by profuse displays of miraculous
power.'' His name for ages drew pilgrims and wealth to Fulda,
and he was revered as the Apostle of Germany — a title which lie
deserved, not as having been the first preacher of the Gospel in
the countries where he laboured, but as the chief agent in the
establisliment of Christianity among the Germans, as the organiser
of the German church. The church of Saxon England, from
which he proceeded, was immediately, and in a more particular
manner than any other, a daughter of the Roman. Teutonic by
language and kindred, Latin by principles and affection, it was
peculiarly fitted to act in the conversion of the German nations
and to impress its converts with a Roman character. And this
was especially the work of Boniface. He went forth to his labours
with the pope's commission. On his consecration to the episco-
pate, after his first successes, he bcur.d himself by oath to reduce
- Willib. 11 ; Pagi, xi. 626. ^ E. rj. Ep. 75. The saint, however,
^ Life of Gregory by Liudger, in found it necessary to repeat his wish in
Mabill. iv. 320, seqq. He is sometimes a vision before Lull and the people of
wrongly styled a bishop. Mabill. iii. Mentz would let the body go. Othlon,
Prsef. See also Kettb. ii. 531-3; Neand, ii. 25; Eigil. Vita fe^turmii, 16 (Pa-
Memorials, 470-3. trol. cv.\
y Rettb. ii. 537-540. a Willib. 12 ; Kettb. i. 401.
118 CHARACTER OF Book III.
all whom he might influence to the obedience of St. Peter and his
representatives. The increased powers and the wider jurisdiction
bestowed on him by later popes were employed to the same end.
He strove continually, not only to bring heathens into the church,
but to check irregular missionary operations, and to subject both
preachers and converts to the authority of Rome. Through his
ao-ency the alliance naturally prompted by the mutual interest of
the papacy and the Frankish princes was effected. And, whether
he shared or not in the final step by which the papal sanction was
used to consecrate the transference of the crown from the Mero-
vingian to the Carolingian line, his exertions had undoubtedly
paved the way for it. To him belongs in no small measure the
authorship of that connexion with the northern rulers which en-
couraged the popes to disown the sovereignty of Constantinople ;
and, on the other hand, to him is to be traced the character of the
German church in its submission to Rome from the time of the
first council held under Carloman in 742.''
But these facts afford no warrant for the charges brought
against Boniface by writers of the last century.*" One who,
after having passed his seventieth year, resigned the primacy of
the Frankish church to set out as a simple missionary to the
barbarous Frisians, with an expectation (as it would seem) '^ of the
violent death which he met, may safely be acquitted not only of
personal ambition, but of having been " a missionary of the
papacy rather than of Christianity.'"' His labours for the papacy
were really performed, because, trained as he had been under
the influences communicated to his native church by Theodore
and Wilfrid, he believed the authority of Rome to be the true
means of spreading Christianity among the heathen, and of re-
viving it from decay in countries where it was already established.
It may have been that in his zeal for unity he made too little
allowance for the peculiar tempers and positions of men, or that
he was sometimes guilty of injustice towards his opponents ; nor
can it be pretended that his opinions were in advance of the age
in which he lived, whereas ingenious conjecture may ascribe to the
sectaries Adelbert and Clement all the spiritual enlightenment of
modern Heidelberg or Berlin. But let it be considered how little
such men, however highly they may be estimated, could have
^ Guizot, ii. 173; Giesel- II. i. 23; as carrying the depreciation to an ex-
Michelet, ii. 16. trerae.
<= Such as Mosheim (ii. 119) and <• Willib. 11; Otlilon, ii. 20-1.
Schrockh. Kettberg (i. 310) mentions ^ Thus Schrockh describes him, xix.
J. E. C. Schmidt's Church History 242.
Chai'. V.
BONIFACE. 119
effected ; how powerless such teaching, the offspring of their
personal discoveries or fancies, must have been for the great work
of suppressing heathenism ; how distracting to the heathen must
have been the spectacle of rival and discordant types of Christianity ;
how necessary the operation of one uniform and organised system
must have reasonably appeared to Boniface, whether for the exten-
sion of the gospel or for the reform of the church, for an effective
opposition to the rudeness, the violence, the lawless passions with
which he had on all sides to contend. That Boniface ever used
force as an instrument of conversion there is no evidence what-
ever ; his earnestness in the promotion of education proves how
thoroughly he desired that understanding should accompany the
profession of belief And that the knowledge which he wished
to spread by his educational institutions was to be drawn from
the Scriptures, of which he was himself a diligent student,^ appears
from the eagerness with which he endeavoured to obtain as many
copies as possible of the sacred books for the instruction of his
converts.^ His letters and other writings give us tlie impression,
not only of a great missionary, but of a man abounding in human
feelings and affections.*'
Strenuous as Boniface was in the cause of the papacy, his con-
ception of it was far short of that which afterwards prevailed.
He regarded the pope as the supreme ecclesiastical judge, the
chief conservator of the canons, the highest member of a graduated
hierarchy, superior to metropolitans, as metropolitans were to
ordinary bishops, but yet not as belonging to a different order
from other bishops, or as if their episcopacy were derived from
him and were a function of his.' Much has been said of the
strange questions on which he sometimes requests the pope's advice
—as to the lawfulness of eating horseflesh, magpies, and storks ;
as to the time when bacon may be eaten without cooking, and the
like.'' Such questions have been regarded as proofs of a wretched
scrupulousness in themselves, and the reference of them to Rome
has been branded as disgraceful servility. But — (besides that we
are not in a condition to judge of the matter without a fuller
knowledge of the circumstances) — it is easy to discover some
grounds of justification against these charges. Thus the horse
was a favourite victim of the gods among the northern nations,
so that the eating of horseflesh was connected with the practice
' Willib. 3. ' Kcttb. i. 411.
s Epp. 12, col. 702; 19, 38, 42, &c. ^ Greg. 111. Ep. I ; Zach. Ep. 13.
1' Ozauam, 210-1.
120 CHARACTER OF Book III.
of heathen sacrifice.^ And the real explanation of such questions
would seem to be, not that Boniface felt himself unable to answer
them, or needed any direction from the pope, but that he was
desirous to fortify himself with the aid of the highest authority
in the church for his struggle against those remnants of barbaric
manners which tended to keep up among his converts the remem-
brance of their ancient idolatry."
If Boniface's zeal for Rome was strong, his concern for religion
and morality was yet stronger." He remonstrated very boldly
against some regulations as to marriage which were said to have
the authority of Rome, but which to him appeared immoral ; he
denied that any power on earth could legalise them.° He re-
monstrated also against the Roman view which regarded " spiritual
affinity " — i. e. the connexion formed by sponsorship at baptism —
as a bar to marriage.'' He strongly represented to Zacharias the
scandal of the heathenish rejoicings and banqueting which were
allowed at Rome at the beginning of the year, and the manner in
which persons who had visited Rome referred to these as a warrant
for their own irregularities.'' He protested against the simoniacal
a])pearance of the charges exacted for palls by the pope's officials,
whether with or without their master's knowledge."" And, as a
counterpoise to all that is said of Boniface's deference to the popes,
we must in fairness observe (although his assailants have not
adverted to it) the tone of high consideration in which Zacharias
answers him,^ and the earnestness with which he endeavours to
vindicate himself from the suspicion of countenancing abuses — a
remarkable testimony to the estimation in which the Apostle of
Germany was held. Nay, if an anonymous biographer may be
believed, Boniface, towards the end of his life, protested against
Stephen II. for having, during his visit to France, consecrated a
bishop of Metz — an act which the archbishop regarded as an
invasion of the metropolitical privileges of Treves ; and Pipin's
mediation was required to heal the diffi.'rence between the pope
' Agathias, i. 7 (p. 28) ; Griiimi, of Norway and Iceland, Book IV. c. vii.
'Deutsche Mythologie,' i. 41-3 ; Oza- sections 12-13.
nam, 189. In England, Egbei't's Peni- ■" Luden, iv. 470 ; Kettb. i. 418.
tential allowed horseflesh to be eaten, " Giesel. II. i. 27 ; Kettb. i. 412-3.
"licet multtefaniiliie earn emere nolint" ° Ep. 49, col. 74G.
(c. 38, ap. Williins, i. 123). But the p Epp. 39-40.
papal legates at Chalcythe, in 78.5, de- 'i Ep. 49, col. 747.
nounced the eating of it as not prac- ' Zach. lip. vi. 2. See De Marca, VI.
tised by any " Orientals" (c. 19)— i. e. x. 11.
nations to the east of England. See ' Epp. 1, C.
hereafter the accounts of the conversion
Chap. V.
BONIFACE,
121
and him whom many writers have represented as the abject slave
of Rome.'
The spirit of unfair disparagement, however, has now passed
away ; " and both the church from which Boniface went forth and
the nations among which he ministered may well combine to do
honour to his memory.
' Anon. Mogunt. ap. Pertz, ii. S.'iG ; though in communion with Rome, is
Rettb. i. 413; Milmau, ii. 60. The very violent in liis enmity to the hier-
bishop in question was Chrodegang, as archy, vindicates Boniface. ' Die Ka-
te whom see below, c. IX. iii. 21. rolinger und tlie Ilierarehie ihrer Zeit,'
" Even Ellendorf, a writer who, al- i. 87.
( 122 ) Book ill.
CHAPTER VI.
PIPIN AND CHARLEMAGNE.
A.D. 741-814.
The alienation which the iconoclastic controversy tended to pro-
duce between the Byzantine emperors and the bishops of Rome
was increased by other circumstances. The nearest and most
dreaded neighbours of the popes were the Lombards. The hatred
with which the Romans had originally regarded these on account
of their Arianism had survived their conversion to orthodox Chris-
tianity, and had been exasperated by political hostility. During
the iconoclastic troubles, the Lombards, under Liutprand, appear
by turns to have threatened the popes and to have affected to
extend alliance and protection to them, with a view of using them
as instruments for weakening the imperial influence in Italy.**
When that influence seemed to be irreparably injured by the course
which events had taken, the Lombards overran the exarchate,
and advanced to the walls of the pope's own city. Gregory IIL,
after a vain attempt to obtain aid from Constantinople, resolved to
call in new allies from beyond the Alps — the nation of the Franks,
who had been catholic from the beginning of their Christianity,
with whom he had lately formed a closer connexion by means of
Boniface, and whose virtual sovereign, Charles Martel, was marked
out by his triumph over the Mahometan invaders of his country as
the leader and champion of Western Christendom.'^ As, however,
it was natural to suppose that the Prankish mayor would prefer
the prosecution of his victories on the side of Spain to
A.D. 739. ...
engaging himself in new quarrels elsewhere, the pope
strengthened his petition for aid by the most persuasive gifts and
proposals ; he sent to Charles the keys of St. Peter's tomb, with
some filings of the Apostle's chains ; it is said that he offfered to
bestow on him the title of consul or patrician '^ of Rome, and even
* Schrockh, xix. 532-4. See above, sel. II. i. 38). According to one read-
p. 94. ing of Gregory's first extant letter
^ Milman, ii. 153. (which conveyed his second request for
*•■ The title of Patrician, in the later aid), the pope offered the kingdom (reg-
days of the empire, designated the dig- num) to Charles; but the true reading
iiity next to the throne, and might be is ro<nmi or i-of/iun — i. e. petition. See
held with several high offices (De Marca, Cenni's note on tlie letter, Patrol, xcviii.
I. xii. 4 ; Ducange, s. v. Fatricius ; Gie- 67 ; Schrockh, xix. 538-541.
Chap. VI. a.d. 726-752. ROME AND THE FRANKS.
123
to transfer the allegiance of the Romans from the empire to the
Frankish crown/' A second and a third application ^^ ^^^_^
followed soon after. The pope's tone in these is ex- * '
tremely piteous ; but he endeavours to excite Charles against the
Lombards by motives of jealousy as well as of piety. Not only,
he says, have they laid waste the estates of St. Peter, which had
been devoted to the purposes of charity and religion, but they have
plundered the Apostle's church of the lights bestowed on it by the
Frankish viceroy's ancestors and by himself ; nay, Liutprand and
his son Hildebrand are continually mocking at the idea of relief
from the Franks, and defying Charles with his forces.*" It would
seem that the letters were favourably received ; but they produced
no result, as the deaths of both Gregory and Charles followed
within the same year.^
In the room of Gregory, Zacharias, a Greek by birth, was
chosen by the Romans, and was established in the papacy, without
the confirmation either of the emperor or of the exarch — the first
instance, it is said, of such an omission since the reign of Odoacer.^
By repeated personal applications to Liutprand, the pope obtained
the forbearance of the Lombards and recovered some towns which
they had seized.^ His relations with the empire are obscure ; the
state of affairs was indeed so unsettled that these relations were
full of anomaly and inconsistency. But under his pontificate took
place an event which produced an important change in the position
of the p&pacy towards the Franks, and consequently in its position
towards the empire. Pipin, whose accession, first, to a portion of
his father's power, and afterwards to the remainder, on the resig-
nation of his brother Carloman, has already been mentioned,' now
thought that the time was come for putting an end to the pageant
royalty of the Merovingians. Two confidential ecclesiastics, Burk-
hard, bishop of Wlirzburg, and Fulrad, archchaplain of ^ ^ ^^^^
the court, were sent to Rome with instructions to ask, in
the name of the Frankish nation, whether the real holders of power
^ Fredeg. Con tin. a.d. 741 (Patrol. Peter's was then without the walls of
Ixxi.) ; Aunal. Mettens. a.d. 741 (Pertz Kome, the plunder of the church does
i.) See Pagi, xii. 4.53-5; Muratori, not imply that the Lombards had en-
Anuali, IV. ii. 6 ; Martin, ii. 215. tered the city (as Baronius inferred).
•^ Patrol, xcviii. 64-8. Muratori thinks ' Schriickh, xix. 53S-9.
that by " Ecclesia S. Petri " the pope « See vol. i. p. 548. Schrockh (xix.
does not mean the buildinj, but the Bo- 539) thinks the statement as to Zacha-
man Church (Anuali, IV.'ii. 9). Some rias wanting in proof At all events he
words unnoticed by Muratori, however, was, as pope, a subject of the empire,
can, as Dean Milman remarks (ii. 155), which some have denied.
" scarcely be explained but of the actual " Anastas. 102-3.
ornaments of the church." Yet, as St. ■ Pp. 109, 115.
124
ZACHARIAS AND PIPIN. Book 111.
or the nominal sovereigns ought rather to reign.'' The answer of
Zacharias was favourable to the wishes of those who proposed the
question ; and at the national assembly of Soissons, in the year
752,™ Pipin was raised aloft on a buckler, amid the acclamations
of his people, and was crowned king of the Franks, while the last
of the long-haired Merovingians, Childeric III., was tonsured and
shut up in the monastery of Sithiu."
The amount of the pope's share in this revolution, and the
morality of his proceedings, have been the subjects of much con-
troversy. Einhard, in the earlier part of the following century,
speaks of the deposition as effected by the " command," and of the
coronation as performed by the "authority," of the Roman pontiff;"
but (besides that this writer may have misapprehended the real
course of the affair) a comparison of other passages will show that
the meaning of his words is less strong than might at first sight
appear, and is reconcilable with the facts which are otherwise
ascertained. The matter really came before Zacharias in the
form of a question from the Frankish estates; his answer was
an opinion, not a command ; and the sovereignty was bestowed
on Pipin, not by the pope, but by the choice of his own country-
men, although the pope's opinion was valuable to him, as assisting
him to supplant the nominal king, and yet throwing over the
change an appearance of religious sanction which might guard it
from becoming a precedent for future breaches of fealty towards
Pipin's own dynasty.^ The view afterwards maintained by
Gregory VII. and his school "^ — that the successor of St. Peter
exercised on this occasion a right inherent in his office, of deposing
sovereigns at will — is altogether foreign to the ideas of the time,
and inconsistent with the circumstances of the case.'"
^ Einhard, Annal. a.d. 750 ; Pagi, king of their choice upon their shields?
xii. 563. never dreamed that a foreign priest had
"' March 1, according to Pagi, xii. conferred upon him the right of govern-
570-3 ; but Mansi (ibid.) thinks that it ing. Yet it was easy for succeeding
was after July 2. See Bohmer, Kegesta advocates of Kome to construe this
Karolorum, 1. transaction very favourably for its usur-
° St. Berlin's, near St. Omer. pation over the thrones of the earth "
"'* Jussu" (Vita Carol. 1); "perauc- (Middle Ages, i. 5-23). See Nat. Alex-
toi-itatem," ib. 3. and. xi. 175, seqq. ; Schrockh, xix. 551 ;
I" Giesel. II. i. 35. See Neand. v. Schmidt, i. 300, 378 ; Planck, ii. 731 ;
165. Giesel. II. i. 37. Luden thinks that
1 Greg. VII. Epp. iv. 2 ; viii. 21 Pipin was urged on by Boniface or by
(Hard. vi. 1345, 1471). the pope, in the expectation that the
"■ " It is impossible," says Mr. Hallam, church would be the chief gainer by the
" to consider the reference as to the de- change of dynasty (iv. 181). But this
position of Childeric in any other liglit seems inconsistent with such facts as
than as a point of casuistry laid before are known ; and, as we have seen (p.
the first religious judge in the church. 11(3), Boniface was, perhaps, even op-
Cerlaiuly the Franks, who raised the posed to the change.
Cir.vp. VI. A.p, 752. STEPHEN II.
125
It is evident that the pope's answer was prompted rather by a
consideration for his own interest in securing the alliance of Pipin
than by any regard for strict moral or religious principle. Yet
we should do Zacharias injustice by visiting it with all the reproba-
tion which modern ideas of settled and legitimate inheritance might
suggest. The question proposed to him was one which must have
seemed very plausible in times when might went far to constitute
right, and when revolutions were familiar in every state. The
Frankish monarchy had been elective at first, and had never been
bound down to the rule of strictly hereditary succession. It was
held that any member of the royal house might be chosen king;^
thus Clotaire IV. had been set up by Charles Martel in 717,* and
Childeric III. himself was a Merovingian of unknown parentage,
whom Pipin and Carloman had found it convenient to establish in
742, after the nominal sovereignty had been five years vacant." It
was also held among the Franks that kings might be set aside on
the ground of incapacity. The only principle, therefore, which
was violated in the transference of the crown was that which limited
the choice of a sovereign to the Merovingian family ; and, in order
to cover this irregularity in the eyes of the nation, it is said to have
been pretended that Pipin was himself a Merovingian." More-
over, by whatever means' the change of dynasty may have been
vindicated or disguised, it does not appear to have shocked the
general moral feeling of the age ; and this, although it will not
suffice to justify Zacharias, must be allowed in some measure to
excuse him.
Zacharias died in March, 752, a little before or after ^ the con-
summation of the act v.hich he had sanctioned. Stephen, who
was chosen in his room, did not live to be consecrated, and is
therefore by most writers not reckoned in the list of popes, so that
his successor, another Stephen, is sometimes styled the second,
and sometimes the third, of that name.'' Aistulf was now king of
the Lombards, and renewed the aggressions of his predecessors
on Rome.* Stephen, by means of splendid presents, obtained fi'om
him a promise of peace for forty years ; but the treaty was almost
immediately broken by Aistulf, who seized Ravenna, and required
s Einhard, Vita Car. 1. i. p. 122.
' Pagi, xii. 277. "^ EUendorf, in his hatred of popes,
" Pagi, xii. 488-9 ; Sismondi, ii. 129. takes up the cause of the Lombards,
" Lehuiirou, ii. 98-111, 326. whom he supposes to liave been zealous
y See p. 124, note ">. friends of the church, although enemies
' Anastas. 1G5 ; Pagi, xii. .578 ; to its temporal power and wealth (i.
Schrockh, xix. .553. Stephen I. was the 101-2). He denies that Aistulf threat-
contemporary of St. Cyprian. See vol. ened Rome, p. 111.
126 STEPHEN IN FRANCE. Book III.
the Romans to own him as their lord. The pope, in his distress,
sent envoys to beg for aid from the emperor, and in the mean time
he affixed the violated treaty to the cross, and occupied himself
in imploring the help of God by solemn prayers and penitential
processions. But the mission to Constantinople proved fruitless ;
and when Stephen, relying on the success of his predecessor
Zacharias in similar attempts, repaired to Pavia, in the hope of
moving Aistulf by personal entreaties, — although he met with
respectful treatment, he was unable to obtain any promise of for-
bearance.^ His only remaining hope was in Pipin, with whom
he had opened a secret negotiation.*^ He therefore resolved to
proceed into France, and, as Aistulf endeavoured to dissuade
him, the fear lest the Lombard should detain him by force added
speed to his journey across the Alps. On hearing of the pope's
approach, Pipin sent his son Charles — the future Charlemagne —
to act as escort; and he himself, with his queen, the younger
princes, and the nobles of his court, went forth a league from the
Jan. 6, palace of Pontyon-le-Perche to meet him. Stephen and
'^^*' his clergy appeared in sackcloth and ashes, and, throw-
ing themselves at the king's feet, humbly implored his assistance
against the Lombards. Pipin received the suppliants with marks
of extraordinary honour ; he prostrated himself in turn before the
pope, and walked by his side as he rode.*^
Stephen's stay in France was prolonged by illness, which com-
pelled him to remain until the summer at St. Denys." During this
time an unexpected opponent of his suit appeared in the person of
the abdicated Carloman, who, at the instigation of Aistulf, had been
compelled by the abbot of Monte Cassino to leave his monastic
retreat for the purpose of urging his brother to refuse the desired
assistance. But Stephen exerted his pontifical authority over the
monk, and Carloman was shut up in a monastery at Vienne, where
July 28, he died soon after.'' A second coronation, in which
■^54. Pipin's sons were included, was performed at St. Denys
by the pope's own hands ; and, in the hope of securing the new
dynasty against a repetition of the movements by which its own
royalty had been won, the Prankish nation was charged, under
pain of excommunication, never to choose any other king than
a descendant of him whom God and the vicar of the apostles had
•» Anastas. 167 ; Vita Chrodegangi, c. as they are not irreconcilable. See
24 (Pertz, x.) ; Paiji, xii. 580. Schrockh, xix. 557 ; Milmau, ii. 177.
<= See his letters, Patrol, xcviii. 100-6. « See the ' Revelatio Stephaui,' Patrol.
■^ The French writers relate the be- Ixxxix. 1022.
haviour of Stephen, the Italians that of ^ Anastas. 169.
Pipin. I have combined the accouts
CnAP. vr. A.D. 752-5. DONATION OF TIPIN.
127
been pleased to exalt to the throne. " Pipin was also invested
with the dignity of patrician of Kome.*^
In the same year, Pipin, although some of the Prankish chiefs
opposed the expedition, and even threatened to desert him,h led
an army into Italy, and compelled Aistulf to swear that he would
restore to St. Peter the towns which he had seized. But no
sooner had the northern forces recrossed the Alps than the Lombard
refused to fulfil his engagements, invaded the Roman territory,
wasted the country up to the very walls of Rome, and laid siege
to the city itself.' As the way by land was blocked up, the pope
sent off by sea a letter entreating his Prankish ally once more to
assist him,^ Another and a more urgent entreaty followed ;™ and
finally the pope despatched at once three letters," of which one was
written in the name of St. Peter himself— an expedient which may
perhaps have been suggested or encouraged by the impression as
to the character of the Franks which he had derived from his late
sojourn among them.° In this strange document the apostle is
represented as joining the authority of the Blessed Virgin with his
own ; supplication, threats, flattery are mingled ; and, in considera-
tion of the aid which is asked for the defence of the papal tempo-
ralities, assurances are given not only of long life and victory, but
of salvation and heavenly glory — apparently without any reserve or
condition of a moral kind.'' Whether induced by these promises,
or by other motives, Pipin speedily returned to Italy, ^^ ^.._
besieged Aistulf in Pavia, and forced him, as a condition
of peace, to make a large cession of cities and territory, which were
transferred to the Roman See, and for the first time gave the pope
s Anastas. 167-8; Clausula de elect, sacrc's k Dieu ; le troupeau cle Jesus-
Pipini (Patrol. Ixxxix. 978, note'); Ein- Christ sont les corps, et non pas les
hard, a.d. 7.53; Sismondi, ii. 187; Mil- ames ; les promesses teuiporelles de I'an-
man, ii. 177-8. From the expression of cienne loi sont melees avec les spirituelles
the ' Clausula '— " Tali omnes interdictu de I'Evangile, et les motifs les plus saints
et lege excommunicationis constrinxit " de la religion employes pour une affaire
—it has been inferred that Stephen d'etat" (xliii. 17; comp. Discours, ii.
threatened an Inierdkt. But interdictus 3, and Murat. Annali, IV. ii. 47).
here means simply a prohibition, and These observations raise the wrath of
interdicts (in the ecclesiastical sense of Rohrbacher, xi. 11.5. (See too Ceuni, in
the word) were of later invention. See Patrol, xcviii. 103.) M. Ozanam (231)
below. Book IV. c. viii. 8. defends the letter— or rather considers
'' Einhard, Vita Car. 6. it to be above the need of defence— be-
' Anastas. 170 ; Baron. 755. 1, seqq. cause it was the custom of the time to
^ Patrol, xcviii. 103, substitute in charters, &c., the name of
•n lb. 107. ° lb. 111-126. a founder or of a patron saint for that of
o Milman, ii. 181. his church. But this is obviously no
p Fleury calls this " un artifice sans parallel to a letter in which St. Peter is
exemple devant ni apres dans toute represented as saying, not that he writes
I'histoire de I'Eglise," and remarks, by Stephen, but that Stephen and the
" L'Eglise y signifie, non I'assemble'e Koman church write through him.
des fideles, mais les biens temporels con-
128 POPE CONST ANTINE 11. Book HI.
the position of a temporal prince.*^ Some Byzantine envoys, who
were present at the conclusion of the treaty, urged that the ex-
archate should be restored to their master, to whom it had belonged
before it was seized by the Lombards ; but Pipin replied that he
had conquered for St. Peter, and could not dispose otherwise of
that which he had offered to the apostle."" Yet it does not appear
that the gift was one of independent sovereignty ; the territories
bestowed on the pope were held under the Prankish crown,^ and,
on the other side, the anomalies of the relation between the popes
and the empire became now more complex than ever. While Pipin
was patrician of Rome by the pope's assumption of a right to
confer the title — while the pope received from the Prankish king
lands which the emperor claimed as his own — while Rome continued
to be virtually separated from the empire by the consequences of
the iconoclastic controversy— the popes were still regarded as
subjects of the emperors, and dated by the years of their reign.*
In 757 Stephen 11. was succeeded by his own brother, Paul,
who held the pontificate ten years.^ While Paul was on his death-
bed, Toto, duke of Nepi, made his way into Rome, at the
A.D. 767. ^^^^ ^^ ^^ armed multitude, forced some bishops hastily
to ordain his brother, Constantino, through all the grades of the mi-
nistry, and put him in possession of the papal chair.'' The intruder
had held it for thirteen months, when he was ejected by an oppo-
site party, and Stephen III. (or IV.) was established in his stead.
Constantine's partisans were subjected to the barbarous punishments
usual in that age— such as the loss of the eyes or of the tongue ;
he himself, after having been thrust into a monastery by one faction
of his enemies, was dragged out of it by another, was blinded,
and in that condition was left in the public street.^ A council
was held under the sanction of Charles and Carloman, who had
just succeeded their father Pipin in the sovereignty of the
A.D. 769. j7j.g^j^^g ^^^ -^^ ^^Q patriciate of Rome. Constantino was
brought before this assembly, and was asked why he had pre-
sumed, being a layman, to invade the apostolic see. He declared
that he had been forced into the office against his will ; he threw
himself on the floor, stretched out his hands, and, with a profusion
of tears, entreated forgiveness for his misdeeds. On the following
1 Anast. 171; Gibbon, iv. 488-490 ; rilories acquired by the popes in this
Schrockh, xix. 505-7 ; Savigny, i. 358. age, see Hefele, iii. 541-2.
r Auastas. 123. ' Schrockh, xix. 507-571, 576; Mil-
^ See Murat. Ann. IV. ii. 50, 172; man, ii. 185.
Planck, ii. 743, 752-5; Guizot, ii. 335; " Anastas. 172.
Luden, v. 215, and note. For the ter- " Id. 174. ^ Id. 176.
Chap. VI. A.n. 755-t70. POPE CONSTANTINE II.
129
day he was again brought before the council, and was questioned
about the " impious novelty " of his proceedings with a strictness
which drove him to turn upon his judges by answering that it was
not a novelty, and naming the archbishop of Ravenna and the
bishop of Naples as havhig been advanced at once from a lay
condition to the episcopate. At this reply the members of the
council started from their seats in fury. They fell on the blind
man, beat him violently, and thrust him out of the church in
which their sessions were held. They then proceeded to annul the
ordinations and other official acts which he had performed as pope,
burnt the records of his pontificate, and denounced anathemas
against 'any one who should aspire to tke papacy without having
regularly passed through the grade of cardinal priest, or cardinal
deacon. Stephen himself, with all the clergy and a multitude of
the Roman laity, prostrated themselves, and with tears professed
contrition for having received the eucharist at the usurper's hands ;
and a suitable penance was imposed on them/
It was the interest of the popes to prevent the formation of any
connexion between their Frankish allies and the hated Lombards.
Stephen, therefore, was beyond measure disquieted when intelli-
gence reached him, in 770, that Desidcrius, the successor of
Aistulf, had" projected th.e union of his family with that of Pipin
by a double tie— that he had offered his daughter in marriage to
either Charles or Carloman, and that their sister was engaged to'
Adelgis, son of the Lombard king. The pope forthwith addressed
an extraordinary letter to the Frankish princes.'' As they were
both already married, he tells them that it would be sin to
divorce their wives for the sake of any new alliance. But moral
or religious objections hold a very subordinate place in the remon-
strance, while the pope exhausts himself in heaping up expressions
of detestation against the Lombards, and in protesting against
the pollution of the royal Frankish blood by any admixture with
that "perfidious and most unsavoury" race — since from such a
marriage no other than a leprous offspring could be expected.''
The epistle concludes with denunciations of eternal fire, and the
pope states that, in order to give it all possible solemnity, it was
■'■ Id. 176-7. See Hefele, iii. 403-7. cirtum est" (256). The last words are
" Patrol, xcviii. 25.5-2G-2. See Murat. sometimes interpreted as meaning that
Ann. IV. ii. 90. the Lombards had introduced the le-
b " Quod splendiflua ac nobilissima prosy into the world, or, at least, into
regalis vestrai potentiae proles perfida Italy. (See Manzoni, Discorso Storico,
(quod absit'.jac fcctcntissima Laugobar- Opere, i. p. 248, ed. Paris, 1843.) Put
dorum gente polluatur, quae in nnmero the sense given in the text appears to
gentium nequaquam computatur, de agree best with the tenor of the letter,
eujus natioue et leprosorum genus oriri
130 END OF THE LOMBARD KINGDOM. Book III.
laid on St. Peter's tomb, and the eucharistic sacrifice was offered
on it. Charles, unmoved by this appeal, repudiated his wife and
espoused the Lombard princess ; but within a year — for
what reason is unknown,"^ but certainly not out of any
regard to Stephen's expostulation — she was sent back to her
father's court, and another queen, Hildegard, took her place.
In his relations with Stephen, Desiderius was studious to main-
tain a specious appearance of finendship, while he resisted or eluded
all a])plications tor the restoration of what were styled " the rights
of St. Peter." '^ On the election of Adrian as Stephen's successor,
the Lombard king made overtures to him, and promised
to satisfy all his demands, if the pope would visit him
at Pavia ; but the invitation was refused. Desiderius avenged
himself by ravaging the borders of the papal territory, and Adrian
invoked the aid of Charles.*' Carloman had died in 771, and
Charles, without any regard to the rights of his brother's family,
had united the whole of the Prankish dominions under his own
rule. Desiderius, stimulated perhaps rather by his own daughter's
wrongs than by a disinterested ' regard for justice, had espoused
the cause of the disinherited princes, and had requested the pope
to crown them ; but Adrian, from unwillingness to embroil himself
with Charles, and consequently to place himself at the mercy of
the Lombards, had refused.^ Charles now readily listened to the
petition of his ally. He asked Desiderius to give up the disputed
territory, and offered him a large sum of money as compensation,
while the pope sent repeated embassies to the Lombard king, and
at last proposed to pay him the desired visit, on condition that
Desiderius should first perform his part of the agreement by
restoring the rights of St. Peter. Desiderius, supposing that
Charles must be fully occupied by his war with the Saxons,
attempted to satisfy him with evasive answers, and even assured
him that the papal territory had already been restored ; but his
representations had no effect on Charles, who, in 773, invaded
Italy, besieged him in Pavia, and overthrew the Lom-
A D 77^-4-
bard dominion.^ Desiderius was compelled to become
•■ " lucertum qua de causa," Einhard, *" Anastas. 180, seqq.
Vita Car. 18. See Baron. 771. 3 ; Murat. ' Eiuhard, Vita Car. 3-6; Anastas.
Ann, IV. ii. 93; Manzoni, i. 237; ISI.
Schrockh, xix. 583-4; Luden, iv. 260- s Anastas. 183-5; Einhard, Annal.A.D.
3, 513. 773; Vita Car. 7. (Although I quote
^ Under the name of "justitiae S. these works, which bear the name of
Petri " were comprehended all sorts of F-inhard, together, it ought to be men-
things which could be claimed as be- tioned that the annalist is now sup-
longing to the chiu-ch. Manzoni, i. posed not to be identical with the
238-9. biographer.)
Chap. VI. A.n. 771-786. CHARLEMAGNE AT ROME. 131
a monk at Liege.'' His son Adelg-is escaped to Constantinople,
where, although the honour of the patriciate was conferred on
him, Charles was able to prevent him from obtaining any
effective aid for the recovery of his inheritance.' Twelve
years later, by a convention with the Lombard duke of Benevento,
Charles became lord of the remaining part of Italy ."^
During the siege of Pavia, in 774, Charles paid his first visit
to Rome, where he arrived on Easter-eve. The magistrates were
sent by the pope to meet him at the distance of thirty miles from
the city. A mile outside the walls, the soldiery appeared, with all
the children of the schools, who bore branches of palm and olive,
and hailed him with hymns of welcome. The sacred crosses were
carried forth as for the reception of an exarch, and Charies,
dismounting from his horse at the sight of them, proceeded on
foot towards St. Peter's, where the pope and all his clergy were
assembled on the steps and in the principal porch of the church.
The king, as he ascended, kissed each step ; on reaching the
landing-place he embraced the pope, and, taking him by the
right hand, entered the building, while the clergy and monks
loudly chanted " Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the
Lord." He kept the festival season with a great appearance of
devotion ; he enlarged the donation which Pipin had made to the
church, confirmed it by an oath, and solemnly laid the deed of
gift on the Apostle's tomb.'" The actual extent of his donation
is, however, uncertain. It is said to have included hot only the
exarchate of Ravenna, but the dukedoms of Spoleto and Bene-
vento, Venetia, Istria, and other territories in the north of Italy —
in short, almost the whole peninsula — together with the island of
Corsica ;" yet some of these had not as yet been acquired by the
Franks, and in the event the papal rule seems to have been
really limited to the exarchate, which was itself held not in abso-
lute sovereignty, but in dependence on the Prankish monarchs.
It would appear, therefore, that Charles, in his gratitude for the
opportunity of interfering in the affairs of Italy, professed to
bestow on the pope spoils which had not at the time been fully
won, and that he was afterwards indisposed to carry his promises
•" Pagi, xiii. 101. at Constantinople. (See Murat. Ann.
• Einhard, a.d. 774; Schlosser, 252. IV. ii. 463; and the notes on Theo-
According to Theophanes ( 7 ] 8 ) A delgis, phaues. )
who had taken the name of Theodotus, ^ Einhard, Vita Car. 10; Annal. a.d.
was killed in 788 in an unsuccessful 78G.
invasion of the Neapolitan territory (see ™ Anastas. 185-6; Schrockh, xix.
Pagi, xiii. 232). But others (as the 588; Gibbon, iv. 487.
Poeta Saxo, 1. i. a.d. 77-4) represent ° Anastas. 186.
him as having died in advanced age
K 2
132 CHARLEMAGNE AND THE POPES. Cook III.
into effect." The kin": visited Rome again in 781, and a third-
time in 787 ; and on each occasion the Church was enriched by
gifts, bestowed, as he professed in the language of the age,
" for the ransom of his soul." p His connexion with Adrian was
cemented not only by interest, but by personal regard, and on
hearing of the pope's death, he is said to have wept for him as for
a brother. 1
In 795, Adrian was succeeded by Leo HI. The political con-
dition of Rome for many years before this time is very obscure.
According to some writers/ it had been a republic, under the
popes, from the date of Pipin's donation (a.d. 755) ; but against
this view it has been urged that the letter of Adrian to the emperor
Cocstantine and his mother, on occasion of the second council of
Nicsea, proves that even so late as 785 the imperial sovereignty
continued to be in some degree acknowledged.^ Although, how-
ever, the Byzantine rulers v/ere now in agreement with Rome on
the question of images, the older differences as to that question
had produced a lasting estrangement ; so that Leo, in announcing
his election to Charlemagne, sent him the banner of Rome with the
keys of St. Peter's tomb, and begged him to send commissioners
for the purpose of administering to the citizens an oath of alle-
giance to the Prankish crown.' Whether we regard this as an
illustration of the relations which already existed between Rome
and the Pranks, or as a voluntary act, by which the pope, for the
sake of gaining a powerful protector, placed himself and his people
in a new relation of dependence — it proves both that the connexion
with the eastern empire was severed, and that, if Rome had for a
time been independent, it was no longer so."
The promotion of Leo deeply offended some relations of Adrian
who had occupied high positions in the papal government. They
April 25, waited upwards of three years for an opportunity of
799. gratifying their enmity ; and at length, as the pope was
conducting a procession through the streets of Rome, a party of
his enemies rushed forth, dispersed his unarmed companions, threw
him from his horse, and attempted to deprive him of his eyes and
tongue. Whether from haste or from pity,'' they did their work
° See Schrockh, xix. .588-592; Gib- '^ Giesel. II. i. 41. (See below,
bon, ix. 489; Murat. Ann. IV. ii. 106, p. 153.)
11 (i, 156 ; Milman, ii. 197-8. ' Einhard, a.d. 79G.
p "Pro mercede aniiiiie." Adrian. " See Schrockh, xix. 600 ; Ellendorf,
ad Carol., Piitrol.xcviii. 404 ; Schrockh, i. 195.
xix. 592. * Theophan. 732 ; Schrockh, xix.
'1 Einhard, Vita Car. 19. 602-3.
■• A§ Pagi, xiii. 320.
Chap. VI. a u. 795-800.
LEO III. 133
imperfectly ; but Paschal and Campulus, two of Adrian's nephews,
dragged the wounded pope into the church of a neighbouring
monastery, threw him down before the altar, attempted to complete
the operations which had been begun, and, after having beaten
him cruelly with sticks, left him weltering in his blood. Notwith-
standing all these outrages, Leo retained his sight -and his speech ;
it was popularly believed that he had recovered them through the
help of St. Peter.^ Through the aid of his friends, he was enabled
to escape from Rome ; under the escort of the duke of Spoleto,
a vassal of the Prankish king, he reached that city ; aud (Charles,
who was detained in the north by the Saxon war, on receiving
a report of his sufferings, invited him to Paderborn, where he was
received with great honour.^
About the same time that Leo arrived at Paderborn, some
envoys from Rome appeared there, with serious charges against
him. Charles promised to investigate these charges at Rome ;
and, after having sent back the pope with a convoy of two arch-
bishops, five bishops, and five counts, who re-established him in
his see, the king himself proceeded by slow and indirect -^ov. 29,
journeys towards the city, where he arrived in the end '^^^•
of November, 800.^ The inquiry into Leo's case was opened
before an assembly of archbishops, bishops, abbots, and Dec. i,
nobles : but no testimony was produced against the ^°^'
pope, and the prelates and clergy who were present declined the
office of judging, on the ground of an opinion which had gradually
grown up, that the successor of St. Peter was not amenable to
any human (or, rather, perhaps, to any ecclesiastical) judgment.''
On this Leo declared himself ready to clear his innocence pec 23
by an oath ; and on a later day, he ascended the pulpit, ^oo.
and solemnly swore on the Gospels that he had neither committed
nor instigated the offences which were laid to his charge.'' The
y Anastas. 197-8. (See the various adultery or perjury. He treats the
accounts iu Murat. Ann. IV. ii. 202-.5.) matter very tenderly, as if he believed
Tiie monk of St. Gall assures us that Leo to be guilty, yet wished to uphold
both for use and for appearance the new the credit of the lioman See. (Ep. 92 ;
eyes were far better than the old. Gesta Lorenz, Life of Alcuin, 199-201.) The
Caroli, i. 28. words of Leo's purgation, " nee per-
^ Einhard,A.D. 799 ; Poeta Saxo, 25.5; petravi nee perpetrari jiissi" (Pertz,
Anastas. 198. Leges, ii. 15), seem inconsistent with
'^ Einhard, A.r>. 800; Schrijckh, xix, the idea that unchastity was the sin
G03-4. imputed to him. Dean Milniaa (ii. 205)
*> Anastas. 199; see vol. i. p. 519; therefore thinks that he was charged
and Giesel. L ii. 403-4 ; IL i. 43. with spiritual adultery — i. e. simony— a
«• Anastas. 199. The nature of these sin of which Alcuin writes, in 803, tha
charges is unknown. Alcuin mentions it prevailed almost up to the apostolic
the intrigues of some persons who chair (Ep. 116). Yet the /(/^.'Si need not
attempted to get the pope deposed for relate to all the charges.
134
CHARLEMAGNE Book III.
conspirators who had been concerned in the assault on him were
soon after tried, and, as they could make no defence, were con-
demned to death ; hut at the pope's request the sentence was
commuted to banishment.*^
But between the purgation of Leo and the trial of his assailants
an important event had taken place. On Christmas-day — the
first day of the ninth century, according to the reckoning then
observed in the west® — Charles attended mass in St. Peter's, when,
as he was kneeling before the altar, the pope suddenly placed a
splendid crown on his head, and the vast congregation burst forth
into acclamations of " Life and victory to Charles, crowned by God
emperor of Rome !"^ Leo then proceeded to anoint Charles and
his son Pipin, king of Italy, and led the way in doing homage to
the new emperor.^ Li conversation with his attendants, Charles
professed great surprise, and even displeasure, at the coronation,
declaring that, if he had expected such a scene, not even the holi-
ness of the Christmas festival should have induced him to go into
the church on that day.'^ There can, however, be little question
that his elevation to the imperial dignity had been before arranged.
Perhaps the idea had been suggested to him by a letter in which
his confidential friend Alcuin spoke of the popedom, the empire,
and the sovereignty of the Franks as the three highest dignities in
the world, and pointed out how unworthily the imperial throne, the
higher of the two secular monarchies, was then filled.' On his
way to Rome, the king had visited Alcuin at Tours ; and he now
received from him as a Christmas-gift a Bible corrected by the
learned abbot's own hand, with a letter in which the present was
said to be intended in honour of the imperial power.'' It may
therefore be conjectured that the assumption ' of the empire had
been settled between Charles and Leo during the pope's residence
at Paderborn ; or, at least, that Leo had there discovered the
king's inclination, and that Alcuin had been for soine time in the
secret."*
Yet we need not tax Charles with insincerity in his expressions
<• Einhard, a.d. 801; Ado, a.d. 800 e Anastas. 199.
(Patrol, cxxiii.). ^ Eiuhard, Vita Car. 28.
e Teulet, n. in Einhard, i. 249. ' Ep. 80 ; llettb. i. 430, Luden thinks
' " Carolo piissimo Augusto a Deo that the idea of the empire arose in the
coronato, magno, pacifico imperatori, mind of Charles as the case of Leo
vita et victoria." (Anast. 199.) The pressed Italian affairs on his attention,
metrical biographer thus paraphrases iv. 40.5, seqq.
the cry — ^ Ale. Epp. 103, 185; Lorenz, 278-9.
" Augusto Carolo magno, pacemque ferrnti, _ >3cnn)Ckli, xix. 24; Lettb. i. 431 ;
Imperii merito Roniani sceptra tenenti, Milman, ii. 206 ; Mounier, Vie d'Alcuin,
Gloria, prosporitas, regnum, pax, vita, trium- 225-G. See Murat. Ami IV ii 21=5-5
yyhns I " —Poeta Saxo, 259. ' . - .
Chap. VI. a.d. 800. EMPEROR.
135
of dissatisfaction after the coronation ; rather, as dissimulation was
no part of his general character, we may suppose that, while he
had desired the imperial title, he was displeased at the manner in
which it was conferred. He may have regarded the pope's act as
prematm-e, and as an interference with his own plans. He may
have seen that it was capable of such an interpretation as was
afterwards actually put upon it — as if the pope were able to bestow
the empire by his own authority — a pretension altogether incon-
sistent with the whole spirit of Charlemagne's policy." Perhaps it
had been the king's intention to procure his election by the Ro-
mans, and afterwards to be crowned by the pope, as the Greek
emperors, after having been elected by the representatives of their
subjects, were crowned by the patriarch of Constantinople ; whereas
he had now been surprised into receiving the empire from the
pope, when the acclamations of the Romans did not precede, but
followed on, the imposition of the crown by Leo.° Although,
however, the pope's act was capable of an interpretation agreeable
to the claims of his successors in later times, such claims appear to
have been unknown in the age of Charlemagne ; Leo, after having
placed the crown on his Jjrow, was the first to do homage to him
as a subject of the empire.^'
By the coronation of Charles, Rome was finally separated from
the Greek empire, and again became the acknowledged capital of
the West. Charlemagne was invested with the double character
of head of Western Christendom and representative of the ancient
civilisation.'' The Byzantine court was naturally offended by a
step which appeared to invade its rights, both of dignity and of
sovereignty ; but Charles, by a conciliatory policy, overcame the
irritation ; his imperial title was recognised by the ambassadors of
Nicephorus in 812, and the Greek emperors addressed his son as
emperor, although not of Rome, but of the Franks.'
■> Luden, iv. 420-4. 281 ; Martin, ii. 487. The question
" Funcli, Ludwig der Fromme, 243; whether CharlemagDc's imperial title
EUendorf, i. 198-9. Ozanara suggests was intended to supersede that of the
that Charles was averse from sinking Byzantines— either on the supposition
his German nationality in the traditions that the empire was transferred from
of Rome, and that he did not for some east to west (Gesta Epp. Metens. Patrol,
time accommodate himself to the change clxiii. 593; Baron. 800. 91-3), or that
(362). But theCapitul. Aquisgr. of 802, he was chosen to fill the place vacated
which M. Ozanam quotes, seems to be by the dethronement of Constautine VI.
against this. ((]hron. Moissiac. ap. .Pertz, i. 305;
V Giaouone, i. 511,seqq. ; Schrockh, Palgrave, Normandy and England, i.
xix. 605; Neander, v. 165; Milman, ii. 29), need not te here discussed. See
207-8. Mr. Hallam's remarks, Suppl. Notes,
~ 1 Sismondi, ii. 383 ; Milman, ii. 26-8. In later times the emperors of
oQy.g, the East and of the West quarrelled
■■ Eiuhard. Vita Car. 28 ; Si.-hlosser, about the title, each of them assuming
136 CHARLEMAGNE. Book 111.
The reign of Charles the Great,' or Charlemagne, from the
A.i). 768- time of his father's death, extended to nearly half a
^^^- century. His fame rests not only on his achievements
as a warrior and as a conqueror, but on his legislation and admi-
nistration both in civil and in ecclesiastical affairs ; on his care for
the advancement of learning, of commerce, of agriculture, of archi-
tecture, and the other arts of peace ; on the versatility and capacity
of a mind which embraced the smallest as well as the greatest
details in the vast and various system of which he was the head.
His wars, aggressive in their form, were essentially defensive ; his
purpose was, to consolidate the populations which, had settled in
the territories of the Western empire, and to secure them against
the assaults of newer migrations. Carrying his arms against those
from whom he had reason to apprehend an attack, he extended
his dominions to the Eider and to the Ebro, over Brittany and
Aquitaine, fur towards the south of Italy, and eastward to the
Theiss and the Save.*^ The impression which he produced on the
Greeks is shown by their proverb, " Have the Frank for thy
friend, but not for thy neighbour." " His influence and authority
reached from Scotland to Persia ; the, great caliph Haroun al
iiaschid exchanged presents with him, and complimented him by
sending him the keys of the holy sepulchre ; " and, although the
empire of Charlemagne was broken up after his death, the effect of
its union remained in the connexion of western Christendom by one
common bond.y On looking for the emperor's defects, we must
notice as an injustice altogether without excuse the seizure of his
brother's dominions, to the exclusion of his nephews ; we see that
his policy was sometimes stern, even to cruelty ; and in his personal
conduct We cannot overlook an excessive dissoluteness, which con-
tinued even to his latest years, and of which the punishment was
believed to have been revealed by visions after his death.'' But with
this exception, his private character appears such as to increase our
it for himself -while he styled the other 265, seqq. "I padri Bollandisti, ed
ki7ig. For the Byzantine view of the altri, considerate tante virtu, e massi-
question, see Cinnamus, v. 10. manaente la religione di questo gran
" The epithet Magnus was not given principe, hanno susteuuto che si fatte
to him until after his death (Pagi, xiii. concul)ine fossero mogli di coscienza ;
53G). M. Michelet asserts that the mogli, come suol dirsi, della mano
name Charlemaijne is not formed from sinistra ; e pero lecite, e non contrarie a
Cwo'.us Maijnus, but from Carlumnn (ii. gl' insegnamenti della chiesa, la quale poi
33). But his arguments ai'e ridiculous, solamente nel Concilio di Treuto diede
' Guizot, ii. 188-191. . un migliore regolameuto al sacro con-
" Einhard, 15. ^ Ibid. tratto del matrimonio. Si cio ben suf-
y Quart. Rev. xlviii. 423. See too fista, ne lascer5 io ad altri la decisione "
Luden, v. 185-6, and Sir J. Stephen's (Murat. Ann. IV. ii. 209). The Vision
Third Lecture on Modern History. of Wettin is enough to expose this sup
' Visio S. Wettini, ap, Mabillon, v. position.
Chap. VI. a.d. 76S-814. WAR WITH THE SAXONS.
137
admiration for the great sovereign. He was in general mild, open,
and generous ; his family affections were warm, and his friendships
were sincere and steady.''
The wars of Charlemagne against the barbarians were not reli-
gious in their origin ; but religion soon became involved in them.
His conquests carried the Gospel in their train, and, mistaken as
were some of the means at first employed for its propagation, the
result was eventually good.'^ Of his fifty-three campaigns, eighteen
were against the Saxons of Germany." Between this people and
the Franks wars had been waged from time to time for two
hundred years. Sometimes the Franks penetrated to the Weser,
and imposed a tribute which was irregularly paid ; sometimes the
Saxons pushed their incursions as far as the Ehine ; and on the
borders of the territories the more uncivilised of each nation
carried on a constant system of pillage and petty annoyance
against their neighbours.-^ The Saxon tribes were divided into
three great associations— the Westphalians, the Angarians, and
the Ostphalians; they had no king, and were accustomed to
choose a leader only in the case of a national war.^ Their valour
is admitted even by the Frankish writers ; the perfidy which is
described as characteristic of them may, in some degree, be ex-
plained and palliated by the tact that they were without any
central government which could make engagements binding on the
whole nation.^
The war with the Saxons lasted thirty-three years— from 772
to 805. In the first campaign, Charlemagne destroyed the great
national idol called the Irminsul, which stood in a mountainous
and woody district near Eresburg (now Stadtberg).s The Saxons
^' Eiuhard, 19. - of its origin. But it would seem rather
'• Rettb. ii'. 374, 394. that innin is au adjective, meaning
'^^ See a list of his expeditions in strong, poioerful (Kettb. ii. 385), or
Guizot ii. 186. universal (Grimm, 104); and thus the
'i Einhard, 7 ; Rettb. ii 382. Inninsid is supposed to have been a
•^ Poeta Saxo, ap. Pertz, i. 228. See huge trunk of a tree, placed erect, and
Luden iv 277. regarded by the Saxons as supporting
• Martin, ii. 258 ; Milman, ii. 220. the universe. (See Adam of Bremen,
g Eiiihard, a.d. 772. What the Ir- i. 8, in Pertz, vii. 285.) Grimm (/59)
niiusul was, is matter of conjecture, renders it " altissima, universalis co-
The last syllable, which answers to the lumna," and connects the Irminsul with
modern German Saujc, may, like that the tree Yggdrasil of Scandinavian my-
word, denote either a pillar or a statue, thology (for which see Thorpe iNorth-
l!y some writers it is supposed that ern Mythology, i. 11-3, Lond. 1851).
Irnii<L means the German hero Herman Comp. SchrGckh, xix. 256 ; 1 urner, i.
or Arminius, and that the sul was a 222-6; Pfister, i. 417; Pertz in. 423
fioure of him. (See Grimm, Deutsche (note on Widukind, i. 12) ; Milman, ii.
Nfythologie, 327.) This is- the opinion 219. Dean Milman appears to me to
of Luden (iv. 282 4, 520), although he have somewhat misrepresented Luden s
thinks that the Saxons, while they re- feeling as to the destruction of this
tained the name, had lost the memory monument.
138 SAXON WAR. Book III.
retaliated in the following year by attacking the monasteries and
churches planted on their frontiers, killing or driving out the
monks and clergy, and laying the country waste as far as the
Rhine.^ Sturmi, the successor of Boniface, was obliged to fly
from Fulda, carrying with him the relics of his master." The
Saxons associated their old idolatry with their nationality, and the
Gospel with the interest of the Franks.*^
A passage in the life of St. Lebuin has been connected with the
origin of the Saxon war, but ought probably to be referred to a
somewhat later date.™ Lebuin, an Englishman, had preached
with much success and had built several churches among the
Frisians about the Yssel, when an incursion of the neighbouring
heathens disturbed him in his labours. On this he determined
boldly to confront the enemies of the Gospel in all their force,
and, undeterred by the warnings of his friends, he appeared in his
pontifical robes in the national assembly of the Saxons, which was
held at Marklo, on the Weser. He spoke to them of the true
God, he denounced their idolatry, and told them that, unless they
would receive the Gospel and be baptised, God had decreed their
ruin by means of a powerful king, not from afar, but from their
own neighbourhood, who would sweep tliem away like a torrent.
The effect of such an address was violently to exasperate the
Saxons ; and it was with difficulty that some members of the
assembly saved the zealous missionary from the rage of their bre-
thren. The pagans burnt his church at Deventer, and in conse-
quence of this outrage Charlemagne with the Franks, who were
informed of it when met in council at Worms, resolved on an
expedition against them."
The absence of Charlemagne on expeditions in other quarters,
as in Italy or in Spain, was always the signal for a rising of the
Saxons. After a time, as we are told by an annalist of his reign ,*•
he was provoked by their repeated treacheries to resolve on the
conversion or the extermination of the whole race. In his attempts
at conversion, however, he met with difficulties which it would seem
that he had not expected. Whenever the Saxons were defeated,
multitudes of them submitted to baptism without any knowledge
or belief of Christian doctrine ;P but on the first opportunity they
revolted, and again professed the religion of their fathers. The
•» Poeta Saxo, ap. Pertz,i. 230; Eettb. See Luden, iv. 281.
ii. 375, 404. ° Einhprd, a.d. 775.
' Eigil, Vita Sturm. 24 (Patrol, cv.). p " Solita simulatione," says the
'' Rettb. ii. 383. " lb. 406. annalist. Einh. a.u. 780; comp. Vit.
■> Vit. S. Lebuinj, ap. Pertz, ii. 362-3. Car. 7.
Chap. VI. a.T). 772-805. WIDIKIND. ^'^^
long war was carried on with much loss on both sides ; on one
occasion Charlemagne beheaded 4500 prisoners, who had been
given up to him as having shared in the last insurrection/! ^ ^^
and this frightful bloodshed, instead of striking the ex- ' "
pected terror into the barbarians, excited them to an unusually
wide-spread and formidable rising in the following year/ A chief
named Widikind had thus far been the soul of the Saxon move-
ments. After every reverse, he contrived to escape to Denmark,
where he found a refuge with the king, who was his brother-in-
law ; and when his countrymen were ripe for a renewal of their
attempts, he reappeared to act as their leader. But in 785,
having secured a promise of impunity, he surrendered himself,
together with his brother Abbo, and was baptised at Attigny,
where Cliarlemagne officiated as his sponsor ; and — whether an
intelligent conviction contributed to his change of religious pro-
fession, whether it arose solely fi"om despair of the Saxon cause, or
whether his conversion was merely to a belief in that God whose
worshippers had been proved the stronger party — his engagements
to the king were faithfully kept.^ The Saxons were now subdued
as far as the Elbe, and many of the fiercer idolaters among them
sought an asylum in Scandinavia, where they joined the piratical
bands which had already begun their plundering expeditions, and
which were soon to become the terror of the more civilised nations
of Europe.*^
Charlemagne proceeded to enact a law of extreme severity." It
denounces the penalty of death against the refusal of baptism;
against burning the bodies of the dead, aft^er the manner of the
pagans ; against eating flesh in Lent, if this be done in contempt
of Christianity ; against setting fire to churches or violently entering
them and robbing them ; against the murder of bishops, priests, or
deacons ; against the offering of human sacrifices, and against
some barbaric superstitions.^ All persons were to pay a tenth
1 Einhard, a.c. 782 ; Poeta Saxo, ap." hoc ipsam incenderit, vel carnein ejus ad
Pertz, i. 238 ; Ozanam, 2-t9. comedendum dederit, vel ipsam comederit,
' Sismondi, ii. 294 ; Liiden, iv. 337. capitis sententia punietur." (c. 6.) On
s Einhard, a.d. 785 ; Martin, ii. 300 ; the words in italics, which are clearly
Rettb. ii. 407-8. directed against superstition, Ozanam
' Einhard, Vita Car. 14 ; Gibbon, iv. absurdly founds a charge of cannibalism
500 ; Rettb. ii. 384. against the Germans (227; comp. Rettb.
" " Capitula de partibus Saxoniffi" ii. 390). Grimm contrasts this law
(Paderboru, a.d. 785). Pertz, Leges, i. with the superstition which has prevailed
48-50. in some places even to our own times —
^ " Si quis a diabolo deceptus ere- " It is not witchcraft, but the killing of
diderit, secundum morem paganorum, supposed witches, that the enlightened
virum aliquem aut foeminam strigam law denounces as diabolical and heathen."
esse et homines comedere, et propter Deutsche Mythol. 1021.
140
CHARLEMAGNE'S MEASURES
part of their " substance and labour " to the church. y All children
were to be baptised within a year from their birth, and parents
who should neglect to comply with the law in this respect were to
be fined in proportion to their quality. Fines were also enacted
against those who should sacrifice in groves or do any other act of
pagan worship. In the case of those offiences which were punish-
able with death, the law did not admit the pecuniary commutations
which were a feature of all the Germanic codes ; but instead of
them there was the remarkable provision, that, if any person guilty
of such offences would of his own accord confess them to a priest,
and express a desire to do penance, his life should be spared on
the testimony of the priest.^ The rigour of this capitulary was
unlike the general character of Charlemagne's legislation and was
meant to be only temporary. It was modified by an enactment
twelve years later, which again allowed the principle of composition
for capital offences.'* •
The conversion of the Saxons was urged on by a variety of
measures. Gifts and threats were employed to gain them.^
Charlemagne offered them union with the Franks on equal terms,
freedom from tribute, and exemption from all other imposts except
tithes.*^ Bishopricks were gradually established among them, mo-
nasteries were founded in thinly inhabited districts, towns grew
up around these new foundations, and each became a centre for
diffusing the knowledge of religion and of civilisation.'^ The
Saxon youths who were received as hostages were committed to
bishops and abbots for instruction ; ^ and, by a strong measure of
policy, ten thousand Saxons were in 804 removed from their own
country into the older Frankish territory, where they became
incorporated with the conqueror's original subjects.^
A like system of extending the profession of the Gospel with his
conquests was pursued by Charlemagne in other quarters — as
among the Frisians, the Wiltzes, (a Slavonic people north of the
Elbe,) the Bavarians, the Avars in Pannonia, and the Bohemians.
Among the missionaries who were most distinguished in the work
y By a constitution of the preceding Leges, i. 75) ; comp. Rettb. ii. 591.
year (78-4) the Saxous were bound to '' Alcuin, Ep. 3 (a.d. 790).
annex a glebe {■mansHs) to every church <^ Eiuh. Vita Car. 7 ; Rettb. ii. 409-
and to pay tenths and ninths (payments 410.
-which will be explained hereafter, c. '• Mabill. III. xxxiii. ; Ozanam, 260.
IX. iii. 14) to the bishops and clergy. For the dates of the Saxon bishopricks,
(Pertz, Leges, ii. Append. 1.) But the see Schn'jckh, xix. 270; Rettb. ii. 41-7;
document is questionable, and the learned Giesel. II. i. 143.
editor especially suspects the order as to '^ See a list in Pertz, Leges, I. 89 (a.v.
ninths. 802). This was repeatedly done. Rettb.
' C. 14. ii. 392.
"Capital. Saxon, a.d. 797 (Pertz, ' Eiuhard, 7 ; Rettb. ii. 392.
Chap. VI. a.d. 7S5-804. FOR CONVERSION OF THE HEATHEN.
141
of conversion were Gregory, abbot of Utrecht ;- Liudger, a
Frisian, who had studied under Alcuin at York, and became
bishop of Mimigardeneford (Munster) ; i' Willehad, a Northum-
brian, bishop of Bremen ; * Sturmi, of lulda, and Arno, archbishop
of Salzburg.'^ Ingo, who laboured in Carinthia, may be men-
tioned on account of the singular means which he took to convince
the heathens of their inferior condition— admitting some Christian
slaves to his own table, while for their unconverted masters food
was set outside the door, as for dogs. The inquiries to which this
distinction gave rise are said to have resulted in a great accession
of converts.™
But although the policy of Charlemagne did much to spread the
profession of Christianity, the means which he employed were open
to serious objection. The enforcement of tithes naturally raised
a prejudice against the faith of which this payment was made
a condition, and in 793 it even produced a revolt of the Saxons."
Alcuin often remonstrated against the unwise exaction," He
acknowledged the lawfulness of tithes ; but how, he asked, would
an impost which was ill borne even by persons who had been
brought up in the catholic Church, be endured by a rude and
barbarous race of neophytes ? Would the Apostles have enforced it
in such circumstances ? When confirmed in the faith, the converts
might properly be subjected to burdens of this kind ; but until
then, it would be a grievous error to risk the faith itself for the
sake of tithes. In like manner he argued against the indiscri-
minate administration of baptism. Instruction, he said, should
first be given in the great heads of Christian doctrine and practice,
and then the sacrament should follow. Baptism may be forced on
men, but belief cannot. Baptism received without understanding
or faith by a person capable of reason, is but an unprofitable
washing of the body.!* He urges that new converts should be
treated with great tenderness, and that able preachers, of such
character as may not bring discredit on their teaching, should be
sent to instruct them.^
During the latter part of the Merovingian period, learning had
g See p. 117. he also calls him father and son. Rettb.
•> Vita S. Liudgeri, Pertz, ii. 405, ii. 237.
seqq. On the name of his see, see Rettb. ™ Conversio Bagoariorum et Carant-
ii. 429. anorura, c. 7 (Pertz, xi.). Ginzel seems
i Vita S. Willeh., Pertz, ii. 380. to misunderstand the passage in making
k Schruckh, xix. 288 ; Rettb. ii. 238. Ingo a duke (f,9).
Alcuin in iiis letters calls Arno brother, " Einh. a.d. 79-^ ; Bollinger, i. 319.
which has been supposed to mean that " Epp. 28, 31, 37, 79, 80. &c.
they were related in that degree ; but p Ep. 31. i Ep. 87.
142 CHARLEMAGNE'S ENCOURAGEMENT Book III.
continually declined. A new era of intellectual activity now began/
Charlemagne himself made earnest efforts to repair the defects of
his early training. He began in mature age to learn the art of
writing ; but, although he practised diligently, he never attained
facility in it, or, at least, he was unable to master the difficulties
of the ornamental calligraphy on which the professional writers
of the time prided themselves.^ We are told that he became as
familiar with Latin as with his mother-tongue, and that, although
he could not express himself with readiness in Greek, he was well
acquainted with the language/ The object of his endeavours was
necessarily rather to revive the ancient Roman culture than to
originate a new literature ; " yet, while he encouraged the study of
the classic languages among his subjects, he did not neglect his
native German ; he laboured to raise it to the rank of a cultivated
tongue by reducing it to a grammatical system, he collected its
old heroic ballads, and gave Teutonic names to the winds and
months.^ Nor, although his care for the German was little
seconded in his own time,'' and although the Latin had become
the authorised language of the Church, were the emperor's exer-
tions in this respect without effect ; for a vernacular literature now
arose which had much influence on the education of the people.
Among its remains are poems and hymns, metrical harmonies of
the Gospels, and glosses on the Bible, for the use of the clergy/
The instruments of the intellectual reform which Charlemagne
contemplated were not to be found in his own dominions. He
therefore sought for them from Italy and from the British islands,
the only countries of the West in which the study of general
learning was then pursued.^ The chief of these were Paul Warne-
■• Giiizot, iii. 207, 330 ; Ampfere, iii. (530), understand the words to relate not
2 • EUendorf, i. 309. to ordinary but to ornamental writing.
's " Tentabat et scribere, tabulasque et That the emperor used a mark by way
codicillos ad hoc in lecto sub cervicalihiis of signature, does not, as has been some-
circumferre solebat, ut, cum vacuum tempus times supposed, prove that he was unable
esset, manum Uteris effingendis assuesceret ; to write his name. See Maitland, " Dark
sed parum successit labor prgeposterus et Ages," 13-5.
sero inchoatus." (Einhard, 25.) From ' Einhard, 25.
this it has been inferred that he could " Bahr, Karol. Litt. 18.
not write. (Gibbon, iv. 501— who, by ^ Einhard, 29.
omitting the words here printed in y See Luden, iv. 209-210, 570.
italics, deprives his readers of a some- ^ Giesel. II. i. 91-2.
what important part of the evidence ; " The monk of St. Gall, who wrote a
Sismondi, ii. 319 ; Hallam, ii. 351, and gossiping and not very authentic life of
Suppl. Notes, 388.) The meaning, how- Charlemagne — deriving his materials
ever, seems rather to be that he could chiefly from the current popular stories
write, although not well or easily. Pagi of his time (Hist. Litt. v. 616; Bahr,
(xiii. 154), the authors of the Histoire 238)— tells us that the emperor, finding
Litte'rairede la France (iv. 370), Schrockh the means of intellectual cultivation
(XX. 48), Ampere (iii. 36-8), Bahr (Ka- far short of his wishes, exclaimed,
rolingische Litteratur, 15), and Ozanam " Would that I had twelve clerks as
CnAi'. VI. A.D. 768-814. OF LEARNING.
1-13
frid, a Lombard, Peter of Pisa, and — the most important for
talents, for influence, and for the length of his labours among the
Franks — Alcuin, a native of Northumbria.
Alcuin (or Albinus) was born about the year 735.^ After having
studied in the cathedral school of York, under archbishop Egbert,
brother of the Northumbrian king Eadbert, he was ordained a
deacon,'' and became master of the school, which he raised to such
reputation that many foreigners resorted to it for instruction.'^ He
had already visited the Continent, when Eanbald, his old fellow-
pupil, on being promoted to the see of York in 780, sent him to
Rome for the purpose of bringing back the pall, the symbol of
the archiepiscopal dignity which had been recovered for York by
Egbert after having been suspended since the time of Pauliuus.
At Parma, Alcuin fell in with Charlemagne, who invited him to
settle in France. With the permission of his own king and of
Eanbald, he accepted the proposal, and was appointed to ^.d. 782-
the mastership of the Palatine school,^ an institution 79i3.
which had existed under the Merovingians,^ and was now revived.
This school accom-panied the movements of the court. The pupils
were the members of the royal family, with noble youths who
belonged to the household, or had been permitted by the sovereign
to partake of the education thus provided.^ Charlemagne himself,
with his sons, his daughters, and some of his courtiers, became the
scholars of Alcuin.^ It has been supposed that they formed an
academy, in which each bore the name of some ancient worthy ;
thus Charles himself is styled David, Alcuin is Flaccus, Angilbert
is Homer. But the only evidence in favour of the supposition is
the fact that such names are used in correspondence.' Alcuin's
instructions were given rather in the form of conversation than of
lectures."* He taught the seven sciences which were distinguished
learned as Jerome and Augustine !" To though he visited France in 782, he did
which Alcuin replied, " The Creator of not settle there until 793.
heaven and earth has had no more like ' See Hist. Litt. iii. 424 ; Pitra, Vie
those two ; and you would have twelve I" de S. Leger ; Ozanam, 459.
Pertz, ii. 734. ^ Crevier, i. 47 ; Ozanam, 459-464,
•• Vita Alcuini, in Froben's edition of 537 ; Giesel. II. i. 84.
his works, or Patrol, c. ; Lorenz, Life ^ Einhard, 19.
of Alcuin, transl. by Jane M. Slee, ' See Schrockh, xix. 50-2 ; Guizot, ii.
London, 1837 ; Alcuin, par F. Mounier, 242; Lorenz, 20-48, 150-2; Mounier,
Paris, 1853. 56, 88 ; Luden, v. 206, 568.
' Mounier (17) and others say that '' Guizot, ii. 238. The dialogue be-
Mabillon (Elog. Hist, in Ale. c. 3 ; tween Alcuin and the prince Pipin
Patrol, c.) is mistaken in supposing him (Patrol, ci. 975-980), which M. Guizot
a monk. • quotes as a specimen of the teaching, is,
^ Vita, 2-5 ; Lorenz, 8-11. however, said to be really translated or
^ Lorenz (12-4), Pagi (xiii, 154), and copied from a Greek work of the time
Luden {i-v. 384, 552), think that, al- of Hadrian. Finlay, ii. 268.
144 ALCUIN. I't^oK III.
as liberal, and were afterwards classified under the titles of
Trivium and Quadrivium — the Trivium ethical, consisting of
grammar, rhetoric, and dialectics ; the Quadrivium .physical, —
arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy ; while above these
two classes was a third — Theology.™ His writings on these
subjects contain little of an original kind, and may be regarded
as mere notebooks of his teaching." His other works are very
various — commentaries on scripture, liturgical treatises, tracts on
the controversies of the age and on practical religion, po*ems, lives
of saints, and a large collection of letters. They appear to be
justly described by Fleury as displaying more of labour than of
genius, more of memory than of invention or taste ; ° but in esti-
mating the merit of the man we are bound to compare him with
his contemporaries. His work was that of a reviver.^
Alcuin was not only the instructor of Charlemagne in religion
and letters, but his most confidential adviser in affairs of state.
After having taught the Palatine school for fourteen years (with
the interval of a visit to his native country), he became weary
of a court life, and expressed a wish to retire to Fulda for the
remainder of his days ; but Charlemagne provided anotl^er retreat
for him, by bestowing on him the abbacy of St. Martin, at Tours,
a monastery of great wealth, but notorious for the dis-
orderly character of its inmates ; i and with this he
retained some other preferments which he had before received.
Alcuin in some measure reformed the monks of St. Martin's,
although an affray in which they were concerned towards the end
of his life proves that the reformation was by no means perfect."^
He enriched the library of the abbey by importing books from
England, and under his government its school attained great
fame. We are told by his old biographer that he would not allow
the pupils to read the " falsehoods " of Virgil, in which he had
formerly delighted, and that when one of them secretly trans-
gressed the rule, Alcuin by supernatural knowledge detected him.^
Among his scholars during this period were Raban Maur, after-
wards abbot of Fulda and archbishop of Mentz, Haymo, bishop of
"> Isid. Hispal. Etymolog. i. 2 (Patrol. p Bahr, 348.
Ixxxii.) ; Ampere, iii. 73-4 ; Rettb. ii. i Vita, (J ; Lorenz, 131 ; Mounier,
798. See Joh. Sarisbur. Metalog. i. 12 236-8.
seqq. (Patrol, cxcix.). The first men- <■ To this affair relate Epp. 118, 119,
tion of this cycle of sciences is in St. 19.5. Charlemagne was very angry with
Augustine, De Ordine, ii. 12-15 (Patrol, the monks, and with Alcuin for sup-
xxxii.) ; Giesel. II. i. 82. See, however, porting them in their misconduct. See
Haureau, i. 20-1. his letter, in Bouquet, v. 628 ; and below
" Mounier, 30, seqq. c. IX. v. 10.
" xlv. 19. ■* Vita, 10.
Chap. VI. a. d. 782-814. CHARLEMAGNE'S CARE FOR EDUCATION. 1^5
Halberstadt, and other eminent men of the next generation.* He
kept up a frequent correspondence with Charlemagne on politics,
literature, science, and theology ; and (as we shall see hereafter)
he continued to take part in the controversies of the time. From
some expressions in his letters it appears that he was dissatisfied on
account of the novelties introduced into the teaching of the Palatine
school by his successor, an Irishman named Clement." At length
he obtained the emperor's leave to devolve the care of discipline in
each of his monasteries on younger men," and he died in 804. >
Charlemagne was bent on promoting education among every
class of his subjects. He urged his nobles to study, and loudly
reproved those -who considered their position as an excuse for
negligence."^ The laity were required to learn the Creed and
the Lord's Prayer, — in Latin, if possible, with a view to bringing
them within the Roman influence. Fasting and blows were some-
times denounced against any who should disobey.'^ But it was
found that the hardness of the task was regarded by many persons
as even more formidable than such penalties ; and it also appeared
that many of the clergy were themselves unable to teach the forms
ill Latin. The re-enactments and the mitigations of such rules
sufficiently prove how difficult it was to carry them into execution.''
The clergy were charged to explain the Creed and the Lord's
Prayer to their people,'' and sponsors at baptism were required to
prove their acquaintance with both forms.*^
AVith a view to improve the education of the clergy, Charle-
magne ordered in 769 that any clergyman who should disregard
his bishop's admonitions to learn should be suspended or deprived.*'
In 787 he issued a circular to all metropolitans, bishops, and
abbots, complaining of the incorrect style which appeared in many
letters addressed to him from monasteries. This want of skill
in writing, he says, leads him to apprehend that there may be
also an inability to understand the language of Scripture rightly ;
he therefore orders that competent masters should be established,
and that study should be diligently urged on,'' Two years later
' Hist. Litt. iv. 14 ; Lorenz, 169-173. 130\ Cone. Mogunt. a.d. 813, c. 45.
For the eminent men formed under '' Giesel. II. i. 90-1 ; Rettb. ii. 36,
Charlemagne and Alcuin, see Froben, 454-6.
De Vita Ale. c. 10; Ellendorf, i. 315; "^ Capit. a.d. 789, c. C9. Hatto, bishop
Mouniei-, 188. of Basel, about 820, orders that the forms
" Ep. 82, Patrol, c. 266 ; see Mounier, be learnt " tarn Latine quam barbarice."
9.'i-9. Hard. iv. 1240.
•"■ Epp. 175-6. <" Capit. a.d. 804 (Pertz, Leges, i.
y Schrockh, xix. 87. 128).
^ Monach. Sangall. i. 3. '^ Pertz, Leges, i. 34.
" Capit. A.D. 804 (Pertz, Leges, i. ^ Encycl. de litteris colendis. lb. 52.
Ii
146 CHARLEMAGNE'S CARE FOR EDUCATION. Book III.
he ordered that, there should be a school In every cathedral and
monastery, open not only to the servile class (from which the clergy
were usually taken), but to the freeborn ; that instruction should
be given in psalmody, music, grammar, and eomputu7n (a term
which denoted the art of reckoning in general, but more especially
the calculation of the calendar) ;S and that care should be taken
for the correct writing of the service-books.'' He employed. Paul
Warnefrid to compile a book of homilies from the fathers, and
published it with a preface in his own name.' These homilies
were arranged according to the ecclesiastical seasons. It seems to
have been at first intended that they should be read in Latin, the
language of both the church and the state ; and that it was a
concession to national feeling when councils of the emperor's last
year directed the clergy, in using them, to render them into a
tongue intelligible to the people — whether the "rustic Roman"
of Gaul, or the Teutonic."" As the manuscripts of the Scriptures
had been generally much corrupted by the carelessness of copyists,
Charlemagne, with Alcuin's assistance, provided for the multipli-
cation of correct copies.™ While the pupils of the schools were
employed in transcribing the less important books for churches,
none but persons of mature age were allowed to write the gospels,
the psalter, or the missal." Manuscripts were acquired for libra-
ries from England, Italy, and Greece." Presbyters were before
ordination to be examined as to their faith, as to their knowledge
of the creed and the Lord's prayer, of the canons, the penitential,
the gospels, the homilies, the public services, the rites of baptism
and the eucharist, and their power of instructing their flocks.?
In addition to the education of the clergy, a new feature appears
in the Articles of Theodulf, bishop of Orleans, where it is ordered
that in every parish the clergy should provide a school for free-
born children as well as for serfs. The payment for instruction
was to be only such as the parents of the pupils should freely give.
K Ducange in von. ° Loreiiz, 56. A Rheims Pontifical of
•> Capit. A.D. 789, c. 71. Cf. Cone. Ca- the 9th century, in the coronation ser-
bilon. A.D. 813, c. 3. For an account of vice, directs the archbishop to pray,
the most famous cathedral and monastic " Ut [Peus] regale solum, videlicet
schools under Charlemagne, see Hist. Saxonum, Merciorum, Nordanhymbro-
Litt. iv. 12-7. rumque sceptra uon deserat" — a curious
' See Patrol, xcv. 1154, seqq. evidence as to the quarter from which
^ Bouquet, v. 622; Pertz, Leges, i. the office was borrowed (Rock's 'Church
45 ; Cone. Rem. IL (813), c. 15 ; Cone, of our Fathers,' i. 283 ; comp. Martene,
Turon. IIL (813), c. 17. ii. 217, 225), although it gives no warrant
™ Capit. A.D. 782 (Pertz, Leges, i. 45), for Ozanam's opinion as to the coronation
Hist. Litt. iv. 19-20; Schrockh, xix. of Pipin. (See p. 116, note >".)
48-9 ; XX. 197. p Capit. A.D. 802 (Pertz, Leges, i. 107).
" Capit. A.D. 789, c. 71. Cf. Capit. a.d. 811 (ib. 171>
Chap. VI. a.d. 768-814. SERVICE OF THE CHURCH.
147
The bishop also invites the clergy to send their relations to the
monastic schools.^ But the attempt to establish parochial schools
dbes not appear to have been carried far even in the diocese
of Orleans, and there is no evidence of its having been imitated
elsewhere/
Charlemagne paid much deference to the usages of Rome, as
the most venerable church of the West. He obtained from Adrian
the Roman code of canons (which was founded on the collection of
Dionysius Exiguus), and in 789 he published such of them as he
considered necessary for his own dominions/ The Roman method
of chanting had been already introduced into Gaul. Pope Paul
had sent books of it to Pipin, and had endeavoured to procure its
establishment; but, although he was supported by Pipin in the
attempt,' the Galilean chant still prevailed. During Charlemagne's
third visit to Rome, in 787, disputes arose between the Prankish
and the Roman clergy on the subject of the liturgy and the chant.
The Franks relied on the king's protection ; but, to their dismay,
he asked them, " Which is purer— the stream or the source ? " — a
question which admitted but of one answer ; and on this answer
he acted." He carried back into France two skilful clerks to teach
the Roman chant, and stationed one of them at Metz, while the
other was attached to the court."" He also established the sacra-
mentary of Gregory the Great in the Prankish church ;> it is even
said that, in his zeal for conformity to Rome, he endeavoured to
suppress the Ambrosian forms at Milan, by destroying the service-
books, or carrying them " as if into exile " across the Alps ; but
that m-iracles came to the rescue of the venerable ritual, so that
Pope Adrian, who had instigated the attempt against it, was
brought to acquiesce in the local use of it.' Charlemagne paid
q Theodulph. Capit. 19-20 (a.d. 797), of Angouleme tells us that they learnt the
Hard. iv. 916. • Roman chant, " excepto quod tremulas
>■ Guizot, ii. 259 ; Giesel. II. i. 90. vol vinuulas sive collisibiles vel seca-
^ Conip. Hard. iii. 2033, seqq., with biles voces in cantu nou poterant per-
iv. 826, or Pertz, Leges, i. .54. Sirmoud fecte expriiuere Franci, naturali voce
thinks that the canons were procured barbarica franpentes in gutture voces
on his third visit to Rome in 787, rather potius quam exprimentes." (Pertz, i.
than (as is most commonly said) on his 171.) The editor shows, from Isidore
first visit, in 774. Patrol. Ixvii. 135-8. of Seville (Etymol. III. xx. 13), that
' See Capit. 789. 79, ap. Pertz, Leges, the epithet vinnulus or rinnidatus comes
i. 60 ; Pagi, xii. 645 ; Ducange, s. v. from vinnus, a curl — cincinnus moUiter
Cantus Romaiws. flexus.
" Monach. Engolism. ap. Pertz, i. y Adrian, in Patrol, xcviii. 436.
jyi_ 2 The only authority for this is the
^ Libri Carol, i. 6 (Patrol, xcviii.) ; elder Landulf, a Milanese chronicler
Mon. Sangall. i. 11 (ib.); Gue'ranger, i. who wrote about a.d. 1070 (Hist. Me-
251-4. The rough voices of the Franks diol. ii. 10-2 ; Patrol, cxlvii.). He says
were still complained of, as in the time that many of the Milanese clergy were
of Gregory the Great (p. 6). The monk slain in defence of their books.
L 2
148 ECCLESIASTICAL LEGISLATION Book IIL
special attention to the solemnity of divine worship. The cathedral
which he built at his favourite place of residence, Aix-la-Chapelle,
was adorned with marble pillars fi-om Rome and Ravenna, and was
furnished with vestments for all its clergy, down to the meanest of
the doorkeepers.* He diligently frequented the services of his
chapel " both by day and by night, and took great pains to improve
the reading and the singing ; " for," says Einhard, " he was very
skilful in both, although he neither read publicly, nor sang, except
in a low voice and together with others." ° A biographer of more
questionable authority tells us that he used to point with his finger
or with his staff at any person '^ whom he wished to read ; and when
thus ordered to begin, or when warned by a cough ** from the
emperor to stop, the reader was expected to obey at once, without
any regard to sense or to the division of sentences. Thus, it is
said, all were kept in a state of continual attention, because each
might be called on at any moment. No one could mark his own
portion with his nail or with wax ; and all became accomplished
readers, whether able or not to understand the language and the
matter.^ Charlemagne himself is said to have composed hymns —
among them the " Veni Creator Spiritus ;" ^ butas to that hymn,
at least, the statement appears to be groundless.^
Charlemagne's ecclesiastical legislation was carried on by his
own authority. He regarded it as the duty of a sovereign to watch
over the spiritual and moral well-being of his subjects ; he alleges
the reforms of Josiah as a scriptural precedent for the part which
he took in the regulation of the church."^ Ecclesiastical subjects
occupy more than a third of his capitularies."* The ecclesiastical
as well as the other laws were proposed in the assemblies which
were held yearly in March and in autumn, and which bore at once
the character of synods and of onalls or diets. The clergy and the
laity sat together or separately, as was most convenient, according
to the nature of the subjects proposed to them." Discussion was
" Einhard, 17, 26; Adrian, ad Carol. "^ " Sono gutturis."
PatioL xcviii. 37.1 ; Poeta Saxo, 1. v. ^ Monach. Sangall. i. 7.
(PatroL xcix. 731-2) ; Gibbon, vi. 420. s Giieranger, i. 188. •
'' The chapel of the Frank kings was *• It rests on the authority of Ekke-
so called from the caj}2)a or cloak of St. hard's Life of Notker the Stammerer
Martin, which was kept in it (Walafr. (c. 18, ap. Canis. III. ii.). Against it,
Strabo, De Keb. Eccl. 31, PatroL cxiv. ; see Mabill. in Patrol, cxxxi. 990.
Ducange, s. v. C(tpelki). Thomassin, '' Capit. Aquisgr. a.d. 789 (Pertz,
however (I. ii. 109), identifies the word Leges, i. 54).
■with c«75Srt, a reliquary. ™ 415 oat of 1126; Guizot, ii. 198.
" Einhard, 26. On the character of the capitularies, see
•■ The writer's language seems to Guizot, p. 230.
imply that he means to speak of the " Thus, in 813, assemblies were con-
household in general, and not of the vened at Aries, Mentz, Tours, and Cha-
clergy only. lons-sur-Saone. In these the bishops
CirAP. VI. A.D. V6S-814. AND POSITION OF CHARLEMAGNE. 149
allowed ; but both the initiative and the decision belonged to the
sovereign, and in his name the decrees were published."
The coronation of Charlemagne as emperor, although it did not
add to the power which he before possessed over his subjects, in-
vested him with a new and indefinite majesty. He was no longer
the chief of a nation of warriors, but the representative of the
ancient Roman traditions and civilisation, the anointed head of
Western Christendom.? The empire was to be a consecrated
state, with the same ruler in ecclesiastical as in civil affairs, and
this ruler directing all to the glory of God.'i In 802 an oath of
allegiance to him as emperor was required of those who had already
sworn to him as king ; and whereas such oaths had not before
been imposed among the Franks, except on persons who held
office or benefice under the crown, all males above the age of
twelve were now required to swear.'" The civil hierarchy in all its
grades corresponded to the ecclesiastical ; and forthwith a new
system of commissioners {Missi Bominici) ^ was set on foot. These
were chosen partly from the higher ecclesiastics and partly from
the laity. They were to be men superior to all suspicion, fear, or
partiality ; they were to make circuits for the inspection of both
secular and spiritual matters ; they were to control the local ad-
ministrations ; to take care of churches, of widows, orphans, and
the poor ; to exercise a censorship of morals ; to redress wrongs,
or to refer to the emperor such as were beyond their power ; to see
to the due execution of the laws which were passed in the national
assembhes.* In spiritual as well as in temporal affairs, the emperor
was regarded as the highest judge, beyond whom no appeal could
be made ; " in authorising the canons of Adrian's collection, he
omitted that canon of Sardica which prescribed in certain cases a
reference to the bishop of Rome.'' While he cultivated fi-iendly
relations with the popes, while he acknowledged them as the highest
treated on matters of faith and disci- grave, Norm, and Eng. i. 27-8 ; Milman,
pline, the monks and abbots on monastic ii. 207.
life, and the counts and judges on secular i Pfister, i. 436; Palgrave, i. 397;
questions. See Hard. iv. 1008 ; Luden, Milman, ii. 211.
V. 148. ■• Pertz, Leges, i. 91 ; Martin, ii. 344.
" De Marca, VI. xxv. 5 ; Baluz.Praef. ^ Pfister, i. 452-3 ; Ellendorf, i. 257.
ad Capitular. (Patrol, xcvii.) ; Pagi, ' See the instructions to them when
xiii. 119 ; Guizot, ii. 194-6 ; Giesel. II. i. first sent out, April 802, in Pertz,
57; Martin, ii. 276; Milman^ ii. 223; Leges, i. 197. Comp. De Marca, IV.
Kettb. i. 424. For some strong ex- vii. 6-8 ; Guizot, ii. 192; Eettb. i. 433-4,
pressions of synods as to Charlemagne's 456. " Gfrorer, ' Karolinger,' i. 74.
ecclesiastical position, see Ellendorf, i, ^ See vol. i. p. 304, and compare the
234-5. Roman with the Frank code (^Patrol.
r Hallam, i. 10, and Suppl. Notes, 27 ; Ixvii. 178 ; xcvii. 152, seqq. : Giesel. II.
Sismoudi, ii. 383 ; Kettb. i. 432-5 ; Pal- i. 63).
150 ECCLESIASTICAL POSITION OF CHARLEMAGNE. BookIU.
of bishops, and often consulted them and acted on their suggestions,
the authority by which these were enforced on his subjects was his
own ; nor did the popes attempt to interfere with the powers which
he claimed. On the conquest of Italy, he assumed the same control
over the ecclesiastical affairs of that country which he had been
accustomed to exercise in his hereditary kingdom, and the popes
submitted to him as their lord and judge.^ Lofty titles and
flattering language were, indeed, often addressed by bishops and
others of the Franks to the successors of St. Peter ; but the real
amount of the authority which these enjoyed during this period is
to be measured by the facts of history, not by the exaggerations of
rhetorical or interested compliment.^
y Gie?eL II. i. 40-2 ; Eettb. ii. 439. churches. (See below, c. IX. iii. 10.)
M. Lehueroii, however, argues that he lustit. Me'rov. et Oaroliugieuues, ii. 3.58-
held his superiority over the Roman 360.
church in the character of its Defensor, ^ See Planck, ii. 769, 785, 797-8 ;
like the advocates or Vidames of lesser Giesel. II. i. 60-1.
CiL,s.r. VII. A.D..775-780. C 151 \
CHAPTER VII.
THE EASTERN CHURCH — CONTROVERSIES OF CHARLEMAGNE'S AGE,
A.D, 775-814.
I. CoNSTANTiNE Copronymus was succeeded in 775 by his son
Leo IV., who, although opposed to the worship of images, was of
gentler and more tolerant character than the earlier princes of the
Isaurian line. Although the laws of the iconoclastic emperors
remained unaltered, the monks who had been persecuted and
banished were now allowed to return ; and a great excitement was
raised by the reappearance of these confessors in the cause of the
popular religion. The empress, Irene, was of an Athenian family
noted for its devotion to images ; she herself cherished an enthusiastic
reverence for them, and, although her father-in-law, Constantine,
had compelled her to forswear them, she appears to have thought
that in so sacred a cause her oath was not binding. She now
exerted her influence as far as she dared ; by her means some
monks and other fi-iends of images were promoted to bishopricks,
although for the time they were obliged to conceal their opinions.'"*
Notwithstanding the general mildness of Leo's disposition, his
feeling on the subject of images was strong ; and, when some of
them had been found under Irene's pillow, he ordered certain
great officers, who had been concerned in introducing them into
the palace, to be flogged and tonsured ; he put one of these officers,
who had especially provoked him, to death ; and he separated
from the empress, although she denied all concern in the affair.*^
After a reign of four years and a half Leo died, — more probably
by a natural consequence of the illness with which he had long
been afflicted, than either by a miracle of judgment on his impiety,
or (as some modern writers have supposed) by poison ;•= and Irene
» Theophanes, 696 ; Gibbon, iv. 412-3, spots where the crown had touched his
492 ; Schlosser, 250-3. head, and that he died in consequence.
^ Theophan. 701; Schlosser, 258-9. The supposition of poison is put forward,
Mr. Finlay questions this story, ii. 83. more or less positively, by Spanheim
"^ Theophanes (702) says that Leo, (789), Basnage (359), Mosheim (ii. 65),
being excessively fond of jewels, took and, of course, by Gfrorer, who every-
down and wore a crown adorned with where discovers mysterious crimes (li.
very precious gems, which hung in the 155) ; but is declared by Schlosser (259)
cathedral ; that in punishment of this to be groundless,
sacrilege, carbuncles broke out in the
152 IRENE. Book III.
was left in possession of the government, as guardian of her son
Constantine VI., a boy ten years old. The empress,
however^ felt that it was necessary to proceed with
caution in carrying out her wishes. She was, indeed, sure of the
monks and of the populace : but the authority of a council, which
claimed the title of Ecumenical, was against her : the great body
of the bishops was opposed to images ; and, although the well
tried pliancy of the eastern clergy gave reasons for hoping that
these might be gained, there was a strong iconoclastic party among
the laity, while the soldiery adhered to the principles of the late
emperor, whose memory was cherished among them as that of a
brave and successful general.* At first, therefore, Irene ventured no
further than to publish an edict for general liberty of conscience.
The monks who were still in exile returned, images were again
displayed, and many tales of past sufferings and of miracles swelled
the popular enthusiasm.^
In August 784, Paul, patriarch of Constantinople, suddenly
resigned his dignity, and retired into a monastery, where he was
visited by Irene and some high officers of the empire. When
questioned as to the cause of his resignation, he professed deep
remorse for having consented to accept the patriarchate on con-
dition of opposing the restoration of images ; he deplored the
condition of his church, oppressed as it was by the tyranny of the
state, and at variance with the rest of Christendom ; and he
declared that the only remedy for its evils would be to summon
a general council for the purpose of reversing the decrees of the
iconoclastic synod which had been held under Constantine. '^ We
need not seek for an explanation of the patriarch's motives in the
supposition of collusion with the court. He may, like many others,
have been sincerely attached to the cause of images, and, when
seized with sickness, may have felt a real compunction for the
compliances by which he had gained his elevation. And his death,
which followed immediately after, is a strong confirmation of this
view.s
Irene summoned the people of the capital to elect a new
patriarch. No one possessed of the requisite qualifications was to
be found among the higher clergy, as the bishops were disaffected
to the cause of images, while the abbots were too ignorant of the
management of affairs. The person selected by the court, and,
"• Walch, X. 527 ; Gibbon, iv. 492. *r Neancl. v. 311-2. Basnage and
* Theophau. 704. Spanheimgrouudlessly suppose that Paul
' lb. 708 ; G. Hamurt. cclvi. 12 ; Hard, was deposed. See Walch, x. 509.
iv. 37 ; Schlossei", 274-6.
Chap. VII. a.d. 784-6. TARASIUS. 153
according to one writer,*" suggested by Paul himself, was Tarasius,
a secretary of state, a man of noble birth, of consular dignity, and
of good personal reputation. The multitude, who had no doubt
been carefully prompted, cried out for his election, and the few
dissentient voices were overpowered, Tarasius, with an appearance
of modesty, professed his reluctance to accept an office so foreign
to his previous habits, and declared that he would only do so on
condition that a general council should be forthwith summoned for
the consideration of the all -engrossing subject.' With this under-
standing he was consecrated ; and Adrian of Rome, on receiving
a statement of his faith, admitted him to communion, professing to
consider the exigency of the case an excuse for the irregularity of
his promotion.*^
A council was now summoned, and measures were taken to
render it yet more imposing than the numerous synod by which
images had been condemned under the last reign. The pope was
invited to send representatives, if unable to attend in person.™ He
deputed Peter, chief presbyter of his church, with Peter, abbot of
St. Sabas, and furnished them with a letter, in which he hailed the
emperor and his mother as a new Constantine and a new Helena,
and exhorted them to repair the misdeeds of their predecessors by
restoring images in the church.'^ Some things of a less agreeable
kind were added: — a demand for the restoration of all that the
iconoclastic emperors had taken from St. Peter, remarks on the
irregularity of raising a layman to the patriarchate of Con-
stantinople, and objections to the title of Ecumenical, which had
been given to Tarasius in the imperial letter."
As the empire was at peace with the Saracens, invitations were
also addressed to the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and
Jerusalem. But the bearers of these letters fell in with some
monks, who, on learning the object of their journey, earnestly im-
^ Ignatius, in his Life of Tarasius. because, having been sent on other
See Walch, x. 493. But tlie story is business, they had acted in the council,
unsupported and improbable. lb. 509. although they professed to have done
' Hard. iv. 24-.5 ; Theophan. 7U9-712. so under compulsion ; and that Eome
•= Hard. iv. 97 ; Theophan. 713. regarded it as only a local synod. But
'" Hard. iv. 22 ; Walch, x. 532. See Theodore's statement is contradicted by
Hefele, iii. 414-6. the documents, and is supposed to have
" Hard. iv. 79-92. arisen out of the circumstance that,
" Ibid., 93-6. Basnage (1362), Gib- when the meeting of the council was
bon (iv. 492), and others, suppose that deferred, the legates did not- procure
the two Roman presbyters had no spe- any new commission. (Schlosser, 288 ;
cial commission and were disowned by Neand. v. 314-5.) Theodore was in-
the pope on their return. The only au- cliued to disparage the council because
thority for this is Theodore the Studite, he thought it too lenient in its treatment
who states (Ep. I. 38, p. 254), that the of persons who had foi'merly opposed
envoys were deposed, "as they say," images.
154 SECOND COUNCIL OF NIC^A, Book HI.
plored them to proceed no further, since any such communication
from the empire would be sure to exasperate the jealousy of the
Mahometan tyrants, and to bring additional oppressions on the
church. The monks offered to send to the council two of their
own number, whom they proposed to invest with the character of
secretaries to the patriarchs ; these, they said, would sufficiently
represent the faith of the eastern church, and the personal at-
tendance of the patriarchs was no more requisite than that of the
Roman bishop. The messengers agreed to this strange proposal,
and returned to Constantinople with two monks named John and
Thomas.^
The council was to meet at Constantinople in the beginning of
August 786. But during the week before the appointed day, the
opponents of images held meetings for the purpose of agitation,
and, although Tarasius ordered them to leave the city, many of
them still remained. On the eve of the opening, there was an out-
break of some imperial guards and other soldiers belonging to the
iconoclastic party ; and on the following day a still more serious
tumult took place. When Tarasius and other members of the
council were assembled in the church of the Apostles, a multitude
of soldiers and others, abetted by some iconoclastic bishops, broke
in on them, and compelled them to take refuge in the sanctuary.
The soldiers who were summoned to quell the uproar refused to
obey orders. Tarasius ordered the doors of the sanctuary to be
shut. The iconoclasts forced them, but, without being dismayed
by the threatening appearance, the patriarch opened the council,
and conducted its proceedings until a message arrived from Irene,
desiring her friends to give way ; ^ on which the iconoclastic bishops
raised a shout of victory. The empress allowed the matter to rest
until, having lulled suspicion, she was able quietly to disband the
mutinous soldiers and to send them to their native places ; ■■ and in
September of the following year, a synod of about 350 bishops,
with a number of monks and other clergy, met at Niceea, a place at
once safer from disturbance than the capital, and of especially ve-
nerable name, as having been the seat of the first general council.*
The first places of dignity were given to the Roman envoys, who
had been recalled, after having proceeded as far as Sicily on their
p Hard. iv. 136-141, 456; Spanb. ■• Theophan. 715-6 ; Theodor. Stiidit.
805-8 ; Walch, x. 551-8. Schlosser Laudatio Platonis, 24 (Patrol. Gr.
(281) not altogether unfairly reminds xcix.).
us of Pseudartabas in the ' Acharniaus.' ^ On the number of which the council
On the other side see Hefele, iii. 427. consisted, see Walch, x. 550; Schlosser,
1 Hard, iv, 25-8; Theophan. 714-5; 288-9.
Walch, X. 535-7 ; Schlosser, 285-6.
Chap. VII. a.d. 786-7. SECOND COUNCIL OF NICJ3A. 155
way homeward.* Next to these was Tarasius, the real president of
the assembly ;" and after him were the two representatives (if they
may be so styled) of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. A
number of civil dignitaries were also present.^ The first session
took place on the 24th of September, and the business proceeded
with great rapidity. Six sessions were held within thirteen days,
a seventh followed a week later, and the final meeting was held at
Constantinople on the 23rd of October.^
From the beginning it was assumed that the object was not to
discuss the question, but to re-establish the worship of images ;
bishops who were known to be opposed to it had not been invited
to attend.^ The pope's letter was read at the second session, but
with the omission of the reflections on Tarasius, and of the request
that the rights of the Roman see might be restored.* A number
of bishops who had taken part in the iconoclasm of the last reigns,
came forward to acknowledge and anathematise their errors, and
humbly sued for admission to communion. '^ In answer to ques-
tions, some of them said that they had never until now had the
means of rightly considering the subject ; that they had been edu-
cated in error ; that they had been deceived by forged and garbled
authorities ; or that they had been sealed up under a judicial
blindness.'" Questions arose as to admitting them to communion,
as to recognising them in offices to which they had been conse-
crated by heretics,'^ and, with respect to some, whether, as they
had formerly been persecutors of the faithful, they ought not to be
treated with especial severity.'' The monks were throughout on
the side of rigour ; but the majority of the council, under the
guidance of Tarasius, was in favour of a lenient course. The
canons were searched for precedents ; and a discussion ensued as
to the application of these — with what class of heretics were the
iconoclasts to be reckoned ? Tarasius was for putting them on the
footing of Manichseans, Marcionites, and Monophysites, as these
sects had also been opposed to images ; all heresies, he said, were
alike heinous, because all did away with the law of God. The
monastic party declared that iconomachy was worse than the worst
of heresies, because it denied the Saviour's incarnation.^ But the
majority was disposed to treat the penitents with indulgence, and
they were received to communion.^ There were loud outcries
' Hard. iv. 27 ; Waloh, x. 538. " Hard. iv. 93. ^ lb. 37, seqq.
" Walch, X. 561-2. See Hefde, i. 27. -^ lb. 47, 166, 300, &c.
" Hard. iv. 34. " lb. 61. ' lb. 125.
y See Walch, x. 560, 579-580. f lb. 50-60.
^ Schlosser, 290. s lb. 76, 129-136.
156 SECOND COUNCIL OF NIC^A. Book 111.
against the iconoclasts, as atheists, Jews, and enemies of the
truth ; '' and when a proposal was made to call them Saracens, it
was answered that the name was too good for them.*
According to the usual practice of councils, authorities were
cited in behalf of images, and the opposition to them was par-
alleled or connected with all sorts of heresies.'^ The extracts pro-
duced from the earlier Fathers are really irrelevant ; for the
images of which they speak were either scenes from sacred history,
or memorial portraits (like that of Meletius of Antioch, which is
mentioned by St. Chrysostom ™), and they afford no sanction for
the practices which were in question before the council." A
large portion of the quotations consisted of extracts from legen-
dary biographies, and of tales of miracles wrought by images, to
which some of the bishops were able to add similar marvels from
their own experience. ° From time to time the reading of these
testimonies was interrupted by curious commentaries from the
hearers. Thus, after a passage from Gregory of Nyssa, in
which he spoke of himself as having been affected to tears by
a picture of the sacrifice of Isaac, a bishop observed, " The father
had often read the history, but perhaps without ever weeping ;
yet, as soon as he saw the picture, he wept." " If," said another,
" so great a doctor was edified and moved even to tears by a pic-
ture, how much more would it affect lay and unlearned people ! "
Many exclaimed that they had seen such pictures of Abraham as
that which Gregory described, although it does not appear whether
they had experienced the same emotion at the sight. " If Gregory
wept at a painting of Abraham," said Theodore, bishop of Catana,
"what should we do at one of the incarnate Saviour?" " Should
not we too weep," asked Tarasius, " if we saw a picture of the
crucifixion ? " and his words were received with general applause.P
A famous story, which had already served the uses both of
controversial and of devotional writers,*^ was twice read.' An
aged monk on the Mount of Olives, it was said, was greatly
tempted by a spirit of uncleanness. One day the demon appeared
to him, and, after having sworn him to secrecy, offered to discon-
tinue his assaults if the monk would give up worshipping a picture
of the Blessed Virgin and the infant Saviour which hung in his
•» Hard. iv. 189. ' lb. 292. ° E. g. Hard. iv. 185, 205-212.
" lb. 159, seqq. p lb. 165.
'" lb. 164; Chrys. de S. Melet. (t. ii. '^ Moschus, Prat. Spirit. 45 (Patrol.
519, c. ed. Montf.). Gr. Ixxxvii.) ; Job. Damasc. Orat. I. (t.
" See an analysis of the extracts in i. 328).
Dupin, YJ. 140, seq<i. ' Hard. iv. 208, 316.
CnAP.VII. A.n. T8Y. SECOND COUNCIL OF NICJ;A. 157
cell. The old man asked time to consider the proposal, and, not-
withstanding his oath, applied for advice to an abbot of renowned
sanctity, who blamed him for having allowed himself to be so far
deluded as to swear to the devil, but told him that he had yet
done well in laying open the matter, and that it would be better
to visit every brothel in Jerusalem than to refrain from adoring the
Saviour and His mother in the picture. From this edifying tale,
a twofold moral was drawn with general consent, — that reverence
for images would warrant not only unchastity, but breach of oaths ;
and that those who had formerly sworn to the iconoclast heresy
were no longer bound by their obligations.^
At the fifth session, the Roman legates proposed that an image
should be brought in and should receive the adoration of the
assembly. This was solemnly done next day ;' and at the same
session the conclusions of the iconoclastic synod of 754 were read,
each paragraph being followed by the corresponding part of a long
refutation, which was declared to have been evidently dictated by
the Holy Ghost."
At the seventh session, the decree of the council was read and
subscribed. It determined that, even as the figure of the cross
was honoured, so images of the Saviour and the Blessed Virgin, of
angels and of saints, whether painted or mosaic or of any other
suitable material, are to be set up for kissing and honourable
reverence (Tr^ofrxj/vncnv), but not for that real service (XaT^e/av)
which belongs to the Divine nature alone." Incense and lights arc
to be offered to them, as to the cross, the Gospels, and other holy
memorials, " forasmuch as the honour paid to the image passes on
to the original, and he who adores an image adores in it the person
of him whom it represents." An anathema was pronounced against
all opponents of images, and the signing of the decree was followed
by many acclamations in honour of the new Constantine and
Helena, with curses against iconomachists and heretics of every
kind.y . These outcries were repeated at the eighth session, when
the members of the council appeared at one of the palaces of Con-
stantinople, and both the emperor and his mother subscribed the
decree.^ The council, which after a time came to be regarded
^ Hard. iv. 209. Lord's answer to the temptei' — "Thou
' lb. 321. slialt w;o/s/i()j (7rpo(rK:u!/if)(r6is) the Lord thy
'^ lb. 325 ; Schrockh, xx. 578-9. God, and Him onbj shalt thou sene
" Hard. iv. 456. " We have," as (Aarpeuo-eis)." Service, it was said, is
Dean Mil man remarks (ii. 126), " no here restricted to God o)ilij, but not so
word to distinguish between wpocTKvt'Tja-is imrship! Hard. iv. 204.
and Aarpeia." One of the council's '' lb. 469-472.
arguments had been drawn from our ' lb. 481-5.
158 IRENE AND CONSTANTINE. B(X)k III.
both by the Greeks and by the Latins as the seventh General
Council,* also passed twenty-two canons, chiefly relating- to eccle-
siastical and monastic discipline.^ It is to be observed that the
images sanctioned at Nicaea were not works of sculpture, but
paintings and other representations on a flat surface — a limitation
to which the Greek Church has ever since adhered ; " and that
there is as yet no mention of representing under visible forms the
Trinity, the Almighty Father, or the Holy Spirit.'^
Constantine VI. grew up in the society of women and eunuchs,
and in entire subjection to his mother. With the view, perhaps,
of cutting off" from the iconoclasts the hope of assistance from the
west, she had negotiated for him a marriage with one
"of Charlemagne's daughters ; but, soon after the Nicene
synod, as the iconoclasts were no longer formidable, while she
may have feared that such a connexion might endanger her own
ascendancy,^ she broke off the engagement, greatly to the indigna-
tion of the Frankish king, and compelled her son against his
will to marry an Armenian princess named Marina or Mary.^
Instigated, it is said, by some persons who professed to have
discovered by magic that the empire was to be her own, she paved
the way for a change by encouraging her son in cruelties and
debaucheries, which rendered him odious to his subjects, and
especially to the powerful monastic party .s At the age of twenty,
Constantine resolved to throw off" the yoke of his mother and her
ministers ; he succeeded in possessing himself of the government,
and for some years the empire was distracted by revolutions, carried
on with all the perfidy and atrocity which were characteristic of the
later Greeks.'^ Constantine was at length persuaded to readmit
his mother to a share of power, and she pursued towards him the
same policy as before. He fell in love with a lady of her court,
Theodote, and resolved to divorce his wife and to marry the object
of his new attachment. The patriarch Tarasius at first opposed
" On the history of its reception see seen in the Hotel Chiny, at Paris.
Palmer on the Church, ii. 201, seqq. '' Mahill. V. xiv. Raoul-llochette re-
ed. 1. fers the first personal representations of
^ See Hard. iv. 485, seqq. the Almighty Father to the 9th century;
•^ Basnage, 1364. The appearance of Didron, to the 12th. Lindsay on Chris-
relief is, however, given to many of them tian Art, i. 75.
by the covers of silver or other metal <= Schlosser, 305 ; Finlay, ii. 93.
in which they are enshrined— the ?jm/)j ' Theophan. 705, 718; Einhard, a.d.
(or glories) and the dresses being 786; Paul. Warnefr. Hist. Miscella. 23
•wrought in the metal, which has open- (Patrol, xcv. 1118); Murat. IV. ii. 133,
ings for displaying the faces and hands 162; Schlosser, 300. Einhard says
of the picture. Professor Stanley in- that Charlemagne refused to give his
forms me that in Russia these covers daughter, a.d. 788.
are peculiar to pictures of historical or e Theophan. 719 ; Walch, x. 503.
miraculous fame. A specimen may be '' Theophan. 720-5 ; Finlay, ii. 94.
Chap. VII. a.d. 787-802. IRENE AND CONSTANTINE.
159
the scheme, but Constantino, it is said, threatened that, if the
Church refused to indulge him, he would restore idolatry;' and
Tarasius no longer ventured to resist."^ Marina was shut up in a
convent, and the second nuptials were magnificently celebrated in
September 795.™ Some monks, who vehemently objected to these
proceedings, and went so far as to excommunicate the emperor,
were treated with great cruelty." It has been supposed that Irene
even contrived the temptation to which her son yielded ; she at
least beheld his errors with malicious satisfaction, and fomented
the general discontent which they produced." By degrees she
secured to her own interest all the persons who were immediately
around him ; and at length, when her scheme appeared to be
matured, he was by her command seized at .his devotions,!' was
carried into the purple chamber in which he had been born, and
was deprived of his eyesight with such violence that the operation
almost cost him his life.i Immediately after this, a fog of extra-
ordinary thickness obscured the air and hid the sun for seventeen
days. By the people of Constantinople it was regarded as de-
claring the sympathy of heaven with the horror generally felt at
the unnatural deed by which Irene obtained the empire.'
Irene reigned six years after the dethronement of her son.
According to the Greek writers, (whose testimony, however, is
unsupported by those of the west,) she was engaged in a project for
' Tovs vaovs Twv elSwXwv avolyo}. Ce- Sclilosser (327-330), and Finlay (ii. 100)
dren. 472, d. Walch (x. 554) supposes show that he long survived. Cf. Theoph.
that Constantine threatened to remove contin. ii. 10 ; G. Hamart. cclix. 5 ;
images, and that the form in which the eclxvii. 28.
threat appears comes from Cedrenus. "■ G. Hamart. cclvii. 18. On the dis-
But it is hardly conceivable that party graceful manner in which writers fa-
spirit could have induced the chronicler vourable to the cause of images have
to describe churches without images as attempted to palliate Irene's guilt, see
"temples of idols;" besides that the Walch, x. 589; Milman, ii. 131. The
temples seem to be spoken of as distinct words of Baronius are well known, but
from churches, and as shut up when the must be quoted here : — " Scelus plane
threat was uttered. execrandum, nisi justitise zelus ad id
•' Theophan. 727-8 ; Vita Theodor. faciendum excitasset. ... Si enim reg-
Studit. 18, 19,26; Baron. 795. 43, seqq. nandi cupidine Irene in filium molita
™ Cedren. 472 ; Pagi, xiii. 301. esset insidias, detestabilior Agrippina,
" Theod. Studit. Laudatio Platonis, Neronis matre, fuisset, cum ilia sua?
26-9 (Patr. Gr. xcix.) ; Vita Theod. quoque vitae dispendio filium imperare
Stud. 20 ; Baron. 795. 43-59. maluisset. Contra vero, quod ista reli-
" Theophan. 729 ; Schlosser, 310. gionis causa, amore justitise, in filium
p €(s irafiaKA-naiv, says Theophanes. perpetrata creduntur, ab orientalibus
His translator renders the words " ad nonnuUis, qui facto aderant, viris sanc-
preces;" Goar (not. in loc.) understands tissimis eadem post hsec meruit pra?co-
irapoLKXricns to mean a reliijious procession ; nio celebrari." ( 796. 8. ) Our own con-
Schlosser (326), a private chapel. temporary, the Abbe Kohrbacher, is little
1 Theophan. 730-2. It has been very short of Baronius. (xi. 220-1.) Irene
generally inferred from the historian's was canonised by the Greeks. Finlay,
words that Constantine died under the ii. 102.
operation. But Gibbon (iv. 414-5),
160 THE GREEK EMPIRE. Book III.
reuniting the empires by a marriage with Charlemagne/ when, in
October 802, she was deposed by the secretary Nicephorus, and
was banished to Lesbos, where she died within a few months.^
Nicephorus, who is described as having surpassed all his prede-
cessors in rapacity, lust and cruelty,'^ was bent on subjecting the
hierarchy to the imperial power. He forbade the patriarch to
correspond with the pope, whom he considered as a tool of Charle-
magne ; and he earned the detestation of the clergy by heavily
taxing monastic and ecclesiastical property which had until then
been exempt, by seizing the ornaments of churches, by stabling
his horses in monasteries, and by extending a general toleration
to iconoclasts and sectaries." In 81 1,^ Nicephorus was killed^ in
a war with the Bulgarians, and his son Stauracius, after a reign
of little more than two months, was thrust into a monastery, where
he soon after died of wounds received before his accession.^ On
the deposition of Stauracius, his brother-in-law, Michael Rhan-
gabe, was compelled to accept the empire, and images were again
restored to honour. The iconoclastic party, however, continued
to exist. An attempt was made by some of its members to set a
blinded son of Constantine Copronymus on the throne ; ^ and on
the alarm of a Bulgarian invasion, soon after the elevation of
Michael, a very remarkable display of its spirit took place. While
the clergy, the monks, and vast numbers of the people, were
deprecating the danger by processions and prayers, some icono-
clastic soldiers^ broke open the mausoleum of the emperors, pros-
trated themselves on the tomb of Copronymus, and entreated him
to save the state; and they asserted that, in answer to their
prayers, he had appeared to them on horseback, and had gone
forth against the barbarians ; "whereas," says Theophanes, "he
dwells in hell with devils." ^ Although the motive of these men
was more probably fraud than fanaticism — (for, besides the story
of the apparition, they pretended that the mausoleum had been
opened by miracle) — we may infer the existence of a strong attach-
ment to the memory of Constantine among the party to which
such an imposture could be addressed with any hope of finding
believers."
" Theophan. 736 ; Cedren. 474. Against to him — partly, perhaps, on account of
the story, see Gibbon, iv. 509 ; Schlosser, the emperor's enmity to the clergy.
338; Luden, V. 12-3. y Theophan. 764; Pagi, xiii. 470;
' Theophau. 738-745 ; G. Hamart. Gibbon, v. 292.
cclix. ; Gibbon, iv. 415-6. ^ Schlosser, 374-5.
" Theophan. 775-8, 765. '' Theophan. 773. ^ lb. 781.
'^ Gibbon, iv. 494; Finlay, i. 110-6, "= See Walch, x. 546.
125. Mr. Finlay is rather favourable
Chap. VII. a.d. 802-813, IMAGES IN THE WEST,
161
Michael, although a man of estimable character, proved miequal
to the government of the empire, and, after a reio'n of
two years, he was deposed and tonsured, wrnle a general
named Leo was raised to the throne. Michael, who by a clemency
unusual in such cases, was allowed to retain not only his life but
his eyesight, survived his dethronement thirty-two years.*^
II. While the decree of the second council of Nicaea established
a reconciliation between Rome and Constantinople, and was gladly
confirmed by the Pope, it met with a less favourable reception
north of the Alps. In the Frankish church a middle opinion on
the subject of images had prevailed ; as the eastern Christians had
been led to cherish their images for the sake of contrast with their
Mahometan neighbours, so the Franks were restrained from excess
in this kind of devotion by the necessity of opposing the idolatry
of the unconverted Germans.® The question had been one of those
discussed by a mixed assembly of clergy and laity which
was held under Pipin at Gentilly, in the presence of
envoys from Pope Paul and of ambassadors from Constantino
Copronymus ; and, although their decision on this point is not re-
corded, there can be no reasonable doubt that it agreed with the
general views of the national church.^
Adrian sent the acts of the Nicene council to Charlemagne,
with an evident expectation that they would be received by the
Franks. But the late rupture of the match between the king's
daughter and the son of Irene had not tended to bespeak from him
any favourable consideration of the eastern decrees ; and his own
convictions were opposed to them. He sent them to Alcuin, who
was then in England ; and it is said that the English bishops
joined in desiring their countryman to MTite against the council.^
Alcuin made some remarks on the Nicene Acts, in the form of a
letter ; and out of these probably grew a treatise in four books,
which was put forth in the name of Charlemagne, and is known by
the title of the " Caroline Books." It is supposed that Alcuin, who
returned to France in 793,^ was the chief author, but that he was
assisted by other ecclesiastics, and that the king himself took part
d Theophan. 779, 783-4 ; G. Hamart. Schrockh, xix. 566 ; Giesel. II. i. 93 ;
cclxi. 5-6; Gibbon, iv. 417 ; Schlosser Neand. v. 323; Hefele, iii. 400.
says 35 years. 392. ^ Sym. Dunelm. a.d. 792 ; Rog.
" Mabill. V. xxiv-v. ; Dollinger, i. Hoveden, ap. Savile, 232, b. Dr. Lin-
356-7 ; Milman, ii. 235. Some other gard attempts to explain away their
reasons which Dollinger gives for the statements. A. S. C. ii. 114-6, and Ap-
Frankish view appear untenable. pend. G.
f See Eiuhard, a.d. 767 ; Spauheim, t- Pagi, xiii. 257.
778; Basnage, 1357; Walch, xi. 33-5;
M
1(32 THE CAROLINE BOOK.S. I'ook Iir.
in the revision of the work.' Tlie tone of this treatise is firm and
dignified. Although great deference for the apostolic see is pro-
fessed, the writer resolutely maintains the Frankish view as to
images, and unsparingly criticises the grounds alleged for the doc-
trine which was held in common by the east and by Rome. While
the iconoclasts and the Byzantine council of 754 are blamed for
overlooking the distinction between images and idols, their mistake
is declared to be much less than that committed by the Nicene
synod in confounding the use of images with the worship of them ;
the one error is ascribed to ignorance, the other to wickedness.''
Much is said against the style of language officially employed by
the Byzantine court, which is censured as trenching on the honour
due to God." The synod is blamed for having allowed itself to
be guided by a woman, contrary to St. Paul's order that women
should not be admitted to teach." Its pretension to be ecumenical
is denied, on the ground that it neither was assembled from all
churches, nor holds the faith of the universal Church ;° its claim
to Divine sanction is also disallowed.!" It is said to be madness
for one portion of the Church to anathematise other portions in a
matter as to which the apostles had not laid down any rule ; and
much more so when the opinions so branded are agreeable to the
earlier councils and Fathers.'' The passages which had been cited
at Nicaea from Scripture and the Fathers are examined, and are
cleared from the abuse there made of them.'' The council is
censured for having admitted many stories of a fabulous or apo-
cryphal kind.' The account of our Lord's correspondence with
' See Dupin, vi. 146 ; Mosh. ii. 167 ; in order to be refuted. (See Walch, xi.
Walch, xi. 66-8; Schrockh, xx. 585-8; 51,61-2; Lorenz, 117-8.) But its genu-
Giesel. II. i, 94; Lorenz, 119; Neaud. ineness is now acknowledged. See Du-
V. 324-5; Biihr, .346; Gfrorer, iii. 624; pin, vi. 1-20; Dollinger, i. 358; Bahr,
Hardwick, 54 ; Milman, ii. 236. The 345 ; Hefele, iii. 653-4. Hefele gives
' Libri Carolini ' were first published in an index to the quotations made in this
1549 by Jean du Tillet, afterwards treatise from the Nicene Acts, 665-8.
bishop of Meaux, who styled himself The Caroline Books are reprinted in Gol-
" Eli. Phili." By /iVz. was meant Elijah, dast's 'Imperialia Decreta,' and thence
in allusion to the connexion between that in Migne's ' Patrologia,' xcviii. But
prophet and St. John the Baptist, whose Hefele says (653) that the best edition
name the editor bore; perhaps, too. as is that by Hermann, Hanover, 1731.
Bayle says (Art. Du Tillet, note B), ^ Prsef. ap. Goldast. 92, 94; Lib. i.
Du Tillet may have intended to hint 27 ; iv. 4, p. 473.
that he was to imitate Elijah's exertions "' i. 1-4. " iii. 13.
against idolatry. " Phili." was an ab- ° iv. 28. This shows that the fact of
breviation of Fhilyra, the Greek name the pope's having presided by his le-
for the tilia or lime-tree. (Schrockh, xx. gates, was not, in the opinion of the
584.) Some Romanists have pretended Franks, enough to warrant the recep-
that the book was a foi'gery of the re- tion of the council, without the consent
former Carlstadt ; others, that it was of the chief churches. Fleury, xliv. 58.
"written by a heretic of Charlemagne's p iii. 14. "i iii. 11-2.
time, and was sent by the king to Rome "^ i. 5, seqq. ; ii. 1, seqq. • iii. 30.
Chap. VJI. a.d. 793-4. THE CAROLINE BOOKS. 163
Abgarus is questioned ; ' the legend of the monk and the devil of
uncleanness is strongly reprobated;" doubts are expressed as to
the truth of many miraculous tales ; and it is argued that, even if
the miracles were really wrought by the images, they would not
warrant the worship of these.'' Remarks are made on expressions
used by individual bishops at the council/ Among these there is
the important misrepresentation that Constantius, of Constantia in
Cyprus, is charged with having placed the adoration of images on
the same level with that of the Trinity, and as having anathema-
tised all who thought otherwise ; whereas in reality he had distin-
guished between the devotion paid to images and that which was
to be reserved for the Trinity alone/' The arguments advanced
in behalf of images are discussed and refuted. The honours paid
in the east to the statues of emperors had been dwelt on by way
of analogy ; but it is denied that this is any warrant for the worship
of images, — " for what madness it is to defend one unlawful thing
by another !" — and the conduct of Daniel in Babylon is cited as
proving the sinfulness of the eastern practice.'' It is derogatory to
the holy mystery of the eucharist — to the cross, the symbol of our
salvation and sign of our Christian profession, — to the. consecrated
vessels, and to the sacred books, — that the veneration paid to these
should be paralleled with the worship of images.^' The reverence
due to relics, which had either been part of the bodies of saints or
had been connected with them, is no ground for paying a like
regard to images, which are the mere work of the artist.*^ Christ
and his saints desire no such worship as that in question ; and,
although the more learned may be able to practise it without
idolatry, the unlearned, who have no skill in subtle distinctions,
will be drawn to pay really divine worship to that which they see.
The guilt of causing offence must rest, not on those who allow
images and only refuse worship to them, but on those who force
the worship on others.*^ The only proper use of them is by way of
ornament, or as historical memorials ; ® it is absurd to say that they
represent to us the merits of the saints, since these merits are not
external.*' The right use of images for remembrance is strongly
distinguished from the plea that it is impossible to remember God
without them ; those persons (it is said) must have very faulty
t iv. 10. Acts. See Hefele, iii. 651, 660.
" iii. 31. " iii. 25. ■'' iii. 15.
y iii. 3, seqq., 17, seqq. *> ii. 27-30. " iii. 24.
-'■ Comp. iii. 17 M'ith Hard. iv. 152. '' iii. 16, fin. "^ i. 16.
This mistake probably aiose from the ' i. 17, pp. 175-6, ed. Goldast.
badness of the translation of the Niceue
M 2
164 COUNCIL OF FRANKFORT. Book III.
memories who need to be reminded by an image — who are unable
to raise their minds above the material creation except by the
help of a material and created object/ The king concludes by
declaring to the pope that he adheres to the principles laid down
by GrefTory the Great in his letters to Serenus of Marseilles,^' and
that he believes this to be the rule of the Catholic Church. Images
are to be allowed ; the worship of them is not to be enforced ; it
is forbidden to break or to destroy them.' -^
These books (or perhaps the propositions which they were
intended to enforce, rather than the treatise itself^') were commu-
nicated to the pope, and drew forth from him a long reply. But
the arguments of this attempt are feeble, and its tone appears to
shojv that Adrian both felt the weakness of his cause, and was
afraid to otfend the great sovereign whose opinions he was labouring
to controvert.™
It is doubtful whether these communications took place before
or after the council which was held, under the presidency of Charle-
magne, at Frankfort in 794." This council was both a diet of the
empire and an ecclesiastical synod. Bishops were assembled from
Lombardy and Germany as well as from France ; some represen-
tatives of the English church, and two legates from Rome, were
also present ;° and, at the king's suggestion, Alcuin was admitted
to a place on account of the service which he might be able to
render by his learning.!' The question of images was dealt with in
a manner which showed that the council had no idea of any right
on the part of Rome to prescribe to the Frankish church. The
second canon adverts to "the late synod of the Greeks, in which
it was said that those should be anathematised who should not
bestow service or adoration on the images of the saints, even as
on the Divine Trinity." In opposition to this, the fathers of
Frankfort refuse " both adoration and service of all kinds " to
images ; they express contempt for the eastern synod, and agree
in condemning it.i The passage especially censured by this canon
is the speech wrongly ascribed in the Caroline Books to the
Cyprian metropolitan Constantius, and the misrepresentation is
probably to be charged on the imperfect state in which the Nicene
e Lib. Carol, ii. 22. writings.
^ See above, p. 26. ' iv. ult. ° The whole number of bishops is said
^ See Hefele, iii. 669. to have been about 300 ; but Walch (ix.
™ Neand. v. 335; Milraan, ii. 237. 761) says that this number rests on no
His answer is in Hard. iv. 773, seqq. authority older than Baronius.
" Neand. v. 33.5. Walch places the p C. 56. Hard. iv. 909.
council first (xi. 72) ; Gieseler (H. i. 'i " Contempserunt." lb. 904,
95-G) places it after the exchange of
Chap. VII. A.D.794. ADOPTIONISM. 165
acts were presented to the Frankish divines, But, whatever the
reason of it may have been, and however the members of the
Frankfort council may have misapprehended the opinions of the
orientals, there is no ground for arguing from this that they
did not understand and plainly state their own judgment on the
question.'"
Notwithstanding the opposition to his views on the subject of
images, Adrian continued to cultivate friendly relations with
Charlemagne ; the political interest which bound Rome to the
Franks was more powerful than his sympathy with the Greeks as
to doctrine. The retention of Calabria and lllyricum, which had
been taken from the Roman see by the iconoclastic emperors in
the earlier stage of the controversy, alienated the popes more and
more from the Byzantine rule, until in 800 the connexion with the
east was utterly severed by the coronation of Charlemagne as the
sovereign of a new empire of Rome.
III. Before proceeding to the question of images, the council of
Frankfort had been occupied with the doctrine of a Spanish bishop,
named Felix, on the relation of our Lord's humanity to the
Almighty Father. The term adoptmi had been applied to the
Incarnation by some earlier writers and in tlu; Spanish Liturgy ; it
appears, however, not to have been used in its strict sense, but
rather as equivalent to assunijJtionJ' The passages which Felix
and his party produced from the Fathers as faA ourable to their
view, spoke of an adoption of nature, of Jiesh, or of manhood ;
whereas they themselves made an important variation from this
language by speaking of an adoption of the iSoti}
The Adoptionists were charged by their opponents with Nes-
torianism,'^ and in spirit the two systems are unquestionably similar.
Yet the Adoptionists admitted the doctrine which had been settled
>■ This evasion is attempted by Baro- dum carnis liumilitas adoptatur." Alcuiii
uius (794. 36-7) and by Bollinger (i. (Adv. Felic. vi. 6) was for reading ado-
357). Elsewhere Baronius argues that ratnr, and Hincmar charges Felix with
the Council of Frankfort could not have having bribed Charlemagne's librarian
really condemned that of Nicaja, heaaisc to falsify the mannsci'ipt of Hilary
whatever it may have determined must (Prajf. in Dissert, ii. de Prtedestina-
have been meant with submission to the tione, Patrol, cxxv. 5.5) ; but the con-
Roman see ! Other Komish evasions text seems to show that adoptittnr, which
are collected by Basnage (1368-9) and is found in most MSS., is right, and that
Gieseler, I. ii. 96. it is used in the sense of assumption.
' See Giesel. II. i. 111-2, and, as to N. in loc. ed. Bened. ; Walch, ix. 897-9 ;
the Spanish Liturgy, Lesley's Preface to Giesel. II. i. 112 ; Hefele, iii. 670.
it. Patrol. Ixxxv. 41 ; Gue'ranger, i. 212. ' DoUinger, i. 360; Dorner, ii. 317.
There was a dispute as to a passage in " E. f/. Cone. Francof. Ep. ad Epis-
St. Hilary of Poitiers (De Trinitate, ii. copos Hisp. 23 (Patrol, ci. 1342).
27) — " Potestatis diguitas non amittitur
166 AUOPTIONISM. Book 111.
as orthodoxy for three centuries and a half : they made no objec-
tion to the term Deipara (or Theotokos), as apphed to the mother
of the Saviour's humanity ; they allowed the union of natures in
Him." The distinctive peculiarity of the party was, that, while
they granted the communication of properties between the two
natures, they insisted on distinguishing the manner in which the
predicates of the one nature were given to the other ; they regarded
it as a confusion of the natures, and a virtual merging of the
humanity, to say that Christ was proper and real Son of God, not
only in his Godhead but in his whole person/ He cannot, they
said, be properly Son of God as to his human nature, unless it be
supposed that the humanity and fleshly substance were derived from
the very essence of God/' The highest thing that can befall
humanity is to be adopted into sonship with God ; more than this
would be a change of nature." Christ's humanity, then, is adopted
to sonship ; in one sense this adoption existed from the moment of
his conception ; in another, it began at his baptism, when He
passed from the condition of a servant to that of a Son ; and it
was consummated in his resurrection.^ He cannot have two
fathers in the same nature ; in his humanity He is naturally the
Son of David, and by adoption and grace the Son of God. By
nature He is the " only-begotten " Son of God ; by adoption and
grace the " first-begotten." " In the Son of God the Son of man
becomes very Son of God ; but it is only in a nuncupative way, as
was the case with those of whom He himself said that the Scripture
" called them gods to whom the word of God came ;" his adoption
is like that of the saints, although it is after a far more excellent
fashion.*^ The Adoptionists also pressed into their service texts
which were in truth meant to set forth the reality of our Lord's
manhood, and its inferiority to, or dependence on, his divinity.®
Felix, who has been mentioned as a chief assertor of this doctrine,
was bishop of Urgel, in Catalonia, then a part of Charlemagne's
dominions. He was a man of great acuteness and learning ; his
reputation was such that Alcuin sought his correspondence, and,
even after the promulgation of his heresy, continued to speak with
much respect of his sanctity.*^ His associate Elipand, bishop of
^ Donier, ii. 307-3 iO. Hispan. c. 9 (Patrol, ci. 1324).
y Walch, ix. 862-4, 891 ; Dorner, ii. <• (St. .loh. x. 3.')) ; Fel. ap. Ale. iv.
312. 2; Walch, ix. 875, 915; Dorner, ii.
^ Felix ap. Ale. i. 12 ; Dorner, ii. 313. 312-7.
•» Dorner, ii. 314. * Schnlckh, xx. 470-1; Neand. v.
^ Fel. ap. Ale. ii. 16 ; Walch, ix. 867, 221-2 ; Dorner, ii. 314.
873-8; Neand. v. 223-5; Dorner, ii. f Ale. Ep. iv., p. 7; Cf. t. i., p. 783;
315-8. Lorenz, 257.
"■ Fel. ap. vVlc. iii. 1 ; Ep. Episcc.
Chap. Vlf. a.u. 7»3-794. . FELIX AND ELIPAND. 167
Toledo, and primate of Spain under the Mahometan dominion,
was fer advanced in life when the controversy broke out. He
appears to have been a person of violent and excitable temper,
and very jealous of his dignity.'^ His style is described as more
obscure than that of Felix, and it is therefore inferred that he was
moi'B profound.'
The early history of the Adoptionist doctrine is unknown. It is
probable that Felix was the originator of it, and perhaps he may
have been led into it by controversy with his Mahometan neighbours,
to whom this view of our Lord's humanity would have been less
repulsive than that which was generally taught by the church. '^
At least, it appears certain that, whether the author of the doctrine
or not, Felix was the person who did most to reduce it to a system."'
A correspondence took place between him and Elipand ;
and the primate employed the influence of his position in
favour of the new opinion, which soon gained many adherents."
The first opponents who appeared against Adoptionism were Beatus,
an abbot, and Etherius, bishop of Osma, who had formerly been
his pupil. Elipand, in a letter to an abbot named Fidelis, de-
nounced the two very coarsely ; he even carried his intolerance so
far as to declare that all who should presume to differ from him
were heretics and slaves of Antichrist, and that, as such, they must
be rooted onU' Etherius and Beatus rejoined at great length, in a
book which, as to tone, appears almost worthy of their antagonist."!
The pope, Adrian, now had his attention drawn to the controversy,
and in 785 wrote a letter to the orthodox bishops of Spain, warning
them against the new doctrine as an error such as no one since
Nestorius had ventured on.'"
This letter, however, failed to appease the differences which had
arisen. A council which is said to have been held against the
Adoptionists at Narbonne, in 788, is generally regarded as ficti-
tious.^ But in 792, Charlemagne summoned Felix to appear
before a council at Ratisbon, where he abjured and anathematised
his errors. The king, who presided at the council, appears to
h Walch, ix. 724; Neand. v. 216. Alcuiu, i. 793.
' Dorner, ii. 322. i " Ad Elipandiiin" (Patrol, xcvi. 893
k See Ale. Ep. 85; Neand. v. 218- seqq.). There is a life of Beatus in the
2.:0. same volume, from Mabillon, v. 73.5.
'" Neand. v. 218 ; Dorner, ii. 306. " Patrol, xcviii. 374. Walch (ix. 747)
" Pagi, xiii. 752. questions the genuineness of the letter,
o Walch, ix. 743; Schruckh, xx. 461. but, as Schrockh (xx. 466) thinks, on
P Elip. ap. Beat. i. 40-4 (Patrol, xcvi.) ; ini>ufficient grounds.
Walch, ix, 731-2. Felix ehai-ges Beatus *^ See Walch, ix. 749-751 ; Schrockh,
and Etherius with confounding the Sa- xx. 406 ; Hefele, iii. 620-1.
viour's natures " sicut vinum et aquam."
168 ADOFTIONISM CONDEMNED. Book III.
have doubted either the sincerity of his new profession, or his
steadiness in adhering to it, and therefore sent him in chains to
Rome, where he was imprisoned by order of the pope. He ob-
tained his liberty by drawing up an orthodox confession of faith,
to which he swore in the most solemn manner, laying it on the
consecrated elements and on St. Peter's tomb. But on returning
to Urgel, he again vented his heresy, and, in fear of Charlemagne's
resentment, he fled into the Mahometan part of Spain,* Elipand
and other Spanish bishops wrote to Charlemagne and to the bishops
of France, requesting that Fehx might be restored to his see, and
that measures might be taken for suppressing the opinions of Beatus,
who was charged in the letters with profligacy of life, and was also
styled a false prophet, on account of some speculations as to the
fulfilment of the Apocalypse, into which he had been led by the
oppressed condition of the Spanish church." These letters were
forwarded by Charlemagne to the pope, who thereupon despatched
a second epistle into Spain, denouncing the doctrine of the Adop-
tionists and threatening to excommunicate them if they should
persist in it.''
The council of Frankfort was held between the time of Charle-
magne's application to Adrian and the receipt of the pope's answer.y
No representative of the Adoptionist party appeared ; but Alcuin,
who had been summoned from England to take part in the con-
troversy,^ argued against their doctrine, and the council in its first
canon unanimously condemned it as a heresy which " ought to be
utterly rooted out of the church."'' The Italian bishops adopted a
treatise against Adoptionism drawn up by Paulinus, patriarch of
Aquileia ; and this was sent into Spain, together with a letter from
the bishops of Gaul, Aquitaine, and Germany to the Spanish bishops,
and with one from Charlemagne to Elipand and his brethren.'^
Alcuin addressed a tract against the Adoptionists to the bishops
of the south of France,'' and also wrote in a respectful tone to Felix
himself, urging him to give up the term adoption, which he professed
to consider as the only point in which the bishop of Urgel varied
from the Catholic faith.'^ In consequence of this letter, Felix
addressed a defence of his doctrine to Charlemagne, who there-
' Cone. Kom. ap. Hard. iv. 928 ; Ale. ^ Loreuz, 76.
•adv. Elip. iv. 16; Einhard, a.d. 792; » Hard. iv. 904.
Walch, ix. 752-4. *" The three doeumeuts are in Har-
" Elip. Ep. 3 (Patrol, xcvi.) ; Ep. douin, iv. 873-903; see Waleh, ix. 691,
Episec. Hisp. ib. ci. 1321 ; Cf. Mabillon, 792.
ib. xcvi. 890. '' Opera, i. 759-782.
»■ Hard. iv. 865. '' -lb. 784.
y Neaiid. v. 228.
CnAi-. VII. A.D. T94-6. ALCUIN AGAINST FKLIX. 1 ^^
upon desired Alcuin to undertake a formal refutation of the
Adoptionists. The abbot accepted the task, but stipulated that
time should be allowed him to examine their citations, with the
help of his pupils, and begged that the book of Felix might also
be referred to the pope, to Paulinus of Aquileia, and to other
eminent bishops ; if, he said, all should agree in their judgment
on the point in question, it might be concluded that they were all
guided by the same Holy Spirit.®
Alcuin then produced a treatise in seven books — " these five
loaves and two little fishes," as he styles them/ The foundation
on which he chiefly grounds his argument is the unity of the
Saviour's person. Although Felix had not ventured to deny this,
it is urged that in consistency he must do so, like Nestorius, since
he divides Christ into two sons, the one real, the other nuncupative.^
The same person cannot be at once the proper and the adopted
son of the same father ; Christ alone has by nature that which we
have through Him by adoption and grace.'* The Sonship is not
founded on the nature, but on the person ; the two natures do not
form two sons, since they are themselves not separate, but in-
separably united in the one Christ ; the whole Christ is Son of
God and son of man : there is no room for an adoptive sonship."
Christ was very God from the moment of his human conception.'^
Felix, it is argued, had erred through supposing that a son cannot
be proper unless he be of the same nature with the father ; whereas
the term jjroper does not necessarily imply identity of substance
between that which is so styled and that to which it is ascribed :
as may be seen by our speaking of " proper names " and " proper
[i. e. own] possessions.""' A man is the proper son of his parents
both in body and in soul, although the body only be of their seed ;
and in like manner Christ in his whole person, in manhood as well
as in Godhead, is proper Son of God." But, moreover, says Alcuin,
the whole matter, being supernatural, cannot be fitly measured by
human analogies. Christ is Son of God the Father, although his
flesh be not generated of God ; and to deny the possibility of this
is to impugn the Divine omnipotence," The censure of Frankfort
■= Ep. 69 ; Loreuz, 132. Hence it is any deeper argument — how is the fury
evident that Alcuin had no idea oi papal of Elipand against the doctrine of the
infallibility. Neand. v. 231. church to be accounted for, if his own
f Opera, i. 788. doctrine were the same ?
B Lib. i. 11 ; iv. 5 ; Dorner, ii. 325. ^ ii. 12 ; iii. 2 ; Dorner, ii. 325.
Walch argues that the Adoptionists were ' ii. 12; vii. 11.
orthodox, since they did not say that '' iv. 8-10.
Christ in his twofold sonship was alius '" v. 3 ; Dorner, ii. 325.
ct alius, but that He was sou alitcr ct " iii. 2 ; v. 3 ; Dorner, ii. 324.
alitor, (ix. 881-4.) But — not to go into " i. 9 ; iii. 2.
170 . ADOPTIONISM. i3<)OKlH.
was followed up by a council held at Friuli, under Paulinus
of Aquileia, in 796,'' and by one which met at Eome under Leo
III, in 799. At Friuli it was laid down that the Saviour is
" one and the same son of man and Son of God ; not putative
but real Son of God ; not adoptive, but proper ; proper and not
adoptive in each of his natures, forasmuch as after his assumption
of manhood, one and the same person is inconfusibly and insepar-
ably Son of God and of m"an."*i The Roman council also con-
demned the Adoptionists, but with so little knowledge of the
matter as to accuse them of denying that the Saviour had any
other than a nuncupative Godhead.''
In' the meantime Leidrad, archbishop of Lyons, Nefrid, bishop
of Narbonne, and Benedict, abbot of Aniane, were sent into the
district in which Felix had spread his opinions. They laboured
with much success in confutation of Adoptionism, and, having met
Felix himself at Urgel, they persuaded him, by an assurance of
safety, to proceed into France, in order that he might answer for
himself before a council, which was to be held at Aix-la-Chapelle.^
At Aix, the Adoptionist was confronted by Alcuin, who
had been drawn from his retirement at Tours for the
purpose. The discussion lasted for six days, and Felix at length
professed to be convinced by some passages from the Fathers
which had not before been known to him. He retracted his errors,
condemned Nestorius, and exhorted his clergy and people to
follow the true faith.' As, however, his former chano^es suo^grested
a suspicion of his constancy, he was not allowed to return into his
diocese, but was committed to the care of the archbishop of Lyons.
Leidrad and his brother commissioners went again into Catalonia
for the purpose of rooting out the heresy ; and it is said by Alcuin
that, during their two visits, they made twenty thousand converts
— bishops, clergy, and laity."
Elipand, not being a subject of Charlemagne, was more difficult
to deal with than his associate. He now entered into controversy
with Alcuin, w^hoin he treated with his usual rudeness, reproaching
him as the chief persecutor of Felix, and taxing him (among other
things) with having 20,000 slaves, and with being proud of his
wealth.^ Alcuin replied in four books, and the death of Elipand
p As to the date of this, which some 1399 seqq.
wrongly place in 791, see Patrol, xcix. ' Alcuin, Ep. 92, 176; Vita Ale. 7;
534-6 ; Hefele, iii. 674. Hard. iv. 929-934.
1 Hard. iv. 756. ' lb. 928. " Ep. 92, p. 136: Comp. Walch, ix.
^ Ale. Ep. 92, t. i. p. 136, ad Leidr. 776.
xc. ib. 860 ; Pagi, xiii. 350. Benedict's ^ Elip. Ep. iv. 5 (Patrol, xcvi.). The
tract against Felix is in the Patrol, civ. address of the letter may be quoted as a
Chap. VII. a.d. 796-81S. CONTROVERSY AS TO PROCESSION.
171
(whom some writers improbably represent as having at last
renounced his heresy),^ followed soon after. Felix remained at
Lyons with Leidrad, and afterwards with his successor Agobard.
He occasionally vented some of his old opinions, but, when Ago-
bard argued with him, he professed to be convinced. After his
death, however, which took place in 818, it was found that he had
left a paper containing the chief points of his heresy in the form
of question and answer ; and Agobard found himself obliged to
undertake a refutation of this, in order to counteract the mischief
which it was likely to produce, as coming from a person who had
been much revered for sanctity .^ Although the Adoptionist doc-
trine has been revived or justified by some writers of later tifties,
it never afterwards gained any considerable influence. '-
IV. Towards the end of Charlemagne's reign a controversy
arose as to the Procession of the Holy Spirit, In the Latin Church
it had always been held that the Third Person of the Godhead
proceeds from the Second as well as from the First.* The same
doctrine which the Latins thus expressed — that the Godhead of
the Holy Spirit is communicated not only from the Father but
from the Son — had also been held by the Greeks in general ; but,
as the word proceed is in Scripture used only of his relation to the
Father,*^ they had not applied it to express his relation to the Son."
Thus the second General Council, in the words which it added to
the Nicene creed in opposition to the Macedonian heresy, defined
only that the Holy Ghost " proceedeth from the Father." Theo-
doret, indeed, had used language which seems irreconcilable with
the western belief ; ^ but it is not to be understood as expressing
more than the private opinion of a writer whose orthodoxy was not
unimpeached on other points ; and as yet no controversy either of
fact or of expression had arisen as to this subject between the two
great divisions of the church.
specimen of the Spanish primate's style : riana, v. 67. See Antonio, in Patrol-
— " Revereudissimo fratri Albino dia- xcvi. 857.
cono,nonCliristiministro,sedantiphrasii y Agob. adv. Felicem, 1-6.
Beati fcetidissimi discipulo .... novo ^ Schrockh, xx. 494 ; Giesel. II. i.
Arrio, sanctorum venerabiliura patrum 117.
Ambrosii, Augustini, Isidori, Hieronymi, " See quotations from Hilary, Am-
doctrinis contrario — si se converterit ab brose, Augustine, and Leo the Great, in
errore viae suse, a Domino seternam sa- Pearson on the Creed, ii. 430-1, ed.
lutem ; et si uoluerit, ajternam damna- Barton, Oxf. 1833; Petav. de Trin. vii.
tionem." The slaves are supposed to 8; Giesel. II. i. 107.
have been those attached to the estates ^ St. John, xv. 26.
belonging to St. Martins Abbey and to " Pearson, ii. 432-3 ; Petav. vii. 3 ;
Alcuin's other preferments. See his Schrockh, xx. 499.
answer to the charge, Ep. ad Leidr. t. '^ See Pearson, ii. 434 ; Petav. vii. 17 ;
i. 861. Schrockh, XX. .501.
^ Vita Beati ap. Mabill. v. 737 ; Ma-
172
CONTROVERSY AS TO PROCESSION Book III.
In the west, the procession of the Spirit from the Son was in
time introduced into creeds.® It is found in the Athanasian Creed,
a form which was undoubtedly of western composition, but of
which the date is much disputed. '^ The first appearance of the
doctrine in the Nicene or Constantinopolitan creed was at the third
council of Toledo, in 589 ;° and it was often enforced by later
Spanish councils, under the sanction of an anathema.'' It would
seem to have been from Spain that the definition made its way into
France, where the truth of the Double Procession was not con-
troverted, but some questions M'ere raised as to the expediency or
lawfulness of adding to the Nicene Creed.'
The origin of the differences on this subject in the period now
before us is not clear. "^ There was some discussion of
" it at the council of Gentilly, where the ambassadors of
Constantine Copronymus were present;'" but (as has been already
stated") the details of that council are unknown. At the council
of Friuli, in 796, Paulinus maintained the expediency of the defi-
nition, " on account of those heretics who whisper that the Holy
Spirit is of the Father alone, and proceedeth from the Father
alone ;" he defended it against the charge of novelty, as being not
an addition to the Nicene Creed, but an explanation of it;" and
the council adopted a profession of faith in which the Double
Procession was laid down.i'
The matter came in a more pressing form before a synod held
at Aix in 809, when a complaint was made that one John, a monk
■^ See Petav. vii. 2. or eighth century, aud says that the tes-
' A table of the different opinions as timonies alleged for it before the latter
to its date and avithorship is given by part of the eighth are very uncertain.
Waterland, iii. 117, ed. 1843. Gerard He considers the name Fides Athannsii
Vossius once thought that it was the to be intended as the opposite of Fides
work of a Frenchman, in the reign of Arii, and infers that the Creed was
Pipin or of Charlemagne, but afterwards composed in Spain, the country where
modified his opinion so far as to say Arianism kept the longest hold (II. i.
that the Creed was not older than a. d. 109-110). Mr. Harvey thinks that it
(300 (ib. lOS). Quesnel ascribed it to was probably made by Victricius, bishop
Vigilius ofTapsus (a.d. 484), and has of Rouen, in defending himself against
been followed by many in this opinion a charge of heresy, a.d. 401. ('The
(ib. 111). Waterland himself (ib. 213- Three Creeds,' .584 seqq., Camb. 1854.)
9) supposes it the work of Hilary of The proof of this does not appear very
Aries, composed after his elevation to convincing,
the bishoprick (a.d. 429), and in couse- « Hard. iii. 472.
queuce of the retractation of Leporius ^ Schrockh, xx. 503-4; Giesel. II. i.
(see voh i. p. 436). Gieseler, in his 107. See Isid. Hispal. Ep. 6 (Patrol,
posthumous Lectures on the History of Ixxxiii.) aud Gonzalez, Pref to the
Doctrines (Lehrb. vi. 325), says that it Spanjsh Canons, ib. Ixxxiv.
is probably of the sixth century ; but in
another passage (which may have been
composed or revised later than the Lec-
tures, although it was published during
his lifetime) he refers it to the seventh
Giesel. II. i. 108-9.
^ Ib.
Einhard, a.d. 767.
P. 161. ° Hard.
iv. 850.
Ib. 855.
Ciui'. VII. A.I.. 767-809. OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 173
of St. Sabas, had attacked the Frankish monks and pilgrims at
Jerusalem on account of this doctrine, and had attempted to dri\e
them away by force."' The council approved of the addition to the
creed,'" and Charlemagne sent two bishops and Adelhard, abbot of
Corbie, to Rome, with a request that the pope would confirm the
judgment. Leo, at a conference with the envoys, of which a
curious account is preserved,^ expressed his agreement in the
doctrine of the Double Procession, but decidedly opposed the
insertion of it into the creed. It would, he said, be wrono- to
insert it, since a council guided by wisdom from above had omitted
it ; and, moreover, the point was one of those which are not neces-
sary to salvation for the mass of ordinary Christians. It is said
that he put up in St. Peter's two silver shields engraved with the
creed of Constantinople in Greek and in Latin, and that on both
the words which express the procession of the Spirit from the Son
were omitted. But, in order that there might be no doubt as to
his opinion on the question of doctrine, he sent into the east a
confession of faith in which the Double Procession was twice dis-
tinctly affirmed.' We hear no more of the difference between the
Eastern and Western Churches on this subject until at a later time
it was revived and led to important consequences.
It may be difficult to follow, and impossible to read with interest,
the history of such controversies as those on Monothelism and
Adoptionism ; and the Church has often been reproached with the
agitation into which it was thrown by questions which never enter
into the consideration of the great body of Christian believers.
We ought, however, to remember that an error which is to agitate
the Church internally must not begin by setting at nought the
decisions of former times ; the spirit of speculation must fix on
some point which is apparently within the limits already prescribed
for orthodoxy. Hence, in the controversies which relate " to the
highest Christian doctrines, the ground is continually narrowed, as
we proceed from Arianism to Nestorianism and Eutychianism, and
1 Ep. Monachorum in Monte Oliveti (809-53). Pagi argues against him (xiii.
habitantium (Patrol, cxxix. 12.57) ; Ein- 455-f5). Comp. Mosheim, ii. 167, and
hard, a.d. 809 ; Ado, a.d. 8u9 (Patrol. Schrockh, xx. 506.
cxxiii.). Ado finds the double proces- ' Hard. iv. 969-973.
sion clearly (uperte) laid down in Reve- ' Leo, Ep. 15 (Patrol, cii.) ; Auastas.
lat. xxii. 1. (col. 133.) ib. cxxviii. 1237; Pet. Lombard, Sen-
■■ Baronius says that the question at tent. I. xi. 2 (ib. cxcii.) ; Pagi, xiii. 457.
Aix did not relate to doctrine, but solely See Hefele, iii. 702-3.
to the addition of FiUoque in the Creed
174 INCREASED SUBTLETY OF CONTROVERSIES. l^'^i^ "l-
from these to the errors which have lately come before us ; while
each question, as it arose, required to be discussed and decided by
the lights of Scripture and of the judgments which had been before
pronounced. It is not, therefore, the Church that deserves to be
blamed, if the opinions against which its solemn condemnations
were directed became successively more and more subtle ; and the
reader must be content to bear with the writer, if their path should
sometimes lie through intricacies which both must feel to be
uninviting and wearisome.
Chap. VIII. A.r>. 59(J-814. ( 175 )
C II A P T E E VIII.
THE OKJENTAL SECTS.
I, It has been mentioned, in the sketch of the Mahometan conquests,
that the Arabs took advantage of the enmity between the Catholics
and the Jacobites (or Monophysites) to enlist the depressed and
persecuted sectaries on their side.'' For the services thus rendered,
the Jacobites were repaid by a superior degree of favour from their
new masters when Egypt and Syria had fallen under the rule of
the caliphs. Many of those whom the measures of Heraclius had
driven to profess Catholicism now returned to the open avowal of
their old opinions ; and the church further lost, not only by the
progress of the sword and doctrines of Islam, but by the defection
of many of its own members to the heretical Christianity.
The Jacobites continued to be strong in Egypt, and also in the
more westerly countries of Asia, where they were now under the
government of a patriarch resident at Amida. But the party had
been extirpated in Persia,'' and it made no further progress towards
the east."
II. The history of the Nestorians during this period was more
remarkable. They, like the opposite sect, were at first courted
and afterwards favoured by the Mussulmans on account of their
hostility to the orthodox church. At their head was a bishop
known by the title of Catholic or Patriarch of Babylon ; his resi-
dence was originally at Seleucia or Ctesiphon,*^ but on the founda-
tion of Bagdad by Almansur, in 762, the patriarch removed his
seat to that city,^ In the eighth century, the Nestorians got a
footing in Egypt ;^ and in the east they laboured with great
activity to propagate their form of Christianity, without, appa-
rently, any rivalry on the part of the Catholics. Following the
course of trade, Nestorian missionaries made their way by sea
from India to China, while others penetrated across the deserts to
its northern frontier.^ A stone discovered at Si-ngan-foo, in
1625, bears a long inscription, partly Syriac and partly Chinese,
recording the names of missionaries who had laboured in China,
'' P. 40. <; Pagi, xiii. 6; Wiltsch, i. 451.
^ See vol. i. p. 538. f Schrockh, xx. 377.
■= Schrockh, xx. 378. e Mosheiin, Hist. Tartarorum Ecclesi-
d From A.D. 498. Wiltsch, i. 21 fi. astica, 12.
176 NESTORIAN MISSIONS. Book III.
with the history of Christianity in that country from the year 636
to 781. Its fortunes had been varied by success and persecution ;
but in the eighth century it had usually enjoyed great favour from
the emperors, and many churches had been built. With these
details the inscription contains a summary of Christian doctrine
and practice, in which a tinge of Nestorianism is discernible.'' It
would seem that this early Christianity of China fell with the
dynasty which had encouraged it ; for some missionaries who about
the year 980 were sent by the Catholic of Babylon into that
country found the churches destroyed, and could only hear of one
native who continued to profess their own religion,'
The patriarch Timothy, who held his office from 777 to 820,
reduced the Nestorian metropolitan of Persia to subjection, and
was especially active in organizing missions.'^ By the preachers
whom he sent out, a knowledge of Christianity was spread in
Hyrcania, Tartary, Bactria, and other countries of central Asia,
where it long retained a hold. Bishops and metropolitans, owning
allegiance to the patriarch of Babylon, were established in those
vast regions, and with a view to this a singular ritual provision was
made by Timothy — that, if no more than two bishops could be
procured for the consecration of a brother, the canonical number
should be made up by allowing a book of the Gospels to supply the
place of the third.™
III. The tenets and character of the Paulicians have been the
subject of controversy, which has been too often largely influenced
by the party interests of those who have shared in it. Writers of
*• Mosheim (ib. Append. 4-28) gives a the Jesuits could not have forged ; that
copy of the inscription after Kircher, both the Chinese and the Syriac cha-
and M. Pauthier has lately published it racters agree in form with the alleged
in the original languages, with a trans- date ; that its statements fall in with
lation and a fac-simile (L'luscription other circumstances which could not
Syro-Chinoise de Si-ngan-fou, Paris, have been known to the Jesuits; and
1858). The genuineness of this record that no suspicion of its genuineness has
has been disputed, but seems to be now been entertained by native Chinese
commonly, although not universally, scholars. Moreover, if the Jesuits had
admitted. M. Pauthier, in another ventured on a forgery, they would have
pamphlet, has defended it against recent made it more favourable to their own
objections (De I'Authenticit^ de I'lnscr. views. As to the fact of Christianity
Nestorienne de Si-ngan-fou, Paris, 1857). in China, there is sufficient testimony of
As it was through Jesuit missionaries other kinds. See Mosh. ii. 62, and Hist,
that it became known to Europe, it has Tartar. 9-13 ; Schrockh, xix. 293-6 ;
been regarded as a fraud of the Society. Gieseler, I. ii. 437 ; Gibbon, iv. 378, and
But it appears that the Jesuits did not Dean Milman's notes,
see the stone until three years after it ' Pauthier, Authent. de I'lnscr. 95.
had been discovered by some Chinese ^ Schrockh, xx. 376.
workmen in digging the foundation of a »" Mosh. Hist. Tart. 15; Schrockh,
house, and had been placed in a Chinese xix. 297 ; Gibbon, iv. 377 ; Neander, v.
temple; that it contains things which 123.
Chap. VIH.
PAULICIANISl^I.
177
the Roman Church have professed to discover in the Pauhcians the
ancestors of the protestant reformers, and have transferred to these
the charges of Manichseism which are brought against the ancient
sect."^ On the other hand, some protestants have ventured to
accept the pedigree, and, with a conlldence which equally disdains
facts and reason, have asserted that the Paulicians were guiltless
of the heresies imputed to them — that they were the maintainers
of what such writers suppose to be a purely scriptural Christianity."
It would be useless to enter here into a discussion of these rival
extravagances.
Althouf^h it is agreed that the word Paulician is a barbarous
formation from the name Paul, there is a question as to the
person from whom the designation was taken. Some trace it to
one Paul of Samosata — not the notorious bishop of Antioch, in
the third century, but a Manicheean of later, although uncertain,
date ; '' others to an Armenian who was eminent in the sect about
the time of Justinian II.i But the most probable supposition
appears to be that it is derived from the name of the great
Apostle, whom the Paulicians affected especially to regard as
their master."^
° See Rader, in the verses prefixed to
his translation of Petr. Siculus ; Baron.
810. 7 ; Bossuet, Hist, des Variations, 1.
xi. 13, seqq.
" Some letters by the Rev. G_- _S.
Faber, in vols, xiv.-xv. of the ' British
Magazine,' may be mentioned as ex-
amples of this class. Neander, not being
hampered by the same doctrinal scruples
as the English patrons of the sect, is
able to take a somewhat bolder view ;
he traces the Paulicians to his favourite
Marcion (see vol. i. p. 59), and acknow-
ledges their Gnosticism and Dualism,
while he holds that under these forms
they appi-eheuded a spiritual Christian-
ity, derived from St. Paul and St. John !
(v. 342). The principal sources of infor-
mation as to the sect are Photius in the
1st of his four books against the Mani-
chreans, (printed in Wolf's ' Anecdota
GrjEca,' tt. i.-ii. H*amb. 1722, and in the
Patrol. Gr. vol. cii.,) and Petrus Siculus,
whose tract was published, with a bad
Latin version by Rader, a Jesuit, at
Ingoldstadt, in 1604, and has been edited,
with a new translation, by Giesuler
(Guttingen, 1846). In the Patrol. Gr.
vol. civ. this tract, with three discourses
against the Manichseans by the same
author, is reprinted from Mai's collec-
tion. The two chief works have much
in common, the authors having probably
used the same materials. Some sup-
pose that Photius wrote first, and that
his treatise was known to Peter. (See
Gieseler, Prsef. vi.-viii.; Wolf, Prsef. ad
Phot.; Mosh. ii. 253, notes ; Schrockh,
XX. 305 ; Bowling's Letter to Maitland
on the Paulicians, Lond, 1835, p. 32;
Gfrorer, ii. 224) ; hut Cardinal Mai and
the Editor in the ' Patrologia ' (civ.
Pra?f. vi.) think that Photius borrowed
from Peter. George, who styles himself
" The Sinner " (Hamartolus), a Greek
monk of the 9th century, gives an
account of the Paulicians in the 238th
chapter of his Chronicle, and incident-
ally mentions (sect. 12) that he had
elsewhere written Sia TrAarovs against
them.
r See Phot. 1. i. c. 2 ; Pet. Sic. 3C-
8, ed. Rader ; Georg. Hamartolur.,
ccxxxviii. 1 ; Cedren. 432.
1 See Phot. i. 18.
■■ This is the opinion of Gibbon (v.
274) ; DoUinger (i. 343) ; Hallam (M.
A. ii. 439) ; and Neander (v. 340-1). " In
an Eastern mind," says Dean Milman,
" it is not difficult to suppose a fusion
between the impersonated, deified, and
oppuguant powers of good and evil, and
St. Paul's high moral antagonism of sin
and grace in the soul of man— the in-
born and hereditary evil, and the infused
and imparted righteousness" (iv. 103).
N
1 78 PAULICIANISM — CONSTANTINE. Book III.
Gnosticism, banished from other parts of the empire, had taken
refuge in the countries bordering on the Euplirates, where, in
course of time, the remnants of its various parties had come to
be confounded under the general name of Manichseans/ In this
region, at the village of Mananalis, near Samosata, lived about
the year 653 one Constantino, who is described as descended
from a Manichsean family.* A deacon, who was returning from
captivity among the Saracens, became his guest, and, in acknow-
ledgment of his hospitality, left with him a manuscript containing
the Gospels and St. Paid's Epistles. Constantino read these,
applying the principles of his old belief to the interpretation of
them ; and the result was, that he renounced some of the grosser
absurdities in which he had been trained, burnt the heretical
books which it was a capital crime to possess, and put forth a
system which, by means of allegorical and other evasions, he pro-
fessed to reconcile with the letter of the New Testament, while in
reality it was mainly derived from the doctrines of his hereditary
sect." Although he is usually styled a Manichsean, it would
appear that the term is not to be strictly understood. His
opinions were probably more akin to Marcionism, which is known
to have been strong in the region of the Euphrates two hundred
years earlier ; ^ and his followers freely anathematised Manes,
amonof other heresiarchs.y
Constantino styled himself Silvanus, and the leaders who suc-
ceeded him assumed the names of Titus, Epaphroditus, Timothy,
and others of St. Paul's companions.'* In like manner they affected
to transfer to the chief communities of their sect the names of
churches in which the apostle and his associates had laboured."
The Paulicians acknowledged St. Paul's epistles, with those of
St. James, St. John, St. Jude, and the Acts. They also origi-
nally admitted the four Gospels, although it would seem that they
Gieseler (II. i. 15) says that, when the Gfrorer, ii. 201.
party had styled itself after the apostle, ^ Gibbon, v. 273.
its enemies referred the name to one of ' Pet. Sic. 40-2 ; Pagi, xi. 459.
the later Pauls as its founder. Mr. « Pet. Sic. 40-2 ; Phot. i. 3, IC ; G.
Dowling, on the contrary, thinks that it Hamart. 1. c. 2, 12.
first got its name from one of the others, ^ See vol. i. p. 443; Mosh. ii. 251 ;
and then atfected to explain it by a Schrockh, xx. 370 ; Neand. v. 337 ;
reference to St. Paul. He admits that Giesel. II. i. 14.
there is no real connexion with the y Phot. i. 4, 16 ; Pet. Sic. 62.
Saraosatenian, and would therefore de- ^ Phot. i. 4 ; G. Hamart. 3. It is
rive the name from the Armenian Paul, said that Constantine pretended to be
Guericke (ii. 83) well remarks that, the same with St. Paul's Silvanus (Phot.
when the designation after the apostle i. 16; Pet. Sic. 44); but this is iin-
had been adopted, the frequent recur- likely.
rence of the name Paul among the » Phot. i. 5.
sectaries is easily understood. See too
Chap. VIII. A.D. 653. PAULICIAN DOCTRINES. 179
afterwards rested exclusively on those of St. Luke and St, John, if
they did not absolutely reject the others.'' They rejected the Old
Testament, and they especially denounced St. Peter, as a betrayer
of his Lord and of the truth ; nor was their enmity without reason,
says Peter of Sicily, since that apostle had prophesied against their
misuse of St. Paul.*^
The Paulicians held that matter was eternal ; that there were
two gods — the one, generated of darkness and fire, the creator and
lord of the present world, the God of the Old Testament and of
the Church ; the other, the Supreme, the object of their own
worship, the God of the spiritual world which is to come.*^ They
held that the soul of man was of heavenly origin, imprisoned in a
material body.® They not only refused to the Blessed Virgin the
excessive honours which the Catholics had gradually bestowed
on her, but are said to have altogether disparaged her ; they
denied her perpetual virginity, while they maintained that our
Lord did not really take of her substance, but brought his body
from heaven, and that his birth was only in appearance.^ They
objected to the order of presbyters, because the Jewish presbyters
or elders had opposed the (Jhrist ; " their own teachers were
not distinguished by any special character, dress, manner of life,
or privileges. Of these teachers several grades are mentioned,
but they did not form a permanent hierarchy ; thus, when the
"companions in travel,"'' who had been associated with the last
great master of the sect, died out, the " notaries," whose business it
was to copy the writings which were acknowledged as authoritative,
became its chief instructors.' The Paulicians reverenced Constan-
tine and three others of their leaders as apostles or prophets.''-
They rejected the sacraments : Christ, they said, did not give his
disciples bread and wine, but by the names of these elements He
signified his own sustaining words;™ and the true baptism is He
•» See Pet. Sic. 18, with the marginal ^ Pet. Sic. 42.
note by a later writer ; Phot. i. 8 ; Neand. ■" G. Hamart. 7 ; t7]p 6eiw koI
V. 370. (ppiKTTtv Twv ayitiiv fivarripiuv rod ffiti-
•^ (2 Pet. iii. 16). Pet. Sic. 20; Pliot. /xaros koI alfiaros fj.eTdAr)ipiv
i. 8; G. Hamart. 9. The charge of be- aTrorp4\paL (Pet. Sic. 18). Eader ren-
traying the truth had reference to Gal. ders the last words conversioncm negent —
ii 11, seqq. as if a denial of transubstantiation were
"* Pet. Sic. 16-8 ; Phot. i. 6. regarded by the Greek Church of the
" Neand. v. 358-9 ; DoUinger, i. 345. ninth century as a mark of heresy.
f Phot. i. 7 ; Pet. Sic. 10 ; G. Ha- But the real meaning— that the Pau-
mart. 6. licians refused to partake of the sacra-
s Phot. i. 9. mental elements (" perceptionem recu-
h ffvueKS-nixoi — from Acts xix. 29; 2 sant" — Gieseler) — is clear from an-
Cor. viii. 19. other pas.sage (p. 56), where a member
' Pet. Sic. 72; G. Hamart. 11 ; Neand. of the sect is asked 5ia ri ov fiera-
V. 365; Dowling, 19. Kafx^avfis. The .Jesuit editor's mistake
N 2
180 PAULICIANISM -SOTEON. Book III.
himself, who declared Himself to be the "living water."" They
spat on the cross and attacked the catholics on account of their
reverence for images, while they themselves paid reverence to the
book of the Gospels, as containing the words of Christ." They
allowed themselves a great license of equivocation as to their
opinions ; and in the same spirit they did not scruple to attend
the catholic worship or sacraments.P They claimed for themselves
exclusively the title of Christians, while they styled the Catholics
Romans, as having merely a political religion.i Their own places
of worship were not styled temples or churches, but proseuchce —
houses of prayer/ By the modem patrons of the Paulicians, their
opposition in some of these points to the current errors or supersti-
tions of the time has been traced to an unbiassed study of Holy
Scripture ; but it may be more truly explained by their connexion
with older sects, which had become separate before the corruptions
in question were introduced into tlie Church itself.
Constantine fixed himself at Cibossa, in Armenia, where he
presided over his sect for twenty-seven years, and made many
converts, both from the church and from the Zoroastrian religion.^
At length the matter was reported to the emperor Constantine
Pogonatus, who sent an officer named Symeon to Cibossa, with
orders to put the heresiarch to death, and to distribute his followers
among the clergy and in monasteries, with a view to their being
reclaimed.* Symeon carried off Constantine and a large body of
the sectaries, whom he drew up in a line, and commanded to stone
their chief. Instead of obeying, all but one let fall the stones
with which they were armed ; but Constantine was
A.D. 68+. ^ji^gjj^ ijjjg another Goliah (as we are told), by a stone
from the hand of a youth — his own adopted son Justus." As the
sectaries proved obstinate in their errors, Symeon entered into
conference with some of them ; the effect was, that, being ignorant
as to the grounds of his old religion, he became their convert, and,
after spending three years at Constantinople in great uneasiness of
iscorrectedby Mai, Patrol. Gr. civ. 1255. mere cleansing of the tlesh. See Ce-
° G. Hamart. 9. Photius (i. 9) says drenus, 435.
that they allowed themselves to be ° Phot. i. 7 ; G. Hamart. 13. See
baptised by clergy who were captive John of Oznun, patriarch of Armenia,
among them, although they supposed a.d. 718-729, in Neand. v. 345 ; Giesel.
the effects to be profitable only to the II. i. 13.
body. (Cf. G. Hamart. 14.) Neander p Phot. i. 6-9; G. Hamart. 10, 14;
(v. 363) gives an improbable expla- Cedren. 435.
nation of the statement. We may, i Phot. i. 6 ; G. Hamart. 6.
perhaps, rather understand that in this, ^ Phot. i. 9.
as ill other things, they showed a pre- ^ Pet. Sic. 44.
tended conformity to the usages of the ' lb. 49.
church, and mocked at baptism as a " Phot. i. 16 ; Pet. Sic. 44.
Chap. VIII. a.d. 053-722. GEGNvESIUS. 181
mind, he fled, leaving all his property behind him, and took up his
abode at Cibossa, where, under the name of Titus, he became the
successor of Constantino.^ After a time, Justus was struck by
the seeming inconsistency of the Paulician doctrines with a text>
which refers the spiritual as well as the material world to the same
one Creator. He proposed the difficulty to Symeon, expressing
a fear that they might both have been in error, and might have
misled their followers ; and, on finding that Symeon would not
satisfy him, he went to the bishop of a neighbouring town,
Colonia (now Calahissar), and exposed the tenets of the Abom
sect. The bishop reported the case to the emperor, ^•^- ^'^^•
Justinian II., and, in consequence, Symeon, Justus, and many of
their followers, were burnt to death on one large pile.^
Among those who escaped this fate was an Armenian named
Paul,* who took up his abode near Phanarcea, at a place which is
said to have derived its name, Episparis, from the sowing of
spiritual tares there by the elder Paul, the Samosatenian.*" The
sect revived under the Armenian Paul, but at his death the head-
ship of it was contested by his two sons. Gegna;sius, the
elder, to whom his father had given the nanie of Timothy,
rested his claims on hereditary succession, while the youno-er,
Theodore, relied on an immediate commission from heaven;' and
their dispute reached the ears of Leo the Isaurian, who ordered
Germanus, patriarch of Constantinople, to examine
Gegnsesius. The Paulician was skilful enough to meet
all questions with answers which appeared satisfactory. He
anathematised all who denied the -orthodox: faith, for by that name
he secretly intended his own heresy. He anathematised all who
refused to worship the cross, for by the cross he meant our Lord
himself stretching out his arms in prayer or benediction. He anathe-
matised all who refused worship to the Theotokos, into whom the
Saviour entered — understanding under this description the heavenly
Jerusalem, into which Christ has entered as the forerunner of his
elect. By the Catholic church, he meant his own sect ; by baptism,
Christ the "living water;" by the body and blood of Christ, the
Saviour's words of instruction : he therefore anathematised all who
rejected any of these, and, having thus satisfied Germanus, he was
sent home with favourable letters from the emperor.'^
" Phot. i. 16 ; Pet. Sic. 46. above, agrees with them.
y Coloss. i. 16. '• G. Hamart. 1 {iirio-neipev (li^dyia,
» Phot. i. 17 ; Pet. Sic. 46-.50. Matt. xiii. 25).
» Pet. Sic. 48, says that some derived ^ Phot. i. 18; Pet. Sic. 48.
the name of the sect from this Paul. '' Phot. i. 18; Pet. Sic. f^O.
Mr. Dowliuff, as has been mentioned
182 PAULICIANISM — SERGIUS. Book 111.
The abhorrence which the Paulicians professed for images
might have been supposed likely to recommend the party to the
iconoclastic emperors. But it would seem that these princes rather
feared to connect themselves with the disrepute which its other
opinions had brought on it f and thus we find that Leo and his
son, instead of favouring the Paulicians, transported many of them
from Armenia into Thrace.^ After various fortunes, the headship
of the sectaries had fallen to one Baanes,^ who is styled " the
filthy," '^ and may therefore be probably supposed to have sanc-
tioned some of the immoralities which are too often lightly imputed
to all heresiarchs.' But when the Paulicians had sunk thus low,
a reformer appeared in the person of a young man named Sergius.
Sergius was converted to Paulicianism by a female theologian.
The historians of the sect relate that this woman, having fixed on
him as one whom it was desirable to gain, entered into conversa-
tion with him, and, after some compliments on his learning and
character, asked him why he did not read the Scriptures. He
answered that such studies v.'ere not lawful for Christians in
general, but only for the clergy — an idea which Chrysostom had
strongly opposed,'^ but which since his time had become fixed in
the popular belief, although without any formal authority from the
Church. " It is not as you think," she rejoined ; "for there is no
acceptance of persons with God, since He will have all men to be
saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." And she
went on to tell him that the clergy mutilated and corrupted the
word of God, and that such of them as did miracles would be
found among those to whom Christ will say in the judgment-day,
" I never knew you." Sergius began to read the Scriptures, and,
under the tuition of his instructress, he learnt to apply to the
Catholics all that is there said against the fleshly Israel, and to
regard the Paulicians as the true spiritual Church of Christ." He
assumed the name of Tychicus," and became a new founder of the
sect, which is said to have held his writing's in equal
A.D. 801. . • 1 1 <-, . ,
veneration with the Scriptures themselves." His own
morals would seem to have been unimpeachable, since Photius
and Peter of Sicily can only charge him with hypocrisy ; ^ and he
reformed the morality of the PauHcians, in opposition to the prin-
A.D. 801- ciples of Baanes. For thirty-four years — fi-om the reign
835. of Irene to that of Theophilus — Sergius laboured inde-
"^ Giesel. II. i. 16. Photius with promiscuous iucest, &c.
f Theophan. 662. i. 10. k g^e Giesel. II. i. 15.
B Pet. Sic. 54 ; Phot. i. 20. ™ Phot. i. 20 ; Pet. Sic. 5G-8.
^ 6 pvTTapof. " Pet. Sic, 54. " lb. 18.
' The Paulicians are charged by p lb. 60; Phot. i. 21.
Chap. VIII. a.t>. 722-835. SERGIUS,
183
fatigably in the cause of Paulicianism. He is said to have
indulged in unseemly boasting of his success ; to have preferred
himself to the earlier teachers of the party ; to have styled himself
the resplendeiit lamp, the sliming light, the life-giving star, and
even the Paraclete^
The emperor Nicephorus was friendly to the sect, and granted
it toleration in Phrygia and Lycaonia. Theophanes tells a.d. 802-
us that he engaged in magical practices with " the ^^V
Manichseans who are called Paulicians," in order to obtain victory
for his arms/ Under Michael Rhangabe severe laws were enacted
against these heretics ; such of them as should be obstinate in their
errors were to be put to death. A party in the church, ^^ ^^^.^
headed by Theodore the Studite, opposed the infliction
of death as the punishment of heresy f but Theophanes argues
that this view is absurd, since St. Peter inflicted death on Ananias
and Sapphira, and St. Paul says that persons who are guilty of
certain sins are worthy of death.* To these scriptural authorities
for persecution Peter of Sicily adds another— the command,
"Those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over
them, bring hither and slay them before me." ''
Leo the Armenian, iconoclast as he was, continued the perse-
cution of the Paulicians. The sectaries, as usually a.d. 813-
happens, were exasperated by such treatment. The ^-'^•
deaths of some of their chiefs were avenged by the slaughter of a
prefect and a bishop who had been active against them.^ They
lived in constant hostility to their neighbours, and, as opportunity
favoured, they broke out from tfteir bounds, devastated, plundered,
and slaughtered ; their female captives, it is said, were given up
to promiscuous lust ; the children were either killed or sold to the
Saracens ; and Sergius found himself unable to restrain the excesses
of his followers.^ Sergius himself was slain with his own axe by
a man who had found him cutting wood, in the year 835." His
reforms had led to the separation of the sect into two hostile
branches ; and, after his death, his followers, wishing to clear them-
selves from the obloquy attached to the Baanites, fell on these,
■ and carried on a bloody contest with them, until a " companion in
1 Phot. i. 21 ; Pet. Sic. 62. We have ' Theophan.759; Schrockh,xxiii. 319.
already had 'instances of assuming this >* Theod. Stud. Ep. ii. 155 ; Schriickh,
last title, in Montanus, Manes, and Ma- xxiii. 319.
hornet (i. 74, 134; ii. 36). That Sergius ' Rom. i. 32 ; Theophan. 771.
cannot have meant to identify himself " St. Luke xix. 27 ; Pet. Sic. 38.
with the Holy Spirit appears from the ^ Pet. Sic. 71 ; Phot. i. 24.
fact that he placed himself lower than '' Pet. Sic. 62.
St. Paul. Ncaud. v. 3.50. ' lb. 71 ; Phot. i. 24.
184 PAULICIANISM — CARBEAS. Book III.
travel " of Sergius, named Theodotus, succeeded in recalling both
parties to a remembrance of their common faith."*
After the re-establishment of images, under the regency of
Theodora," the empress was urged by the victorious party to
undertake the suppression of Paulicianism, whether by conversion
or by force ; and, as the sectaries resisted all attempts which were
made to gain them, the fury of persecution was let loose among
them. It is said that not less than 100,000 were slain by the
sword, beheaded, drowned, or impaled.*^ Among the victims was
the father of Carbeas, captain of the guard to the prefect
'of the east. Carbeas, on hearing of his parent's fate,
renounced his allegiance to the empire, and, with 5000 companions,
sought a refuge among the Saracens, The caliph gladly welcomed
the fugitives, and granted them leave to settle within his territory,
where, on the same principle by which they**had justified their
occasional conformity to the church, they adopted externally the
rites of Islam. '^ Carbeas built or enlarged and fortified several
towns, of which Tephrica was the chief and became the head-
quarters of the sect.*" Paulicians from other quarters flocked to
the new home which was opened for them ; and the numbers of
the party were swelled by refugees who sought an asylum from the
imperial laws, and, according to its enemies, by others who found
an attraction in the license of morals which it granted to its
members.^ The Paulicians harassed their neighbours of the
empire by continual aggressions.^ Under the command of Carbeas,
their forces, in conjunction with the Saracens, gained a great
victory over Michael, the son of Theodora, under the walls of
Samosata ;'' and in the reign of the emperor Basil, Chrysocheir, the
son-in-law of Carbeas,' advanced through Asia Minor with an
army made up of Paulicians and Saracens, pillaged An-
cyra, Niceea, Nicomedia, and other cities, gave up images
and relics to his followers for profanation, and stabled his horses
in the cathedral of Ephesus. Basil was reduced to sue for peace ;
but Chrysocheir refused it except on the intolerable condition that
he should give up the east to ".the servants of the Lord.""' The
emperor had no choice but to carry on the war ; he advanced into '
the Paulician country, and took some of the towns, but was obliged
to relinquish the siege of Tephrica.™ Chrysocheir again invaded
" Phot. i. 22 ; Pet. Sic. 71. ' Pet. Sic. 73.
•> A.u. 842. Theophan. Contin. iv. s Cedren. 542.
16. '' Theophan. Contiu. iv. 23; Phot. i.
^ Cedren. 541 ; Schlosser, 557-560. 26 ; Cedren. .545 ; Gibbon, v, 279.
'I Phot. i. 26. ' Phot. i. 28.
•^ Cedren. 511. ^ Gibbon, v. 280. '" Ibid.
Chap. VIII. a.d. 842-870. CHRYSOCHEIR— PETER OF SICILY.
185
the imperial territory ; but his troops were defeated by one of
Basil's generals, and he himself, as he fled, was closely ^^^ ^^^
followed by one Pylades, who had formerly been his ' '
captive. It was in vain that he reminded his pursuer of the kind-
ness with which he had treated him ; a wound from the lance of
Pylades compelled him to drop from his horse, and, as he lay
stunned by the fall, some other Greeks despatched him. His head
was carried to the emperor, who fulfilled a vow and gratified his
enmity by piercing it with three arrows." After the death of
Chrysocheir, the Paulicians ceased to be formidable. Tephrica
was destroyed, yet a remnant of the sect continued to assert its
independence for a century later. "
In another quarter, the heresy had been kept up by the
descendants of those who were transported into Thrace by
Constantino Copronyraus.^ It was in order to guard the newly-
founded church of Bulgaria from the infection of its Thracian
neighbours, that Peter of Sicily, about the year 870, addressed to
the Archbishop of the Bulgarians the tract which is a chief source
of information as to the sect, drawing his materials in part from
the observations and inquiries which he had made during a
residence of nine months at Tephrica, on a mission for negotiating
an exchange of prisoners.*^
" '■ Const. Porphyrog. Vita Basil. 42-3; 'i Pet. Sic. 2, 74. On the date, see
Cedreu. .570-3. Pagi, xv. 230; Gicseler, Prscf. in Pet.
" Gibbon, v. 281. p Ibid. Sic. iii.-iv.
( 186 )
C H A P T E E J X.
SUPPLEMENTARY.
I. Influence of the Papacy.
The preceding chapters have set before us the changes which took
place in the position of the patriarchs during the seventh and eighth
centuries— the sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem reduced
to subjection under the Mahometan rule ; the bishops of Constan-
tinople becoming more and more tools and slaves of the imperial
court ; while in the west the power of the Roman bishop is greatly
and rapidly increased. This advance of the papacy was much aided
by the circumstance that Rome, although often taken by barbarians,
never remained long in their possession.'' It alone retained its
ancient character, while in all other quarters the old national dis-
tinctions were obliterated by successive invasions. The popes alone
kept their ground amid the revolutions of secular powers ; and
their authority was vastly extended as nation after nation of the
barbarian conquerors was brought within the sphere of Christian
influence. As in former times the bishop of Rome had been
regarded by the orientals as the representative of the whole western
church, so he now appeared to the new nations of the north and of
the west as the representative and source of Christianity on earth.
St. Peter was regarded as holding the keys of heaven, and as
personally connected with his successors.^ The popes strengthened
their position at once by detaching themselves from the Byzantine
empire, and by entering into an alliance with the princes of the
west on terms such as the empire had never admitted. They
were connected by mutual interest with the Frankish kings, especi-
ally with those of the second dynasty, and Charlemagne's conquests
gave them a supremacy over the church of northern Italy, which
they had in vain desired in the time of the Lombard princes.*^ By
the donations of Pipin and of Charlemagne they acquired a new
secular power ; and it would seem to have been in the early part
of the ninth century that the forged Donation of Constantine
appeared, to assert for them a more venerable claim to a wider
jurisdiction, and" to incite the Frankish sovereigns to imitate the
" Guizot, ii. 329. ^ Gksekr, II. i. 34. '^ Guizot, ii. 332.
Chap. IX.
INFLUENCE OF THE PAPACY.
187
bounty of the first Christian emperor." Constantine, it was said,
was baptised by Pope Sylvester, and, at his baptism, received the
miraculous cure of a leprosy with which he had been afflicted ;
whereupon, in consideration of the superiority of ecclesiastical to
secular dignity, he relinquished Rome to the pope, conferred on
him the right of wearing a golden crown with other insignia of
sovereignty, and endowed the apostolic see with Italy and other
provinces of the west.^ This forgery seemed to justify the Romans
in withdrawing themselves from the empire ; it seemed to legiti-
matise the possession of all that the popes had gained, since this was
but a part of what was said to have been bestowed on their see by
the first Christian emperor ; and the fable retained its credit, although
not altogether unquestioned,^ throughout the middle ages."
The mission of Augustine introduced the papal influence into
England, where a new church arose, strongly attached to Rome,
and fruitful in missionaries who established the Roman ascendancy
■' Thus Adrian stjk-s Charlemagne a
"new Constantiue" in magnifying the
bounty of the elder eniperor. Patrol,
xcviii. 306.
= lb. Ixxiv. 523 ; of. clxxxvii. 460.
The forger of the ninth century here
confounded the extent of the empire in
the west under Constantine with that
to which it had shrunk in his own time.
Giesel. II. i. 190.
f See the letter of Wetzel (seemingly
a follower of Arnold of Brescia) to
Frederick Barbarossa, a.d. 1152, in
Patrol, clxxxix. 142-3, D.
s Gregory of Tours, in describing the
baptism of Clovis, says, " Procedit
uovus Constantiuus ad lavacrum, dele-
turus lepra; veteris morbum," &c. (ii.
31), where the leprosy of sin is evi-
dently meant. The story of a bodily
disease and cure, however, is found in
the 'Acta Sylvestri,' which, although
apocryphal, are reckoned by Gelasius I.
among approved writings (Patrol, cxxvii.
1511; xcviii. 271 ; lix. 173; cf. Laur.
Vail, in Fascic. Rerum, i. 141; Nic.
Cusan. ib. 158), and are cited by
liatramn, in the ninth century, as the
work of the historian Eusebius (Contra
Graicorum Opposita, iv. 3, Patrol, cxxi.).
G. Hamartolus has the story of the
baptism and cure (c. clxxvi. 1, 2), but
the Greek writers know nothing of the
Donation. The first distinct mention
of it is by iEneas, bishop of Paris, about
868 (Adv. Graecos, c. 209 ; Patrol, cxxi.).
Berengosus, abbot of St. Maximus at
Treves, in the twelfth century, recon-
ciles the statements that Constantine
was baptised by Sylvester and that he
was baptised by Eusebius (see vol. i.
p. 213) by saying that the name Eusebius
means a f/uod writer, and therefore was
given to Sylvester as being a " scribe
instructed unto the kingdom of right-
eousness " ! (De Laude et luventione S.
Crucis, iii. 7 ; Patrol, clx.). Another
medisDval opinion was that the emperor,
after having been baptised into the
Church by Sylvester, was re-baptised
into heresy by Eusebius (Anselm. Ha-
velb. Dialog, iii. 21 ; ib. clxxxviii.).
On the revival of a spirit of inquiry,
the story of the Donation was attacked
by Lorenzo Valla and others (see the
Fasciculus, i. 128, seqq.), and was soon
found to be indefensible. Baronius gives
up the document, but attempts to main-
tain the fact of the Donation. He in-
dulges in ingenious conjectures, such
as that Constantine may have made
the gift, and Sylvester may have mag-
nanimously refused it ; or that the
forgery was contrived in the Greek
interest, with a view of ascribing the
power of the popes to a human origin
(324. 118-20). Tillemont (Emp. iv.
142) exposes the disingenuousness of
Baronius, and now even the Abbe'
Rohrbacher is ashamed to uphold the
fable of the baptism (vi. 284-5). Comp.
Crakanthorp's ' Vindication of Constan-
tine,' Lond. 1621; De Marca, iii. 12;
Nat. Alex. viii. ; Dissert. 25; Mosh. ii.
141 ; Gibbon, iv. 490-1 ; Schrockh, xix.
595-7 ; Fabric. Bibl. Grajc. vi. 097 ;
Giesel. II. i. 41,189-191; Neand.v. 168;
Gfriirer, ' Die Karolinger,' i. 76.
188
ROMAN INFLUENCE IN ENGLAND.
Book III.
in Germany and in Gaul. The English church owned subjection to
the pope, not so much on account of his supposed succession to
St. Peter, as because, having- derived its origin from Rome, it was
included in the Roman patriarchate by the same principle which
subjected the Abyssinians to the see of Alexandria.'^ But as the
papal power increased elsewhere, the subjection of England to it
became also greater. The Council of Cloveshoo,' assembled by
Ethelbald, king of Mercia, opened with the reading of two letters
from Zacharias, " the pontiff and apostolic lord, to be venerated
throughout the world ;" and it is acknowledged that the recital of
these documents, in which he exhorts the English of every degree
to reformation, under the threat of an anathema, was in obedience
to his "apostolical authority."'' In 785, two Roman legates — the
first (as they said) who had been sent into England since the time
of Augustine ™ — visited this country, and, with a view to the refor-
mation of the church, councils were held in their presence in
Mercia and in Northumbria. Offa, king of Mercia, then the
most powerful of the English kingdoms, attended the Mercian
assembly at Chalchythe." In consequence of some offence which
he had taken, on political or other grounds, at Janbert, archbishop
of Canterbury, he wished that Lichfield should be erected into an
^ Planck, ii. 704, 715. See as to the
Abyssinian Church, voL i. p. 289.
' This place has been identified with
Cliifat-Hoo, near Rochester (Fuller, i.
152) ; Shovesham, now Abingdon (Rapin,
n. in Fuller ; Somner and Gibson, quoted
by Wilkius, i. 161 ; Johnson, i. 292-4) ;
Tewkesbury (Kemble, ii. 191), &c. Mr.
Thorpe says that the true date is 742,
instead of 747, as usually given (note on
Lappcnb. tr. i. 225).
k Wilkins, i. 94 ; Johnson, i. 243. A
letter in which Boniface sent some
canons lately passed by a council at
Mentz to Cuthbert, archbishop of Can-
terbury, and urged the assembling of
a council for reformation of abuses in
England (Ep. 63, Patrol. Ixxxix.), is
supposed to have been a chief cause
of the meeting at Cloveshoo (Inett, i.
174; Johnson, i.241). Much has been
made by some protestant controversial-
ists of the fact that, although the Ger-
man canons were in general adopted at
Cloveshoo, one relating to the pope was
omitted. But I must agree with Dr.
Lingard (Angl.-Sax. Ch., i. Append.
G) and Hefele (iii. 531-2), that the
estimation in which the pope was held
by the English council is sufficiently
proved by the preface to its canons, as
quoted in the text ; and also that the
second canon, in which the bishops
bind themselves to cultivate peace and
charity, "without flattery of any per-
son," is not meant to refer to the pope,
but is to be explained by the fact that
the assembled prelates were subjects of
different sovereigns (i. 390-1). I must,
indeed, avow ray inability to sympa-
thise with the contentiousness which
some respectable Anglican M'riters think
it necessary to display on such points.
To mix up the question of our present
position as to l^ome with inquiries
into the history of the Anglo-Saxon
church, tends to obscure historical
truth, while it is altogether needless
and ixseless for the purposes of con-
troversy. If we believe ourselves able
to show that the Roman claims and
peculiarities of doctrine are unwar-
ranted by the primitive church, we
can surely afford to discuss their
growth in a spirit of dispassionate
impartiality.
°» Wilkins, i. 14G.
" Bishop Gibson supposes this place
to be Kelceth, in Lancashire (Johnson,
i. 265). Dr. Lingard suggests Chelsea
(Hist. Eng. i. 140-1) ; Mr. Soames,
Chalk, or Challock, which are both in
Kent. Aug. Sax. Ch. 107.
Chai-. IX. CONFIRMATION OF POPES.
189
arcbiepiscopal see. Janbert strongly opposed a scheme by which
his metropolitan authority was to be limited to the kingdoms of
Kent and Sussex ; but it is supposed that the legates at Chalchythn
favoured the change," and it received the sanction of pope Adrian.'.'
Some years later, however, Kenulph, the second successor of OfFa,
having annexed Kent to Mercia, and being desirous to conciliate
the clergy of his new territory,*! joined with Athelard, archbishop
of Canterbury, in a request that Leo III. would again reduce the
see of Lichfield to its original condition. Athelard went to Rome
in order to press the suit ; the pope consented, and with his license
the new archbishoprick was abolished by a council held at Cloveshoo
in 803/
Ina, king of Wessex, in 725 * resigned his crown, and went on
pilgrimage to Rome, where he ended his days as a monk ; and his
example was followed by other Anglo-Saxon sovereigns. It has
been said that the tribute of a penny from every hearth in England,
afterwards known as Eomescot or Peterpence,^ was first granted by
Ina, and was confirmed by Offa in 794." But it would seem that
the donation of Ina is imaginary, and that in the case of Offa a
payment of 365 marks'" towards the lighting of St. Peter's and
the relief of pilgrims— an eleemosynary grant from the crown —
has been confounded with the Romescot of a later time, which was
a tax levied on the subject, and was interpreted by the advocates
of the papacy as an acknowledgment that this island was held in
fee from the successors of St. Peter.''
II. Relations of Church and State.
(1.) The right of confirming elections to the papacy had been
exercised by the Byzantine emperors, either personally or through
their representatives, the exarchs, from the reconquest of Italy under
Justinian until the iconoclastic disputes led to the omission of the
form in the case of Zacharias. The Carolingian emperors assumed
the same privilege'' as a part of their sovereignty/ The story
" Johnson questions this. i. 283-4. money due at the Annunciation was
p See Johnson, i. 283-7, and the edi- styled " our Lady's rent." Collier, i.
tor's notes; Collier, i. 319; Lingard, 33.5-6.
Hist. Eiig. i. 140. " Baron. 775. 10 ; Ducange, s. v.
1 Lappenb. i. 233. ^^ Denarius S. Petri;" Fuller, i. 148,
' W, Malmesb. i. 87-9; Wilkins, i. 161.
160-6. * " Mancusae." See Ducange, s. v.
» Lappenb. i. 261. ^ See W. Malmesb. 1. ii. c. 109;
t This name was derived from the Inett, i. 220-2 ; Lingard, A. S. C. i 282-
circumstance that it was payable at the 3; Hist. Eng. i. 142-6, 161 ; Lappenb. i.
feast of St. Peter ad Vincula (com- 195,231.
monly called Lammas, from the charge ^ See Book IV. c. i.
"Feed mv lambs"). In like manner => Guizot, ii. 337.
inO APPOINTMENT OF BISHOPS. Hook HI.
that, during Charlemagne's visit to Rome in 774, Adrian, with a
synod of a hundred and fifty-three bishops, bestowed on him and
his successors the right of nominating the popes,'' is now rejected,'^
and, with other such inventions, is supposed to have originated in
later times from the wish of the Roman party to represent the
superintendence which the Frank princes exercised over ecclesiastical
affairs as derived from the gift of the popes.*^
(2.) In the east, where no political power was attached to the
episcopal office, the emperors had not usually interfered in the
appointment of bishops, except at Constantinople and other cities
in which they themselves resided,® The second council of Nicsea
enacted * that bishops should be chosen by their episcopal brethren,
and that any nomination by princes should be invalid. But in the
new states of the west, the position of the bishops as great land-
owners, and the political importance which they acquired, occa-
sioned a remarkable mixture of secular and spiritual things.
Although it was again and again laid down by Frankish councils
that the elections of bishops should be free, without any other con-
dition than the approbation of the sovereign, the usual practice
throughout the period appears to have been that bishops were
appointed by the crown, whether the nomination were or were not
followed by a formal election on the part of the clergy and people.^
In 614 a synod at Paris enacted that a bishop should be appointed
without any payment, by the concurrence of the metropolitan and
bishops of the province with the clergy and people of the city.''
But Clotaire II., in ratifying the canons, introduced considerable
alterations in favour of the royal prerogative ; among them, he
required that a bishop should be consecrated under a mandate
from the crown, and reserved to himself the power of naming a
clerk from his household to a vacant see, although he promised in
so doing to have regard to the learning and merit of the nominee.'
It has been supposed that Charlemagne, by a capitulary of 803,"^
'' Gratian. Decret. I. Ixiii. 22 (Patrol, a less evil to leave the appointment to
clxxxvi.). the crown than to the rude laity in
<= Thomassin. II. ii. 20-.5; Pagi, xii. general.
410-1; n.inMosheinijii. 144-5; Schrockh, ^ Hard. iii. 551.
xix. 599. ' " Vel certe si de palatio eligitur,
"^ Giesel. II. i. 40-1. per mei'itum personse et doctrinse ordi-
*■ Fleury, Disc. ii. sect. 10 ; Schrockh, netur." (Pertz, Leges, i. 14.) Planck
xix. 408. (ii. 119) and Rettberg (i. 293) give
f C. 3. the interpretation which I have fol-
e Fleury, Disc. ii. sect. 10 ; Schrockh, lowed ; but Thomassin (II. ii. 10. 13 ;
xix. 409-110; Planck, ii. 112-8; Rettb. 13. 6) thinks that the words were
ii. 605-7. Perhaps, as Dom Pitra says meant to allow the bishops a power
(Vie de S. Lc'ger, 154-5), the bishops, of examining the nominee's qualifi-
while they maintained the theory of cations.
election, may have found it practically ^ Hard. iv. 453, c. 2.
Chap. IX. PRANKISH ARCHCHAPLAINS.
191
professed to restore the ancient usage of election by the clergy and
people ; but no such enactment was really issued until the reign of
Louis the Pious,™ while it is certain that in the appointment of
bishops the great emperor practically followed the example of his
predecessors, and that he was imitated by his descendants."
In Spain, the fourth council of Toledo, in 633, enacted that a
bishop should be chosen by the clergy and people of his city, and
that the election should be approved by the metropolitan and
synod of the province/' But at the twelfth council of the same
place, in 681, the appointment of bishops by the royal authority
alone is mentioned as a matter of settled custom. The process by
which this change was effected is unknown."
In England, although Wihtred, king of Kent, in 696, dis-
claimed the right of appointing bishops,'! the royal authority
influenced their appointment, as they were chosen by the witte-
nagemote of each state in the presence of the king.'" And here, as
in other countries, the influence of the crown gradually became
more absolute. From letters written by Alcuin, a century after
Wihtred's time, on a vacancy in the archbishoprick of ^ ^^^^
York, it appears that the ancient freedom of election was
then giving way ; that kings assumed an increased control over the
choice of bishops, or even disposed of sees by gift' In the ninth
century, the nomination of bishops had passed into the hands of
the sovereign, while a shadow of the earlier system was kept up in
a formal election of the person so appointed, and in the publication
of his name from the pulpit of the cathedral, to which announce-
ment the people replied by acclamations and wishes of long-life to
their new pastor.*^
(3.) The Frankish sovereigns, in their continual movements,
required a staff of clergy to attend on them for the performance
of Divine service. At the head of this body was placed the Arch-
chaplain, whose office became one of great importance. Sometimes
"> Capit. Aquisgr. A.T). 817, c. 2. See represented by the Centuriators and
Rettb. ii. G07. Baronius, -who say " ipsum mendacii
n See the Formularies of Marculf, i. arguit et objurgat." See Bouquet, v.
5-7 (Patrol. Ixxxvii.) ; rianck, ii. 119 ; .570 ; Patrol, xcviii. 41G-8.
Guizot, ii. 320 ; Ellendorf, i. 239. There " C. 19.
was some difference between Adrian p Cone. Tolet. XII. c. 6. See Tho-
and Charlemagne on the subject of a massin, II. ii._15 ; Schrockh, xix. 414.
commissioner being sent to attend the 'i Wilkins, i. 57.
election of an archbishop for Ravenna ■■ Kemble, ii. 221.
in 789. But the pope's objection to '^ Epp. 48-9. See Lingard, A. S. C. i.
this went no farther than pointing out 92-3 ; Blackstone, i. 380.
that it had not been done on a former ' Planck, ii. 122; Lingard, A. S. C.
occasion; and the tone of his letter, ii. 24; Lappenb. i. 183; Kemble, ii.
which is very respectful, is greatly mis- 377.
192 COUNCILS. Book III.
it was filled by a presbyter ; sometimes by a bishop, who, in such
a case, required a special dispensation for absence from his diocese ;
but, whether bishop or presbyter, the archchaplain stood next in
dignity to the family of the sovereign, and at synods he took pre-
cedence even of archbishops. Combining the functions of chancellor
with those of chaplain, he acted as a minister of the crown for
spiritual affairs ; he received reports from the bishops as to the
state of their churches, prepared the king's ecclesiastical capitularies
and other documents, and conducted his correspondence on matters
which concerned the church." Such being his position, it depended
on individual character whether the archchaplain should sway the
prince in the interest of the hierarchy, or the prince should by
means of him obtain a control over the administration of the
church.^
(4.) The mixture of clergy and laity in the Frankish councils
has been already mentioned.^ The capitularies bear a marked
impress of clerical influence ; ''' but it was often possible for sove-
reigns, by the help of their lay vassals, to overrule the proposals of
the bishops as to ecclesiastical affairs, or to carry measures not-
withstanding their opposition.'' Sometimes, however, the clergy
were assembled by themselves, as at Verne or Verneuil, in 755,
where abbots for the first time appear as members of a Frankish
council.^
In Spain, from the time when king Recared and his nobles
appeared at Toledo, for the purpose of arranging the change fiom
Arianism to the catholic faith (a.d. 589), mixed councils of clergy
and laity, summoned by the sovereign, were frequently held."
At the earlier sessions of these, from the seventeenth council of
Toledo, in 694, the affairs of the church were first discussed by the
bishops and abbots, without the presence of the laity ; but on the
fourth day, the nobles, the judges, and others, were called in to
take a part in their deliberations,"^
Among the Anglo-Saxons, the kings and other laymen attended
ecclesiastical synods, while the bishops sat in the wittenagemotes,
or national assemblies. The part which the laity took, however,
" Adalhard. de Ordiue Palatii, ap. " Planck, ii. 148.
Hincmar. t. ii. 20G-8 ; Thoraass. I. ii. ^ Rettb. ii. 626.
110; Pagi, xiii. 169; Planck, ii. 150; <= Cone. Tolet. IV. a.d. 589, c. 4;
Luden, v. 152-3 ; Ducange, s. voc. Ca- Lembke, i. 85.
pe/toiMS, where a list of the archchaplains ^ Cone. Tolet. XVII. c. 1 ; Schrockh,
is given. xix. 462 ; Planck, ii. 144; Gibbon, iii.
^ Planck, ii. 149-152; Guizot, ii. 32. 420-2. On the clerical influence trace-
y See vol. i. 556 ; vol. ii. . able in the ancient Spanish laws, see
' Sismondi, ii. 176-8 ; Guizot, ii. Guizot, i. 488.
226-7.
chap.jx. judicature. 193
in councils, did not extend to matters purely spiritual, although it
was for the wittenagemote to confirm, by the authority of law, the
decisions of the clergy in such matters.*" Bishops took precedence
of the lay nobility ; and sometimes the archbishops signed the acts
of synods before the king himself, as was the case at Chalchythe
in 785/
(5.) The claims of the ecclesiastical and secular judicatures in
France were variously settled by successive enactments. It may
be said in general, that, while the clergy were not amenable to
secular judgment in questions between members of their own
order, or in the case of ecclesiastical offences; the trial of questions
between clerks and laymen belonged to a mixed tribunal of lay
and spiritual judges.^ Priests and deacons were in no case to
be tried except with the bishop's knowledge or co-operation;
and in important criminal charges, this privilege was extended to
the lower clergy.'^ The principle of mixed tribunals was approved
by Charlemagne ; ' and although he seems to have in some of his
laws exempted the clergy from all secular judgment in questions
which concerned their own persons,"^ this exemption was far short
of that for which the high hierarchical party contended at a later
time. For in cases which related to the possessions of clergymen,
the secular judges still had a share ;'" the right of judicature was
not regarded as inherent in the episcopal office, but as granted,
and therefore revocable, by the sovereign, so that in the ninth
century bishops are threatened with the loss of it if they neglect
to exercise it rightly ;" and from metropolitans, as from secular
judges, the appeal lay to the emperor, beyond whom there was no
appeal.*^ Among the Franks, as formerly under the Roman
empire, there were many canons to prohibit clerks from carrying
their grievances to the sovereign, without abiding the judgment
of their immediate superiors, or obtaining the leave of these.''
•= Joyce, England's Sacred Synods, judgment. (See vol. i., p. 297.) By
127. some it is considered a foi'gery : Gieseler
'Johnson, i. 284; Planck, ii. 146; thinks that it may be a genuine I'/sw/o^/uc
Soames, 267. law. See Gies. II. i. 79-80 ; Hallam,
B Cone. Paris, a.d. 614, c. 4 ; Edict. Middle Ages, i. 508, and Suppl. Notes,
Clotar. ap. Hard. iii. 654 ; Capit. Aquisgr. 183.
A.D. 789, c. 28 ; Planck, ii. 162-8 ; Rettb. ^ Capit. a.d. 789, c. 38; Capit. Langob.
ii. 640. A.D. 803, c. 12 ; Giesel. II. i. 77 ; Miche-
^ Pertz, Leges, i. 34 ; Eettb. ii. 640-1. let, ii. 38.
' Capit. Francof. a.d. 794, c. 30. It "' Capit. Langob. a.d. 803, c. 12.
is agreed that Charlemagne was not the " Carol. Calv. Capit. a.d. 8G9, c. 7,
author of a law ascribed to him, and Patrol, cxxxviii. 733; Planck, ii. 171.
dated in 810 (Hard. iii. 940-1), renew- " Cone. Francof. a.d. 794, c. 6 ; De
ing the pretended law of Constantine, Marca, IV. vii. 1 ; Planck, ii. 171, 179,
by which one party in a suit might 180, 189; Giesel. II. i. 57, 78=
cowjje/ the other to submit to the bishop's i* 77. g. Cone. Paris, a.d. 614. c. 3 ;
O
] 94 METROPOLITANS. ^''^ "I-
Clotaire II., in his edict of 614, ordered that no such recourse to
the king should be allowed, except in order to sue for pardon ; but
the royal letter of pardon was a protection against all punishment,
and the bishops were bound to obey it.'i
In Spain, canons are found which forbid ecclesiastics to judge in
cases of blood, or to inflict mutilation of the members/
In England, the judgment of clerks was as yet on the same
footing with that of the laity/ But this was before a mixed
tribunal — the bishop sitting in the county-court, with the ealdorman
or earl, as the priests of the old Saxon heathenism had done.'
The papal legates at the council of Chalchythe objected to this
custom, as tending to implicate the bishops too much in worldly
affairs."' Notwithstanding their remonstrance, however, the prac-
tical usefulness of the system secured its continuance, until the
spiritual jurisdiction was separated from the secular by William the
Conqueror, at the instance of his Norman ecclesiastical advisers."
III. The Hierarchy. — Administration of the Church. ■ '
(1.) The metropolitan organisation had originally grown out of
an analogy with the civil divisions of the Roman empire. In the
Frankish kingdom, where no such division existed, the system fell
into decay,^ and, although Boniface, under the authority of Pope
Zacharias, and with the countenance of Pipin and Carloman,
attempted to restore it, his success was very imperfect.'^ Charle-
magne, when at Rome in 774, was urged by Adrian to undertake
the revival of the metropolitan jurisdiction,^ and estabhshed it not
only in his original dominions, but in those which he acquired.^
But the new metropolitans had not the same influence as those
of earlier times. In the national assemblies the metropolitan met
the sufi'ragan bishops as his peers, and a suff'ragan might by
character or ability become more important than his ecclesiastical
superior ; while the growing connexion between France and Rome,
and the increase of the papal power, drew the Frankish clergy to
Cone. Rem. a.d. 625 (or 630), c. 18; » Cone. Chalch. a.d. 785, c. 10.
Cone. Cabilon. a.u. 650, c. 15 ; Cone. ^ Lingard, A. S. C. ii. 102 ; Kemble,
Vern. a.d. 755, e. 18. ii. 384. See below, Book V. c. v.
1 Hard. iii. 554. Against the con- ^ See vol, i. p. 556.
struction which would limit the effect ^ See Zachar. Ep. 8, c. 1 (Patrol,
of the pardon to civil oifences, see Ixxxix.) ; Cone. Vern. a.d. 755, c. 2 ;
Planck, ii. 190-2. Pagi, xii. 495 ; Thomass. I. i. 33 ;
' Cone. Tolet. IV. a.d. 633, c. 31 ; Planck, ii. 639-641.
Cone. Tolet. XI. a.d. 675, c. 0. " Adr. Ep. 55 (Patrol, xcvi.)
^ Planck, ii. 175 ; Kemble, ii. 437. ^ Capit. a.d. 779 (Pertz, Leges, i.
' Lingard, A. S. C. i. 101 ; Lappenb. 36); Capit. a.d. 789, c. 8; Pagi, xin.
i. 577 ; Kemble, ii. 385. 98.
Chap. IX. CHOREPISCOPI. 195
look beyond their metropolitans to the yet higher authority of
the popes.*^
(2.) In the eighth and ninth centuries we find frequent mention of
Chorepiscopi — a title which in this period has some variety of applica-
tion. Of those who were subject to the diocesan bishops, some had
episcopal consecration, while the greater number were merely pres-
byters, enjoying a delegated authority in rural places.'' But besides
these, there are frequent denunciations of chorepiscopi who were in
the habit of wandering about, without any local authority, and of
interfering with the rights of the established bishops by conferring
orders and performing other episcopal acts.® The chorepiscopi of
this class who disturbed the Frankish church were for the most
part from Ireland,^ where the peculiar system of the Church encou-
raged the multiplication of bishops without local jurisdiction ; e
while others may have been consecrated by chorepiscopi who had
themselves received consecration as assistants to the diocesan
bishops. But even when the original appointment and consecra-
tion were regular, chorepiscopi were often disposed to presume
beyond their proper function. Charlemagne, in a letter,'^ states
that the proceedings of these persons had caused great trouble
and scandal ; that priests, deacons, and subdeacons, who had been
ordained by bishops, denied the validity of orders conferred by
chorepiscopi ; and that Pope Leo had disallowed the acts of these
intruders. They -are (he continues) not really bishops, since they
neither have been consecrated by three bishops, nor possess epis-
copal titles to sees. Ordination, confirmation, veiling of nuns,
consecration of chiu-ches and of altars, belong only to diocesan
bishops, and not to chorepiscopi or presbyters, who correspond to
the seventy disciples, and not to the Apostles. The emperor says
that chorepiscopi had been made by bishops in ignorance of eccle-
siastical decrees, and from a wish to devolve their own labour on
others ; and he forbids that any should be made in future.' But
in the following century we again meet with notices of this class —
"^ Planck, ii. 649-G50. "because we are not certain how or by
■> Zachar. Ep. 8, c. 1; Pagi, xiii. whom they were ordained." (c. 5.) The
552-3. Comp. vol. i. p. 161. real intention of this canon was to check
^ Cone. Vern. a.d. 755, c. 13 ; Giesel. the proceedings of the roving Irish
II. i. 68. bishops and clergy — not (as has been
' Mabill. III. XX. supposed) to deny the validity of Irish
B See p. 66. The third council of orders. (Lingard, A. S. C. ii. 23.)
Chalons, a.d. 813, speaks of " Scots ' Johnson wrongly applies it to the Scots
as ordaining irregularly, and declares of the North, i. 3ii2-3.
such ordination to be void. (c. 43.) A ^ Hard. iii. 948-950.
council at Chalchythe, in 816, forbade ' lb. ; Rettb. ii. 609.
" Scots" to officiate in English dioceses,
o 2
196 ARCHDEACONS — ARCHPRIESTS. Book III.
most commonly in the way of censure, or of prohibition from
exceeding the limits of their commission.''
(3.) Towards the end of the eighth century, the office of arch-
deacon acquired a new character and importance. In earlier
times, there had been only one archdeacon in each diocese ; but,
with a view to a better superintendence of the clergy, the dioceses
of the Prankish empire were now divided into archdeaconries,"" in
which the archdeacons, although themselves only deacons, had
jurisdiction over presbyters, and exercised all the ordinary admi-
nistration, except such acts as especially belonged to the episcopal
order." The office became so lucrative that laymen attempted to
intrude into it — an abuse which was forbidden by a capitulary of
805,° and by many canons of later date.i' As the archdeacons
were not removable except for some grave offence,T it was soon
found that many of them endeavoured to render themselves
independent of their bishops ; "" and from canons of the ninth
century it would appear that their exactions, and the insolence of
their followers, were severely felt by the clergy subject to their
jurisdiction.^
(4.) The archdeaconries of the new organisation were divided
into deaneries (decanice), each under an archpriest or rural-dean
(arclii-preshyter)} The clergy of each deanery met on 'the first of
every month,'" for conference on spiritual and ecclesiastical affairs.
The conference was followed by a dinner ; but complaints soon
arose that these entertainments led to excesses, which more than
counterbalanced the benefits of the meeting. Hincmar, archbishop
k E. g. Cone. Worm. a.b. 829, c. 6 625, c. 19 ; Cone. Cabilon. a.d. 650,
(Pertz, Leges, i.) ; Cone. Meld. a. d. 845, c. 5.
c. 44. SeeDe Marca, II. 14, who traces i Planck, ii. 591.
their continuance to the circumstance ' lb. 594-5 ; iii. 769.
that their ordinations, although pro- ^ See Capit. Wormat. a.d. 829, c. 7 ;
hibited, were not annullei; alsoGfrorer, Cone. Aquisgr. II. a.d. 836, c. 4; Hinc-
'Die Karolinger,' i. 258. mari Capitija, c. 1, a.d. 877 (Opera, i.
■"Planck, ii. 585-7. The arrange- 738) ; Planck, iii. 774.
mentisusuallyascribed to Heddo, bishop » Thomass. I. ii. 1, 5; II. i. 35, 3;
of Strasburg, who is said to have formed Planck, ii. 586-7. The council of Pavia,
his diocese into seven archdeaconries, under the emperor Louis II., a.d. 850,
with the consent of Pope Adrian, in orders that archpriests should be every-
774. (Patrol, xcvi. 1243; Planck, ii. where established. Bishops must not
589-590 ; Giesel. II. i. 67-8.) But object, on the ground that they are
Rettberg says that the documents on themselves equal to the whole care of
which this statement rests are spurious, their dioceses ; but the archpriests must
ji_ g9_ be strictly subject to them, and must
n Thomass. II. i. 19, 9; Augusti, make reports to them. (c. 13.) This
xi. 209. order was renewed in a capitulary of
'° C. 15 (Pertz, Leges, i. 132.) the emperor Lambert, a.d. 898, c. 12 ;
p See Planck, iii. 771-2. Similar ca- Pertz, Leges, i. 565.
nons against the invasion even of paro- "Hence the meetings were styled
chial cures by laymen are found under Kalenda. Ducange, s. v., p. 962.
the Merovingians. Cone. Rem. a.d.
Chap. IX. EPISCOPAL VISITATIONS. 197
of Rheims, in his injunctions of 852, found it necessary to denounce
the abuse, and to lay down rules for moderation, restricting the
allowance of the clergy on such occasions to three cups for each."
(5.) The bishops were required to visit throughout their dioceses
every year/ The expense of entertaining them on their circuits
was often complained of by the clergy ; with a view to limiting it,
the seventh council of Toledo ordered that the bishop should not
on such occasions take more than five (or, according to another
reading, fifty) horses in his train, and that his stay in each parish
should not exceed one day."^ But even after this limitation, the
expense continued to be heavy, as appears from the list of pro-
visions required by a Lombard capitulary of 855, which includes
a hundred loaves, four large swine, a lamb, a pig, fifty pints of
wine, and a sufficiency of honey, oil, and wax.* Louis the Pious,
in 829, charges his commissioners to inquire whether the bishops
in their visitations are burdensome to the clergy.'' A capitulary of
Charles the Bald, in 844, denounces the misbehaviour which was
common among the attendants of bishops when on visitation, and
provides that the clergy of five neighbouring parishes shall combine
to supply provisions for the usual hospitality to their diocesan.
The priest at whose house the entertainment is held is to contri-
bute in the same proportion as the others, with " perhaps " the
addition of firewood and utensils.'' The third council of Valence,
'^ C. 15 (Opera, i. 714). Compare the proving the archbishop because after this
statutes of Riculf, bishop of Soissons, order he had takeu 70 men in addition
forty years later, c. 20 (Patrol, cxxxi.). to 40 horses (ib. Ep. 1498). The same
y Capit. A.D. 769, c. 7 ; Cone. Arelat. pope wrote to the clergy of Berkshire
A.D. 813, c. 17; Thomass. III. iii. 6. that they were not bound to supply their
These visitations were called Sende—a. archdeacon with dogs or hawks, to re-
word which is usually supposed to be a ceive him more than once a year, or on
corruption of Si/nodi. (Giesel. II. i. 73.) such occasions to furnish him with more
But Augusti (ix. 124) and Rettberg (ii. than was necessary for a day and a
742) prefer to deduce it from an analogy night for himself and a train of 7 horses,
between the episcopal visitation and that 7 " personse," and 7 foot-servants (Ep.
oi the missus or Send:iraf. The articles 1371.) One of Becket's correspondents
' of inquiry drawn up for bisliops by -Re- says of the bishop of Nevers, " Qui in
gino are curious. See Patrol, cxxxii. terra sua quindecim esset contentus, apud
187-191. iios [scil. in Normaunia] triginta sex
^ Cone. Tolet. VII., a.d. 646, c. 4. equitaturas adducit." (Patrol, cxc. 727.)
The authority of MSS. is in favour of May not quindenarium be possibly the
quinqHagenririuin, although editors and true reading of the Toledo canon ?
other writers generally prefer quinarium. ^ Capit. Ticiu. c. 16 (Pertz, Leges, i.
But if the higher number be too large, 432).
the lower seems hardly large enough '^ Hard. iv. 1282.
to be fixed as an extreme. Five hundred <^ C. 4. Planck says that by this ca-
years later we find Pope Alexander III. pitulary the laity might be asked to join
ordering that the archbishop of Sens in bearing the cost. (ii. 617.) But the
shall not burden the abbey of St. Ger- real meaning is, that the clergy should
main des Pres by taking more than 40 take some of the laity with them to the
horses and 44 men on his visitation of visitation.
it (Ep. 1286, 1439; Patrol, cc), and re-
198 PARISHES — LOCAL TIES OF CLERGY. Book III.
in 855, censures an abuse which some bishops had introduced by
■ exacting visitation-dues of their clergy at times when they omitted
to visit/
(6.) The parochial system was not yet completely organised in
the Frankish church ; the people in country places were often
dependent for divine offices on the clergy of the cathedral city,
or on the chaplain of some neighbouring castle.^ The division of
England into parishes has (as we have already seen) been ascribed
to the Greek archbishop, Theodore ; but, whatever his share in
promoting it may have been, the general establishment of the
system appears to have been slowly and gradually effected/
(7.) With a view of enforcing ecclesiastical discipline, it was
attempted by frequent enactments to bind the clergy by strict
local ties. No stranger was to be admitted to officiate without
producing letters of license and recommendation from his bishop.?
Fugitive clerks were to be examined and sent home ; '' wandering
clergy or monks, who disturbed the church by teaching error, or
by raising unnecessary questions, were to be apprehended, carried
before the metropolitan, and put to suitable penance ;^ all the
clergy of a diocese were to be subject to the bishop's jurisdiction. '^
Presbyters were obliged to remain in the diocese where they were
ordained ; some councils required a promise that they would do
so,™ and Charlemagne even imposed an oath to that effect." No
bishop was to receive a clerk from another diocese, or to promote
him to a higher degree ; but, while this was absolutely forbidden
in a capitulary for France, the corresponding enactment for
Lombardy allows it with the consent of the bishop to whose
diocese the clerk had belonged.** And it is evident, from facts
which continually meet us i;i history and biography, that with
such consent it was not unusual for clergymen to pass from one
diocese, or even from one kingdom, to another.
(8.) During the earlier ages, ordination had not been conferred-
without a title (i. e. without assigning a particular sphere of labour),
except in rare and extraordinary instances, such as that of St.
** C. 22. k Cone. Vera. a.d. 755, cc. 8, 11;
^ Milman, ii. 232. Capit. a.d. 779, c. 4; Capit. a.d. 802,
f See p. 73 ; Collier, i. 540-6; Bing- c. 12.
ham, IX. viii. 4 ; Blackstone, i. 99-100; ™ Cone. Valent. a.d. 524, c. 6; Cone.
Lingard, A. S. C. i. 156-7. Hispal. II. a.d. 619, c. 3, and other
s Cone. Aquisgr. a.d. 789, c. 3 ; Cone. Spanish councils cited by Planek, ii.
Francof. a.d. 794, c. 28; Cone. Turon. 575-6 ; Capit. Aquisgr. a.d. 801, c. 13.
a.d. 813, c. 13. n Cap. Aquisgr. a.d. 789, e. 24, &c.
•> Cone. Mogunt. a.d. 813, e. 31. " See Pertz. Leges, i. 36, c. 6, a.d.
' Cone. Ticin. a.d. 850, c. 21. 779.
Chap. IX. ACEPHALOUS CLERKS —CHAPLAINS. 199
Jerome.P The same rule was now often re-enacted ;'^ but an
exception was necessarily made in the case of missionaries, and
was by degrees extended to other cases. Although the ancient
canons as to the requisites for ordination were still in force, an
important novelty was introduced, after the sixth century, by
means of the tonsure. This was regarded as conferring the
character of a clerk, without ordination to any particular grade
of the ministry ; and thus clerks were made in great numbers,
without any regard to the canonical conditions or impediments of
ordination.'^ It may easily be conceived that much disorder was
introduced by these " acephalous " (or headless) clerks, who
enjoyed the immunities of the clerical state without being bound
by its obligations.^
(9.) The example of the royal household in France induced
persons of rank to establish domestic chaplains.' These were often
disposed to set the bishops at defiance ; and it appears from the
testimony of many councils that the institution had an unfavourable
effect on the religion of the people in general. It is represented
that the absence of the lord from the parish-church encourages his
dependents to absent themselves ; that the clergy have no oppor-
tunity of enforcing the duties of the rich and powerful ; " and there
are frequent complaints of attempts to withdraw the ecclesiastical
dues from the bishops and parochial clergy, in order to provide
for the chaplains by means of them.^ But in addition to these
evils, the chaplains were usually persons of low and disreputable
character; they were miserably paid, disrespectfully treated by
their employers, and required to perform degrading services-^
The position and habits of chaplains were found to bring discredit
on the whole body of the clergy, and hence Agobard, archbishop
of Lyons, in the reign of Louis the Pious, felt himself called on to
write a treatise in vindication of " the privilege and rights of the
priesthood." After showing from Scripture the estimation in
which the clergy ought to be held, he proceeds by way of contrast
to describe the abuses of his own time. Every person of any pre-
tension to station, he says, then kept a priest of his own — " not
to obey him, but continually to exact obedience from him, and that
p See vol. i, p. 322; Cone. Chalced. • Planck, ii. 89, Guizot, ii. 41-2;
A.D. 451, c. 6 ; Thomass. I. 2, 34. Neand. v. 150..
1 E. g. Cone. Francof. a.d. 794, c. 27 ; " Capit. Attiiiiac. a.d. 822 ; Convent.
Cone. Mogunt. a.d. 813, c. 22. Ticin. 855, c. 3 (Pertz, Leges, i.) ; Cone.
>■ Planck, ii. 76-8 ; Guizot, ii. 37. Paris, VI. A.D. 829, c. 47.
s The Monk of St. Gall, in his life of '' E. </. Cony. Ticin. a.d. 855, c. 11.
Charlemagne (i. 8), styles them Circum- y Cone. Ticin. a.d. 850, c. 18.
cellions.
200 CHAPLAINS — ADVOCATES. Book HI.
in unlawful as well as in lawful things." The chaplains were
employed to do the work of bailiffs, butlers, grooms, or dog-
keepers, to wait at table, to lead ladies' horses. As no respectable
clergyman would accept such a position, the patrons, whose chief
object was to obtain an excuse for deserting the public offices of
religion, and emancipating themselves fi'om the control of the
clergy, cared nothing how gross the ignorance of their chaplains
might be, or how infamous their lives. They usually took one of
the serfs on their estates, or procured a person of servile birth for
the purpose, and were offended if the bishop hesitated to ordain
him as a matter of course.'' Even if we might implicitly believe
all that has lately been written against the English domestic chap-
lains of the seventeenth century,'^ it would appear that the class had
lost nothing in dignity between the age of Agobard and that of
Eachard.
(10.) A new species of ecclesiastical officers arose in Gaul
during the sixth and seventh centuries, under the title of Advocates,
Defensors, or Vicedomini — a word from which are formed the French
Vidame and the German Vitztlmm}' Except in name, these bore
no resemblance to the defensors of the earlier ages ; "^ the new office
grew out of the peculiar circumstances of the Frankish church.
The bishops and clergy required the assistance of force to protect
them against the outrages of their rough and lawless neighbours.
Their landed possessions imposed on them duties which were in-
consistent with their spiritual office, or which, at least, might be
more conveniently performed by laymen — such as secular judicature,
(when it was committed to them), and the leading of the contingents
which their estates were required to furnish to the national army.''
Moreover, as, by the Germanic laws, none but freemen, capable of
bearing arms, were entitled to appear in law-suits, the clergy (like
women, old or infirm persons, and children) required substitutes
who might appear for them, and, if necessary, might go through
' Agob. de Privilegio et Jure Sacer- sort of parallel in some African canons
dotii, c. 11. The Council of Worms, in of the fifth century ; but an examination
829, in consequence of the complaints of them will show that he is mistaken,
which had been made against bishops See Couc. Carth. V. a.d. 401, c. 9 (the
for refusing ordination to chaplains, same with Can. 7.5 of the African code) ;
enacts that laymen shall choose lit per- Cone. Milev. II. a.d. 416, c. 16. In the
sons, and that bishops shall not reject first of these, Planck alters the appli-
candidates without assigning some evi- cation by reading Ipsis (the bishops) for
dent reason, c. 16 (Pertz, Leges, i.) cis (the poor). For the early Defensors,
a Macaulay, Hist, of England, i. 326- see vol. i. p. 553.
7, ed. 4 ; Thackeray's ' Esmond.' ^ Ducange, s. vv. Advocatus, Viccdomi-
b Schrockh, xxvii. 107. nus ; Planck, ii. 454-9 ; Hallani, Midd.
<= Planck, ii. 453. This writer finds a Ages, i. 143 ; Giesel. II. i. 76-7.
Chap. IX
PATRONAGE. 201
the ordeal of battle in their behalf. *" For such purposes it was
necessary to call in the aid of some neighbouring layman, dis-
tinguished by influence or by personal prowess ; and his services
were usually recompensed by the use of lands belonging to the
church, and adjacent to his own, in addition to a share of the fines
inflicted in his court, and to other pecuniary dues.^ The appoint-
ment of an advocate was at first a voluntary act : but Charlemagne
ordered that every church should be provided with such a champion.
The qualifications for the ofiice were very particularly defined, with
a view of guarding against misconduct or encroachment ; and the
advocates were subject to the inspection of the imperial commis-
sioners.^ The sovereign assigned advocates to churches which
were themselves unable to find any. As such grants had the
nature of a favour, the advocates thus appointed required higher
terms than those whom churches chose for themselves ; and from
them the others gradually learnt to assume a superiority over the
ecclesiastical bodies with which they were connected, to claim dues
which absorbed a large portion of the revenues, and to become
tyrants instead of protectors,'' both to the clergy and to their
tenants. It was not, however, until after the period which we are
now surveying that their relation to the church assumed this
character.
(11.) Another encroachment on the church arose out of the
system of lay patronage, which had become general throughout
the west.' In some cases, the right of presentation to a church
expired with the founder, while in others it was continued to his
representatives."^ But patrons were not always content with the
power of nominating clerks. Sometimes the builder of a church
reserved to himself a certain portion of its revenues ; sometimes
the church was built on speculation — the founder expecting to get
more than a reimbursement from the oblations, while he made a
composition to pay the incumbent a certain allowance.'" Against
this practice canons were directed, which forbad bishops to con-
secrate churches erected on such conditions;" but the patron was
considered to have a legal interest in the preservation and right
disposal of the property belonging to his church." Charlemagne
'^ Planck, ii. 455-7 ; Eettb. ii. 611-2. rich IV.,' i. 83.
f Ducauge, s. v. Advocatus, p. 107 ; ' See vol. i. p. 554.
Plauck, ii. 459, 463. ^ Planck, ii. 623-5.
s Capit., A.D. 733, c. 3 ; a.d. S02, '" Planck, ii. 634 ; Lingard, A. S. (J.
c. 1,3. i. 102 ; Rettb. ii. 617.
'' Ducauge, s. V. A/toc. p. 108; Planck, ° Cone. Bracar. a.d. 572, c. 6.
ii. 464-6; Rettb. ii. 616; Floto, ' Heiu- " Planck, ii. 627 ; Rettb. ii. 617.
202 SIMONY. Book III.
allows the sale of churches ; ^ and Louis the Pious enacted that, if
the incumbent of a church should have a surplus of income, he
should pay "due service" to his landlord.*^ The division of
inheritance was sometimes carried into the disposal of church-
patronage, so that an " altar " might be divided into several por-
tions, belonging to a like number of priests : "" such divisions were
forbidden by a capitulary of Louis the German, in 851/
A canon of the fourth Council of Toledo provides that, if
the founder or benefactor of a church, or his descendants, fall
into poverty, an allowance shall be made to them out of its
revenues.*
The question of patronage was a fruitful source of disagree-
ments between bishops and secular lords." Canons were passed
for the purpose of guarding against abuses on both sides —
enacting that no layman should present or eject a clerk without
the consent of the bishop ; while, on the other hand, the bishop
was forbidden to reject a presentee except on good and valid
grounds."
(12.) Li the beginning of the period, we find many denuncia-
tions of simony in the writings of Gregory the Great. He complains
of this "first of heresies," this " buying and selling of doves in the
temple," as prevailing in all quarters — in Gaul, in Germany, in
Africa, in Greece and Epirus, in the patriarchates of Alexandria,
Antioch, and Jerusalem -J and he continually urges both princes
and high ecclesiastics to join with him in labouring to suppress it.
But in defiance of all denunciations and penalties, the evil con-
tinued, and from age to age there are frequent complaints both
against patrons who, for the sake of gifts, nominated worthless
persons to ecclesiastical office, and against bishops who corruptly
conferred ordination.''
(13.) The Frankish church continued to increase in wealth.
Estates, sometimes of very great extent, were bestowed on it with
the declared object of securing for the giver the remission of his
sins and the salvation of his soul.''^ And the inducements to make
p Capit. Francof. a.d. 794, c. 54 (Pa- 813); Capit. a.d. 817, c. 9 ; Thomass.
trol. xcvii.). II. i. 31.
'I Capit. A.D. 817, c. 10. y E. g. Epp. v. 53, 55, 57 ; vi. 8 ; ix.
■• Thomass. II. i. 31-4. 49, 106 ; xi. 46 ; xii. 28 ; xiii. 41 ; Horn.
s C. 5. Cf. Cone. Tribur. a.d. 895, in Evang. I. iv. 4.
c. 32. ^ L\ g. Capit. a.d. 789, c. 21 ; Cone.
t Cone. Tolet. IV., a.d. 633, c. 38. Mog. a.d. 813, c. 30 ; Cone. Rem. a.d.
" Eettb. ii. 618. 813, c. 21 ; and some of theeanoiis cited
" Capit. A.D. 809 (Pei'tz, Leges, i. in note above.
161); Cone. Arelat. e. 4; Cone. Mo- » See Mareulfs Formularies, ii. M,
gunt. e. 29; Cone. Turon. c. 15 (all in seqq. (Patrol. Ixxxvii.)
Chap. IX. PRECARI^ —TITHES.
203
such donations were increased by the system of precarious con-
tracts—so called because the giver, in endowing the church with
his lands, j^rai/ed that the use of them might be allowed him for
his lifetime, or perhaps that it might be continued to one or more
persons in succession after him.'' Thus many who would have
scrupled to deprive themselves of the income arising from an estate,
were enabled to perform an act of bounty without expense to
themselves, or even to make a profit by it; for the church, in
consideration of the reversion assured to itself, in many cases
allowed a donor to enjoy not only his own land, but other lands of
perhaps much greater value than that which was eventually to
pass from his heirs." AVith a view to the limitation of this abuse,
it was enacted by the council of Epernay, in 846, that a donor- of
land should not be allowed to receive more than twice the value
of his gift by way of addition ; that kings should not sanction
precarious contracts except at the request of the church ; and that,
agreeably to ancient custom, the contract should require renewal
every fifth year.^'
(14.) The lands of the church were either cultivated by its
serfs for the benefit of the owners, or they were let to tenants,
whether free or servile, who paid a fixed proportion of the produce
by way of rent.^ In addition to these lands and to the oblations,
the ecclesiastical revenues were now swelled by the general impo-
sition of tithes. Under the old Roman system, a tenth of the
produce of land was paid by the coMi to the state as rent ; and
when lands were granted on this condition to a corporation, a
second tenth — a ninth of the remaining produce — was paid by
the tenant to whom it was underlet. These two payments were
known by the name of " tenths and ninths " (decimce et 7ionce)J
The church, as a large holder of lands under the state, exacted
the ninths from its tenants ; while sometimes, by special grant,
it was excused from the payment of the fiscal tenth, and conse-
quently was entitled to receive tenths as well as ninths for its own
benefit.^
The ecclesiastical or Levitical tithe was a third charge, distinct
from these rent-payments.'^ The earliest canon which required
^ They were also styled pncstariw, be- -was sometimes continued to one or more
cause the church lent the lauds on the successors. Ducange, s. v. Frecaria.
terras proposed. Rettb. ii. 704. See -^ C. 22. See Pertz, Leges, i. 388,
Marculf, ii. 40, and many forms in the 390.
appendix ; Thomass. III. i. 8 ; Guizot, « Rettb. ii. 718-720.
iii. -26. Ducange, s. vv. Prccstaria, Pre- ' Rettb. ii. 708-710 ; Giesel. II. i. 74.
c.aria. ^ Rettb. ii. 627-633, 710, 713.
■^ Planck, ii. 390-4; Rettb. ii. 704-5". >> See Giesel. II. i. 74; Bollinger, ii.
See Marculf, ii. 39. The additional grant 82 ; and Rettb. ii. 711-5, with his cita-
204 TITHES. Book III
it was passed, by the council of Macon, in 585.' But it would
seem that this canon had little effect, and no attempt to reinforce
it was made by the Frankish councils during the remainder of
the Merovingian period^ Pipin for the first time added the autho-
rity of the secular power to that of the church for the exaction
of tithes;" but little was done until the reign of Charlemagne,
who, by a capitulary of 779, enacted that they should be paid."
The payment was enforced, not only by excommunication, but
by heavy civil penalties, graduated according to the obstinacy of
the delinquent;'' and the obligation was extended to the newly-
acquired territories beyond the Rhine, where (as we have already "
seen) it had the effect of exciting a strong prejudice against the
Christian faith.^ The council of Frankfort (a.d. 794) represents
the opposition to tithes as one of the offences by which a late
scarcity had been provoked; devils, it is said, had been seen
devouring the hoarded corn of those who refused the church its
due, and voices had been heard in the air, uttering reproof of the
general sin.*^
The tithe had at first been exacted only for corn. It was then
extended to other productions of the soil, such as flax and wine,
and in some places to the increase of animals. The enactments
of Charlemagne's time usually speak of it as payable on the
"whole property;'"" but it was long before the clergy succeeded
in establishing a general compliance with their claims in this
respect.
The capitulary of 829 forbids the receiver of tithe to give the
payers food, or any other consideration which might lead them to
suppose that the payment depended on their own will."
In England, tithes appear not to have been enforced until
about the end of Bede's lifetime.' But soon after this, they are
mentioned in the Excerptions of Egbert, archbishop of York;"
and Boniface, whose exertions contributed to the establishment of
the impost among the Franks and their dependents, is a witness
for the payment of tithes in his native country.''
tions from the capitularies of 779, the ° Capit. Langob. a.d. 803, c. 19 ;
councils of Frankfort and Mentz, &c. (ib.) ; Giesel. II. i. 74.
i C. 5. See vol. i. p. 555. p See p. 141. i C. 25.
k As to a council at Rouen, which ■■ E.g. Capit. Aquisgr. A.p. 801, c. 6;
passed a canon for tithes, and is wrongly Planck, ii. 419-23 ; Rettb. ii. 71-6.
.referred to this period, see Hefele, iii. ^ Cc. 5, 7 (Pertz, Leges, i.)
gg ' A.D. 730. See Lingard, A. S. C. i.
"' Encycl. de Letaniis faciendis, a.d. 183.
765 (Patrol, xcvi. 1519) ; Rettb. ii. " No. 43. Johnson, i. 229 (a.d. 740).
7^4 " Ep. ad. Cudberct. (Patrol. Ixxxix.
"C 7 (Pertz Leges, i.) 767); Kemblc, ii. 480. There has been
Chap. IX. BENEFICES — DIVISION OF FUNDS.
205
(15.) The abuse by which the Frankish princes granted the
beneficial use of church-lauds to laymen had defied the efforts of
Boniface, and continued throughout the reign of Charlemagne.
. The holders of such benefices^' were now required by canons to
pay tenths and ninths to the church, and also to repair, or con-
tribute to repair, the churches which were situated on their lands.^
But it would appear that great difficulty was found in enforcing
the canons against this powerful class ; the council of Tours, in
the last year of the reign, states that complaints had often been
made to the missi of their neglect to pay tenths and ninths, but
that such complaints met with no attention."'
(16.) The disposal of the church's income was still in the hands
of the bishops ; but in the new kingdoms of the West the deacons
did not, as such, take the same part in the administration of it
•by which their order had become so important in the earlier
ages.^ The steward [oeconomiis), by whom the bishop was assisted
in this part of his administration, might be either a deacon or a
priest ; his dignity was next to that of the bishop, and he had the
guardianship of the see when vacant.*" In some places the division
of the funds was quadripartite— one portion being assigned to the
bishop and his household, one to the rest of the clergy, one to the
poor and strangers, and one to the fabric and expenses of the church ;
in other places, it was tripartite — a third to the bishop, one to the
clergy, and one to the necessities of the church.*^ The tripartite
division was known as the Spanish custom ; the quadripar|^te, as
the Roman : " and bishops are found announcing that, although
entitled to the third part which was prescribed by the canon of
Toledo, they will be content with a quarter, agreeably to the
usage of Rome.*" The bishops were sometimes charged by the
much discussion as to a grant by which '- Cone. Francof. a.d. 794, cc. 2.5-G ;
Ethelwulf, the father of Alfred, in 8.54- Cone. Moguut. a.d. 813, c. 42; Cone.
5, bestowed some kind of tenth on the Arel. a.d. 813, c. 25.
church. (Asser, in Mon. Hist. Brit. » C. 33.
470; Ang. Sax. Chron. A.D. 855.) This ^ piaack,ii. 445-7. See vol. i. pp. 157,
has been described as the first English 300.
law for the general payment of tithes ' Thomass. III. ii. 8-9.
(Inett, i. 271-280); but the best autho- •^ See Cone. Tolet. IV. a.d. 633, c.
rities consider that it related, not to 33 ; Capit. a.d. 799, c. 13; Capit.
tithes payable by the king's subjects, Aquisgr. a.d. 801, e. 7, etc. ; Planck, ii.
but to a tenth part of the crown land 240 ; Rettb. ii. 722. Thomassin men-
iu Wessex. See Spelman's Life of tions other divisions, III. ii. 15-8.
Alfred, with Hearne's note, Oxf 1709, ^ See Pope Simplicius, Ep. 3, a.d. 475
p. 22; Liugard, Hist. Eng. i. 175; Hal- (Patrol. Iviii.). Archdeacon Hale, in two
lam, Suppl. Notes, 181 ; Williams, n. in pamphlets published in 1832-3, has shown
Florent. Wigorn. i. 74. reason for beheviug that these divisions
y This was the only sense of the word never existed in England.
benefice then known. Ducange, s. v. Ue- ' E. g. Heito, of Basel, about a.d. 820,
neficium; Fleury, Disc. ii. c. 8. See Capit. 15 (Hard. iv. 1243). So the
Guizot iii. 22. Lombard bishops at Pavia, a.d. 856, c.
206 DIVISION OF FUNDS. Book I IT.
inferior clergy with taking more than their due proportion, and
from the sixth century downwards canons were passed in order to
restrain them from doing so>' Even where the full amount of the
clergy's share was fairly paid to them as a body, the allowance of
each individual still depended on the will of the bishop, who thus
had every clerk at his mercy.'' Where the tithe was paid in kind,
it is probable that some composition was agreed on between the
local clergy and the bishops, in order to avoid the inconveniences
of removing it.' The council of Worms, in 829, ordered that
bishops who had a sufficiency from other property should relinquish
their canonical share of the tithes for the uses of the church and
of the poor."^
Capitularies were often passed to prevent the payers of tithes
from taking the disposal of them into their own hands, instead of
leaving it to the bishops ; and from transferring the payment from •
the church to which it rightfully belonged, to some other, which
private reasons might lead them to prefer. In such cases, the
misd were to take care that proper restitution should be made.™
There is some inconsistency in the enactments of Spanish coun-
cils as to the dues which should be paid to the bishops. The
second council of Braga, in 572, forbids them to take the third
part of the oblations, and instead of it allows them only a yearly
payment of two solidi from each parish." The fourth council of
Toledo, held in 633, under a different government, in enacting
that the bishop should not take more than a third, makes no
reference to the canon of Braga. But another council at Toledo,
in G46, re-enacts that canon ; and one yet later, in 655, reverts to
the system of allowing the bishop a third.'' The exaction of two
solidi afterwards found its way into France ; but there, in course
of time, the bishops, instead of acknowledging it as a substitute for
the third part, required it as an additional due, under the name of
Cathedratieum. ^'
The burdens imposed on the clergy by the expenses of the
15 (Pertz, Leges, i.). Such passages leans, a.d. 797, forbids the storing of
seem to refute the opinion quoted from hay or other crops in churches, c. 8
Fra Paolo by Archd. Hale (i. 21), that (Hard. iv. 914).
the tripartite and quadripartite, divisions ^ c. 5 (Pertz, Leges, i.) _
did no more than prescribe the appro- '" i'. g. Capit. a.d. 828, c. 6 ; Capit.
priation of portions to certain uses, with- Ticin. a.d. 850, c. 17.
out requiring that the portions should ° C. 2.
be equal. » Planck, ii. 607-613.
K Cone Carpentorat. a.d. 527 (Patrol. p Capit. Tolos. a.d. 844, c. 2. It is
Ixxxiv 289), and the Spanish councils here prescribed as a substitute for cer-
cited below. See Planck, ii. 601-2. tain payments in kind. Cf. Ducange,
•> Planck ii. 598-600. s. v. Cathedratieum; Planck, ii. 617.
i lb. 610. Theodulf, bishop of Or-
Chap. IX. TAXATION — SECULAR EMPLOYMENTS. 207
bishop's visitation have ab'eady been mentioned.'^ The new insti-
tution of archdeacons, who claimed dues in right of their office,
also contributed to impoverish the parochial clergy.'"
(17.) The estates of the church in France, with the exception of
the parish-priest's mansns or glebe,'' were subject to the payment
of all the ordinary taxes, unless exempted by special privilege.
The case was very different in England, where church-land was
exempt from all but what was styled the " threefold necessity "
{trinoda necessitas) — the obligation to contribute towards the
national forces, the building of fortresses, and the expense of
bridges and highways.*^
(18.) As in earlier ages, canons continued to be passed for-
bidding the clergy to engage in secular employments." In England,
the mass-priests were required to learn some handicraft, to practise
it, and to teach it to their clerks ; not, however, with a view to
their own gain, but in order that they might avoid the temptations
of idleness, and might have the means of relieving the poor.^
And similar orders are found in France and elsewhere.^
(19.) The high social position of ecclesiastics in the Germanic
kingdoms appears from the rates at which their lives were valued.
The payment known by the name of ivehr, an institution common
to the whole German race,^ was originally intended as a composi-
tion which should satisfy the relations of a slain person for his life,
and should re-establish peace between them and the slayer, so that
the nation might not, on account of private enmities, be deprived
of the service of its members.^ The principle by which the female
relations of the slain man were excluded from any share of this
payment — namely that they were not capable of carrying on a
feud — might naturally have been considered as extending to the
clergy ; ^ but when these became a powerful order, the church
claimed a wehr for their death. In France, the wehr of a pres-
byter was equal to that of a count ; the wehr of a bishop, to that
of a duke.*^ In England an archbishop was rated in this respect
1 P. 197. ' Planck, ii. G17. tinguished as J/ir/ss-priests. lb. 147.
s lb. iii. 445-6. See below, p. 2.53. y Thomass. III. 3, 12.
' See Cone. Berghamst. a.d. 696, iu ^ Tacit. Germ. 21. Compare Grote,
Wilkins, i. 50; Ethelbald, a.d. 742, ib. Hist, of Greece, ii. 131, as to the iroiv^
86 ; Kemble, ii. 436. of the Homeric Greeks.
» E. g. Cone. Forojul. c. 5 (Hard. iv. =» Turner, ii. 507-510 ; Hettb. i, 643-
858); Cone. Mogunt. a.d. 813, c. 14 ; 5; Perry, ex. Marculf gives the form
Cone. Cabil. a.d. 813, c. 12; Cone, of an acquittance from the relations of
Meld. A.D. 845, c. 49. a slain man for the wehr, iL 18 (Patrol.
" Canons of K. Edgar (Thorpe, Ixxxvii.).
396); Lingard, A. S. C. i. 169. The *> Rettb. ii. 645.
Anglo-Saxons gave the title of priest to «^ The wehr, as fixed in the additions
all the clergy ; the presbyters were dis- to the Salic law, a.d. 803, was, for a
208 SOCIAL POSITION OF CLERGY. Book III.
as equal to an atheling, or prince of the blood ; a bishop, to an
ealdorman, or earl ; a mass-priest, to a tJiane or lesser noble. '^
In days when the lay nobles were" unable to read or write, thie
possession of learning marked out ecclesiastics as the only persons
qualified for many important offices. The bishops, as men of
counsel, got precedence of the counts, the men of the sword."^ It
was the policy of Charlemagne to elevate the hierarchy by way of
a counterpoise to the power of his rude vassals.' He orders that
all shall pay obedience to the bishops, and declares that those who
refuse it shall have no home within the empire, " even if they were
his own sons."*^
As the secular advantages of the clerical profession became
greater, it was sought by members of the dominant race, who had
before left it in the hands of the conquered. The occurrence of
barbaric names among the clergy from the seventh century indicates
the time when Franks began to enter into ecclesiastical orders;''
and very soon after, the effect of the change is seen in the necessity
of laws to restrain the clergy from secular habits and occupations.
Bishops led to the field the troops which their lands were required
to furnish towards the national army, and not only gave their per-
sonal attendance (which was a matter of obligation, and might in
some respects have been beneficial), but engaged in bodily service.
They were unwilling to admit that their spiritual calling could
deprive them of the birthright which belonged to every fi-ee Frank,
to share in the wars of his people ; they wished, too, by proving
themselves men of action, to show that their property was not to
be invaded with impunity by their lay neighbours.' Boniface
endeavoured to suppress such practices; it was enacted that the
clergy should not carry arms ; that only so many of them should
accompany the army as might be requisite for the duties of chap-
lains, and that these should confine themselves to their proper
office.'' But the reform seems not to have lasted long ; Charle-
magne renews the orders of his father's time, and exhorts the
clergy, instead of bearing arms, to trust in God for protection.'"
sub-deacon, 300 solidi ; for a deacon, jority, but in many cases they were
400 ; for a monk, 400 ; for a priest, 600 ; adopted by the Romanized Gauls. Riick-
for a bishop, 900. Pertz, Leges, i. 113; ert, ii. 400.
Rettb. i. 645-8. ' Uucange, s. v. Hostis, p. 717 ; Planck,
d Thorpe, 79 ; Turner, iii. 233 ; ii. 222-4.
Kemble, ii. 399, 434. ^ Karlom. Capit. a.d. 742, c. 2 ; Capit.
•^ Planck, ii. 87-9. Vermer. a.d. 753, c. 16.
f Hallam, Midd. Ages, i. 112. ■» Capit. a.d. 769, c. 1 ; Capit. a.d.
jj Hard. iv. 940. 789, c. C!T. From the order of 769,
'' See above, p. 64. Fleury, Disc. ii. " ut sacerdotes neque Christianorum ne-
c. 8. Such names were soon in a ma- que paganorum sanguiuem fundant "
Chap. IX. MARRIAGE OF THE CLERGY. 209
A suspected document represents him as explaining that the object
of such enactments was not, as the bishops had supposed, to deprive
them of their honours." But even during the remaining years of
his reign fresh prohibitions were necessary ; and wlien the strong
hand of the great emperor was removed, the warlike inclinations of
the Frank bishops were displayed in *a greater degree than ever."
In England, also, the clergy were disposed to bear arms, as a
right belonging to their free condition, and canons were passed to
check the practice.''
With the carrying of arms other secular habits and amusements
are forbidden to the clergy — as the keeping of hounds and hawks,*^
games of chance,'' noisy entertainments, worldly songs and instru-
mental music,® and the company of minstrels and buffoons.'
(20.) The most remarkable regulations as to the marriage of
the clergy during this period belong to the east — being those of
the Trullan Council (a.d. 691 ?). This council is strongly opposed
to second marriages. Presbyters who persist in such marriages
■ are to be deposed ; if the second wife be dead, or if they separate
from her, they are allowed to hold their rank, but are excluded
from priestly functions. If a priest, a deacon, or a subdeacon
marry a widow, he shall separate from his wife, shall be suspended,
and shall be incapable of higher promotion." The council forbids,
on pain of deposition, the practice of African and Libyan bishops,
who were reported to cohabit with their wives ; the wife of a bishop
is ordered to separate from him, and to go into a convent.^ It
censures the practice of the Armenians, who required that the
clergy should be of priestly family, and allowed those who were so
born to officiate as singers and readers without receiving the ton-
sure '/ and it forbids the clergy to marry after their ordination as
subdeacons.^ But in its 13th canon, after stating that the Roman
(c. 2) it appears that the clergy had ° Schrockh, xix. 450 ; Planck, ii.
already made a distinction in favour of 225.
slaughtering pagans, which was after- p JS. g. Egbert, Excerpt. 155 (Wil-
wards fully sanctioned in the crusades. kins, i. 112) ; Lingard, A. S. C. i. 103-
1 The word honores is supposed hy 5,170. i Capit. a.d. 869, c. 3.
some to mean dignities, the prohibition ■" Cone Mogunt. a.d. 813, c. 14 5
of arms being regarded as degrading to Canons of K. Edgar, 64 (Thorpe, 401).
free-born Fi-anks ; others refer it to the •* Cone. Forojul. c. 5 (Hard. iv. 858).
fefs held by bishops ; as if, by being ' Cone. Turon. Ill a.d. 813, c. 5 ;
disarmed, they would become unable to Canons of Edgar, 58 (Thorpe, 401).
defend these (see Schrockh, xix. 449 ; " C 3.
Neand. v. 140). But both the petition " Cc. 12, 48. This is regarded by
by which Charlemagne is said to have some as the first ecclesiastical law to
been requested at "Worms, in 803, to pre- such effect, although it had been pre-
vent bishops from taking the field, and ceded by the civil law of Justinian (vol.
the answer here quoted (Hard. iv. 941- i. p. 5,52). See Schrockh, xix. 477 ;
3), are omitted by Pertz, and are now Giesel. I. ii- 480.
regarded as spurious. Rettb. ii. 637. ■' C. 33. '• C. 6.
P
210 MARRIAGE OF THE CLERGY. Book UI.
church exacted of persons ordained as presbyters or deacons a pro-
mise to abstain from their wives, it expressly sanctions the contrary
practice, and grounds its sanction on the " Apostolical Canons."
No promise is to be required, no separation is to be enforced ;
deposition is threatened against any one who shall, deprive priests,
deacons, or subdeacons of tlleir wives, and against all members of
these orders who under pretence of religion shall separate from,
their partners. And, while the 29th canon allows the clergy of
" barbaric " churches to separate, if they think it their duty to do
so, and if their wives consent, the permission is declared to be
granted only in condescension to the weak scrupulousness^ which
may be expected in such churches,
A council which in this and other points directly and avowedly
contradicted the principles and usages of Rome was not likely to
find favour with the popes, and, as we have seen, it was rejected by
Sergius I." But the sanction which it gave to the marriage of the
clergy has ever since continued to regulate the discipline of the
Greek church.
In the west, the period presents us with many enactments against
the marriage of the clergy. The Merovingian kings added their
authority to confirm the ecclesiastical canons which forbade it.''
But it would seem that, notwithstanding the frequency of the pro-
hibitions, many of the clergy continued to marry — more especially
where the authority of the popes was not fully established, as in
Lombardy, Spain, and some parts of Gaul and of Germany.'' The
see of Chur, in the Grisons, was hereditary in a family of bishops
who combined the powers of spiritual and civil government. The
wife of one of these, about the middle of the seventh century, in
signing documents, styled herself episcopa or antistita Curiensis ;
and the marriage of the bishops implies that the clergy were also
at liberty to marry.**
A question put by Augustine to Gregory the Great seems to
show that marriage had been usual among the British clergy.*
The law of the Anglo-Saxon church on this subject was the same
vdth that of Rome ; but here too there is frequent proof that the
clergy continued to enter into the married state ; nor was their
" fxiKpo^vxia- ' "Anclerici non continere valentes
'' Page 55. possint contrahere ; et si contraxerint,
<^ Theiner, i. 375. an debeant ad sseculum redire." (In-
<< lb. 434 ; Rettb. ii. 656-7. terrog. 2. ap. Greg. V\i. xi. 64.) Instead
* Theiner, i. 433-4 ; Rettb. ii. 134-8. of fully answering this question, Gregory
Ducange, with reference to the gives the direction as to clerks in the
" bishopess," erroneously interprets aw- lower orders, quoted at p. 18. See
tistita by ubbatissa. ' Theiner, i. 379.
Chap. IX. . CELIBACY — RULE OF CHRODEGANG. 211
marriage annulled or the issue of it declared illegitimate until the
latter part of the twelfth century.^
As in the earlier periods, the canons for the enforcement of celi-
bacy are accompanied by many which indicate the disastrous
effects of such measures. There are very frequent enactments as
to the entertainment of women in the houses of the clergy. The
fourth council of Toledo (a.d. 633) renews the orders of earlier
Spanish councils that the concubines of clerks shall be sold ; '' the
ninth council of the same place (a.d. 655) adds that their children
shall be serfs of the church.' Some canons forbid the clergy to have
as inmates of their houses even those nearest female relatives who
had been allowed by the council of Nicsea,"^ — alleging by way of
reason that other persons had often been introduced under the
pretence of relationship, and that even the laws of nature had been
violated. The councils of Charlemagne's reign in general, how-
ever, are content with renewing the Nicene rule."^
(21.) An important attempt at reform was made about the year
760 by the institution of the canonical life. The title of canons
(canonici), which had formerly been given to all the clergy, on
account of their being enrolled in the canon or register of the
church, and entitled to maintenance from its funds," was now
applied in a new meaning, to designate clergy who lived under a
canon or rule, resembling that of the monastic communities."
The idea of such an institution was not new ; for in earlier times
Eusebius of Vercelli, Plilary of Aries, and the great Augustine
had shown the example of living together with their clergy ;^ and
more recently, a like practice had been usual in missionary bodies,
where the bishop lived with his staff of clergy and monks.'' But it
was now reduced to a regular system by Chrodegang, a nephew of
Pipin, and archbishop of Metz.''
Chrodegang's scheme was in great measure an adaptation of the
g Lingard, A. S. C. i. 176 ; Kemble, excludes all women, c. 11.
ii. 443-7 ; Eettb. ii. 655. ■> Thomass. I. iii. 9, 1 ; Ducange, s. v.
•» C. 43. See vol. i. p. 552. " Schrockh, xx. 80 ; Rettb. i. 495.
i C. 10. p Vita Hilar. Arel. 15 (Patrol. 1.) ;
•' Cone. Forojul. a.d. 796 (?) c. 4 Thomass. L iii. 2.
(Hard. iv. 858) ; Egbert, Excerpt. 1 5, a.d. i Kettb. ii. 662-4.
740 (Wilkins, i.) ; Theodulphi Capitul. '' The see of Metz was only a bishop-
12 (Hard. iv. 905) ; Capit. Aquisgr. a.d. rick ; but Chrodegang, who held it from
801, c. 15 (Pertz, Leges, i.). The third 742 to 766, and some of his successors,
council of Braga, a.d. 675, allows none received the title of archbishop, with
but the mother, unless with a special the pall, from the pope as a personal
license, c. 5. distinction. (Anastas. in Patrol. Ixxxix.
™ E. g. Capit. a.d. 789, c. 3 ; Capit. 1056 ; Sigeb. Gemblac. Vita Deodorici
A.D. 806, c. 1; Cone. Mogunt. a.d. 813, Mettens. 10, ap. Pertz, iv. ; Rettb. i.
c. 49. So Cone. Aquisgr. A.D. 816, c. 39. 494-5.) There is an imperfect Life of
But the second council of Aix, a.d. 836, him in Pertz, x.
p 2
212 RULE OF CHRODEGANG — CANONS. Book III.
Benedictine rule to the different circumstances of the clergy. The
bishop held a place corresponding to that of the Benedictine abbot,
the archdeacon answered to the provost or prior, the seniors had
the same oversight in both systems.^ Like Benedict, the father of
the canonical institute prescribed a common dwelling, an uniform
dress, a common table, a common dormitory, 'unless where the
bishop should be pleased to allow an exception.' The clergy were
required to attend certain services daily." Every day they were
to practise manual labour,'' and were to devote certain portions of
their time to study .^ The younger members of the society were
to show respect to the elders — as by rising and bowing when they
passed, by asking their benediction, by standing in their presence,
unless permitted to sit down.^ All were to confess to the' bishop in
Lent, and again in autumn ; stripes or imprisonment were the
penalties for going to any other confessor. All who were not
prevented by sin were to communicate every Sunday and on other
chief festivals.'* Articles of clothing were to be supplied at stated
times ; the elders were then to give up the clothes which they
had worn, and these were to be transferred to the juniors.^ All
were to take their turns in the services of the house ; each was
in his order to cook for a week, the archdeacon and the cellarer
being the only exceptions.'' Laymen were not to be admitted,
except for some special purpose, such as that of assisting in the
kitchen ; and they were to leave the house as soon as their work
was done.'^
The dietary of the canons was more liberal than that prescribed
by the Benedictine rule.*" They were permitted to eat flesh, except
during penitential seasons.^ They had an allowance of wine (or
of beer, if tliey preferred it), graduated according to their rank —
for priests and deacons, three cups at dinner and two at supper ;
for subdeacons, two at each meal ; for the lower orders, two at
dinner and one at supper.^ There were to be seven tables in the
hall,*^ appropriated respectively to the bishop, to the various orders
of canons, to strangers, and to the clergy of the city, who on
Sundays and other festivals dined in the college, and partook of
the instruction which was given in the chapterhouse.' Edifying
books were to be read at meals, and, in order that they might be
» Ohrodeg. Eegula (ap. Hard. iv. 1181 115. ^ ' C. 22.
seqq.), c. 35.
g C. 23. ^ C. 20.
^^€0^3-^. " Cc 5-7. ' C. 8. The cupituhcm, or chaptei-house,
X Q. 9. y C. 8. was so called because among the Bene-
2C/2.' "0.14. dictines a chapter of their founder's rule
b c'. 2*9. '^ C. 24. ■• C. 3. was there read every day. Ducange,
^- See Cone. Aquisgr. a.d. 816. 1. i. c. s. v. ; Walter, 308.
Chap. IX. MONASTICISM.
213
heard, silence was to be kept, " because it is necessary that, when
one taketh his bodily food, then also the soul should be refreshed
with spiritual food.""^
The most important difference from the Benedictine rule was,
that the canons were allowed to enjoy individual property —
whether that which they had before entering into the society, or
such fees and presents as they might receive for the performance
of religious offices. They were, however, obliged at their death
to leave all to the brethren.""
From Metz the rule of Chrodegang soon made its way to other
cities." The number of its chapters was increased by additions
from 34 to 86.° Charlemagne even wished to reduce the whole
of the clergy to this system ;P and, although the attempt failed,
and the great majority of the clergy continued to live as seculars,'^
many colleges of canons were formed, under- the government of
abbots, in addition to the cathedral bodies for which the scheme
had originally been intended."" The rule was sanctioned for general
use by a great council at Aix-la-Chapelle under Louis the Pious,
in 816 ;^ and by the middle of the ninth century it was established
in almost all the cathedrals of France, Germany, and Italy, and
had also been adopted in England.' The clergy found their
account in the apparent strictness of the new system, as a means
of recovering much of that popular admiration which the monks
had long enjoyed to the prejudice of the hierarchical orders." In
consequence of this strictness, donations were largely bestowed on
the canonical societies. The cathedral chapters became wealthy and
powerful, and soon began to assert a claim to act as the bishop's
advisers, and to share in the administration of the diocese."
IV. Monasticism.
During these centuries the monks played an important part in
Western Christendom. The missions to the Germanic nations
k Q 21. '" Cc. 31-2. rvile to that of the Aix council, see He-
" Planck, ii. 558-60. fele, iv. 16. Gerhoh of Keichersperg, a
° Both forms are given by Hardouin, severe hierarchist of the twelfth ceu-
iv. 1181, seqq.; and in the Patrologia, tury, reflects severely on the Aix rule
Ixxxix. as a mongrel production, enacted by
p Capit. Langob. a.d. 782, c. 2 ; Capit. secular authority alone, without papal
Aauisgr. a.d. 789, c. 72 : Capit. a.d. 8L'5, sanction. In Psalm. Ixiv. cc. 123, seqq. ;
c. 8. • De Aedif. Dei, 3, &c. (Patrol, cxciv.)
1 Milman, ii. 229. ' Planck, ii. SCO ; Lingard, A. S. C
>• Thomass. I. iii. 9, 7 ; Eettb. ii. 667. i. 163.
>* The council also made other regu- " Planck, ii. 562-4; Guizot, ii. 313-5.
lations for canons. Lib. i. cc. 115, " Planck, ii. 632.
seqq. On the relations of Chrodegang's
214 MONASTICISM. Book III.
were chiefly their work ; they planted colonies in lonely places,
where towns soon grew up, as at Fulda, St. Gall, Eichstedt, and
Fritzlar ; and with the knowledge of religion, they spread that of
agriculture and civilisation among the people/ Through the
employment of monks in missionary labour, ordination was more
largely introduced into their ranks, as a necessary qualification
for missionary duties.^ In some cases, sees were usually filled with
monks from certain abbeys — an arrangement the more natural
because learning was chiefly cultivated in the monastic societies.
Thus Strasburg received its bishops from Mlinster, Spires from
Weissenburg, Constance from Reichenau or St. Gall.^
The reputation of sanctity continued to wait on the monks. The
term religicm, which had been specially applied to the monastic
profession by a council at Orleans as early as 549,'' became more
and more restricted to it.° Entrance on the monastic state was
regarded as a second baptism. Theodore of Canterbury curiously
carries out the idea by ordering that the novice shall for seven
days have his head covered with the cowl, as the head of the
newly-baptised was covered with the chrism or veil ; '^ and a like
order, although with an abridgment of the time to three days,
was made under Louis the Pious in 817." Persons of high rank
flocked into the cloisters ; it v/as no unusual thing even for kings
and queens to resign their royalty and assume the monastic habif
During the earlier part of the period there was a considerable
variety of rules. That of St. Columban for a time appeared to
rival the Benedictine code in popularity. It became not uncommon
to combine the two ;^ but by degrees the rule of St. Benedict
triumphed, as being the more practically sensible, the less rigorous,
and the more elastic.'' With slight modifications in particular
cases, it was commonly adopted in France, where a great excite-
ment in its favour was produced by the translation of the founder's
y Sclirockh, xx. 16; Planck, ii. 482. 719: cf. Montalembert, i. 142), although
The civilising agency of the monks is Eucherius is supposed to have died not
eloquently described in M. de Monta- later than 450.
lembert's work. "^ Schrockh, xx. 6. «■ Thorpe, 307.
^ Schrockh, xx. 5-7 ; Planck, ii. 472. " Capit. Aquisgr. c. 35.
a Planck, ii. 470, 520. f See a list in Schrockh, xx. 10-1.
•^ C. 19. In Salvian, the term reli- Spanish councils order that the widows
giosi includes clergy as well as monks of kings shall not remarry, and shall
(Baluz. in Salv. Patrol, liii. 31, 86, 209). retire into a nunnery. Cone. Tolet.
The council of Epaone,A.D. 517, uses the XIII. a.d. 685, c. 5; Cone. Casaraug.
word rdiijio to signify the profession of III. a.d. G91, c. 5.
celibacy (c. 19 : see Hefele, ii. 666). It e Nat. Alex. x. 177; Mabill. V, xli.,
seems, however, to have the monastic Ixxxiv., seqq. ; Montalembert, ii. 499.
sense in Eucherius, who says, " unus '' Thomass. I. iii. 24-5 ; D'Achery, n.
in religiojiis, alius in sacerdotii nomen in Lanfraiic. Ep. 32 (Patrol, cl.) ; Rettb.
ascendit" (ad Valerianum, Patrol. 1. ii. 679-682.
Chap. IX. EXEMPTIONS. 215
relics to Fleury in 750.' In England, too, where it was intro-
duced by Wilfrid, it soon became general, although not without
. som6 mixture of the old national usages.'^ But the Spanish
monasteries continued until the ninth century to be governed by
rules which had been compiled, partly from eastern sources, by
Isidore of Seville, Fructuosus of Braga, and other native bishops."'
The monasteries in general continued to be subject to the juris-
diction of their diocesan bishops ; ° but exemptions, of which we
have already seen traces in the sixth century," now became more
common, and the authority of Gregory the Great had an important
share in advancing the practice.^ It would appear, however, that
the reason of such exemptions in this period is not to be sought in
any ambition or assumption on the part of the monks, but in the
oppressive conduct of bishops.'^ These from the seventh century
began to claim a share in the gifts bestowed on monasteries.
They exacted unreasonable payments from the monks for the
dedication of tlieir churches, for the consecration of chrism, for
ordaining their clergy, and instaUing their abbots. A large part
of the revenues was absorbed by the expense of visitations ; and,
in addition to this, the bishops extorted heavy fees under the
names of catliedraticum and the like.'' Where the choice of an
abbot belonged to the monks, the bishops often endeavoured to
wrest it from them, and exercised it without any regard to the
welfare of the house, or to the pretensions of its more eminent
members, who might have reasonably expected to succeed to the
dignity.^ The grossness of the tyranny practised by some prelates
may be inferred from the fact that the monastic bodies often
appealed against it to synods, and that these, although composed
' Adrevald. de Transl. et Miraculis i* Lingard, A. S. C. i. 205-fi.
S. Bened. (Patrol, cxxiv.); Schrockh, ™ Schrockh, xx, 19-35. Isidore is in
XX. 1.5; Plauck, ii. 488. Charlemagne, the Patrol, -vol. Ixxxiii., Fructuosus in
in his capitulary of 811, asks, " Utrum vol. Ixxxvii. Valerius, an abbot in the
aliqui raouachi esse possiut prajter eos latter part of the seventh century, gives
qui regulam S. Benedict! observant. In- a very unfavourable account of Spanish
quireudum etiam, si in Gallia monachi monachism. ib. 437.
fuissent priusquam traditio regulse S. " Capit. Aquisgr. a.d. 802, c. 15 ;
Benedict! in has parcechias pervenisset " Thomass. I. iii. 27.
(Pertz, Leges, i. 16G, c. 11): and in ° Vol. i. p. 559.
another paper, "Qua regula monachi p See Giesel. I. ii. 426.
vixissent in Gallia, priusquam regula S. 'i See e. g. the behaviour of the bishop
Benedict! in ea tradita fuisset, cum lega- Sidonius towards the monks of St. Gall :
mus S. Martinum et monachum fuisse (Ratpert. de Casibus S. Galli, 2, Pertz,
et sub se monachos habuisse, qui multo ii. ; Baron. 759. 9-10); and the privi-
ante S. Benedicto [sw] fuit" (ib. 168, lege granted by Pope Adeodatus to the
c. 12). These questions prove that in monastery of St. Martin at Tours. Pa-
France the systems of the earlier mona- trol. Ixxxvii. 1143.
chism had been superseded by the Be- "■ Planck, ii. 502-3 ; Guizot, ii. 92-3.
nedictine, but the object of them is * Plauck, ii. 503 ; Lingard, A. S. C.
matter of conjecture. i. 209.
216 MONASTICISM. Book III.
of bishops, felt themselves obliged to condemn it in strong terms,
and to forbid its continuance.' In some cases during the eighth
century, it was provided that, if the diocesan bishop would not
perform his functions with respect to a monastery on reasonable
terms, the abbot might apply to another." On the whole, it may
be said, that the exemptions of this period were not sought for the
sake of emancipation from the rightful authority of the bishops,
but from their rapacity. The bishop still retained his general
supervision of. religion and morals in the exempt monasteries ;
he was even entitled to inquire into the administration of the
temporalities, while he was restrained from acts of plunder and
oppression.''
When some monasteries had obtained such privileges, it became
usual with founders to insist that those which they established
should stand on a level with others' in this respect.'' There were,
too, certain monasteries which were styled royal — either from
having* been founded by princes, or from having' obtained their
special protection ; and these were exempt from all jurisdiction
except that of the sovereign, which was exercised through the
niisd and the bishops.^ Some, of more than ordinary dignity,
had bishops of their own, resident within their walls, as was the
case at St. Denys.'^ And in addition to these, it appears that the
popes had already commenced a practice of granting exemption
from all authority but their own.'^ The first instance is commonly
said to have been a grant from Zacharias to the abbey of Fulda ;
but the genuineness of the document is much questioned.*^ If
genuine, it was granted at the request of Boniface himself, and
therefore not with an intention to injure the rights of the diocesan.'^
But when the archbishoprick and the abbacy which had been
united in the Apostle of Germany were divided, the privileges
conferred on Fulda, and the renown which it acquired as the
resting-place of his remains, excited the jealousy of Lull, his
successor in the see of Mentz. The archbishop complained that
the exemption wrongfully interfered with his jurisdiction. He is
said to have persecuted the abbot, Sturmi, by unscrupulous means
» E.g. Cone. Tolet. IV. a.d. 633, c. Thomass. I. iii. 35; Planck, ii. 511-2;
51 (which says that bishops treat their Rettb. ii. 669.
monks like slaves); Cone. Tol. IX. a.d. » Mabill. III. xx. See Patrol. Ixxxix.
655, c. 2. 1015; Adrian. I. Ep. 53 (ib.xcvi.) ; Du-
" Planck, ii. 675-6. cange, s. v. Episcopus, p. ^62.
" Thomass. I. ii. 28. 5 ; De Marca, ^ Planck, ii. 529-35.
III. XV. 6; Planck, ii. 505-8, 524-9, " Rettb. ii. 677; sec p. HI. Such
539, 540 ; Rettb. ii. 672-3. exemptions of earlier date are undoubt-
y Planck, ii. 510. edly forgeries.
" Ducauge, s. vv, Monasteria Regalia ; ^ Planck, ii. 536-9.
Chap. IX.
EXEMPTIONS. 217
— even inducing Pipin, by a charge of treason, to banish him for
two years; and the enmity between the two continued to the end
of the abbot's life, so that, on his deathbed, in declaring his for-
giveness of all men, he thought it necessary to mention Lull by
name, as being the person who most especially needed it.^
Exemptions existed also in the patriarchate of Constantinople,
where some monasteries were discharged from the bishop's autho-
rity and subject to the metropolitan, while others were subject to
the patriarch only. In token of these privileges, the metropolitan
or patriarchal crosier was erected over the altar in the chapel of
the monastery/
The second council of Nicaea allowed abbots, if they were pres-
byters, to ordain the lower clergy of their monastery.^ The rule
was adopted in the west, and from this and other circumstances, it
came to pass that the inmates of a monastery, with very few excep-
tions, belonged to some grade of the hierarchy^
The age of admission to the monastic communities was variously
fixed. The Trullan council lays down that it ought not to be
under ten.' Theodore of Canterbury names fifteen as the age for
monks, and sixteen or seventeen for nuns.'' The capitularies of
789 re-enact the old African canons which forbade the reception
of women before the age of twenty-five, unless for some special
reason.'" But, besides those who took the vows on themselves,
children might be devoted by their parents to the monastic state ;
and in this case, as in the other, there was no release fi'om its
obligations." Charlemagne, however, endeavoured to put some
limit to the practice, by ordering that, " saving the authority of
the canons," girls should not be veiled until they were old enough
to understand their engagements."
Many orders are found against the admission of serfs into
monasteries without the consent of their masters, and of freemen
without license from the sovereign. It was not unusual to make
a false profession of withdrawing from the world, for the sake of
escaping from military service. In order to check this abuse,
Charlemagne orders, in 805, that those who forsake the world
shall be obliged to live strictly according to rule, either as canons
or as monks.^
" Vita S. Sturmii, ap. Pertz, ii. 373-7 ; '' Capitul. 1 18 (Hard. iii. 1778).
Mabill. iv. 279-84, 400. Rettberg (i, " C. 46.
610-6) thinks that Lull meant to claim " " Monachos aut paterna clevotio aut
the abbacy as attached to his see, and propria professio facit." Cone. Tolet.
regarded Sturmi only as a yice-abbot. IV. a.u. 633, c. 49 ; Rettb. ii. 691, 696.
f Schrockh, xx. 66-7. See vol. i. p. 561.
B Couc. Nic. II. A.D. 787, c. 14. " Capit. a.d. 805, c. 14.
'• Planck, ii. 472-3. ' C. 40. '' lb. 10.
218 MONASTICISM. Book III.
Although the observance of the same rule was a bond of union
between monastic societies, no more intimate connexion was as yet
organised in the west. Some of the greater monasteries had
cells or priories dependent on them ;^ but, except on this very
limited scale, there was no affiliation of one religious house to
another, nor was there any subjection^ of many to a common head,
as had been the case in the system of St. Pachomius.'' It was
usual for an abbot, in sending forth one of his monks to found a
new community, to release him from the vow of obedience so soon
as he should be able to establish a footing.^ During the earlier
part of the period, it was forbidden to an abbot to have more than
one monastery,' although Gregory the Great allowed it in some
cases ; " but this rule was afterwards disregarded. Pluralities,
both ecclesiastical and monastic, became frequent, and sometimes
both kinds were held by the same person. Thus, about the year
720, Hugh, a member of the Carolingian family, was at once
bishop of Paris, Rouen, and Bayeux, and abbot of Fontenelle and
Jumieges.^ In the instances where a see was usually filled from
a particular monastery, the bishops often united the abbacy with
their higher office ; and where bishops were able to usurp the
nomination to an abbacy, they sometimes took it for themselves.
Thus Sidonius, bishop of Constance, who had already got posses-
sion of the abbey of Reichenau, resolved in 759 to make himself
master also of that of St. Gall ; and, although we are told by the
monastic historians that his rapacity was punished by a death like
that of Arius, the next bishop, John, not only engrossed the same
rich preferment, but towards the end of his life formed a scheme
of providing for his three nephews by transferring the bishoprick
to one of them, and an abbacy to each of the others.^
Many of the monastic societies were specially exempted by
sovereigns from all public imposts and tolls.^ But such exemptions
were as often tokens of poverty on the part of the house as of
extraordinary royal favour. Thus, in a list of the Prankish
monasteries, drawn up at Aix-la-Chapelle, in 817, where they
are ranged in three classes, as owing to the prince both gifts and
military service, as owing gifts only, or as free from all duty except
1 Mabill. VII. xxii. xxvii. " Epp. x. 61 ; xi. 72.
■■ See vol. i. p. 316. The order of St. " Schrockh, xx. 71.
Coluraba, in which the abbot of lona y Ratpert. de Casibus S. Galli, 2-3
was the general superior (see vol. i. p. (Pertz, ii. C3) ; Planck, ii. 521.
.543), was an exception to the usual sys- ^ See e. g. the charter granted to Corbie
tem of the west. by Clotaire III. in 669 (Hard. iii. lOlOj,
' Planck, ii. 494-5. and many in Bouquet, t.v.
' Cone. Epaon. a.u. 517, c. 9.
Chap. IX. MONASTICISM.
219
prayer, the most distinguished foundations are for the most part
included in the most heavily burdened class.*
As monasteries grew rich, some evil consequences followed.
Tiie vow of poverty was considered to be satisfied by the renun-
ciation of individual property. Where its obligation was felt as
matter of conscience, the monks retained their original simplicity
of dress and food, while their superfluous wealth was spent on
other objects, such as the erection of costly buildings.'^ But very
commonly the possession of the means of luxury introduced the
enjoyment of it. In the east, the confessor Maximus, in the
middle of the seventh century, denounces the disorderly lives of
monks, and says that their profession of piety was no better than
hypocrisy." Charlemagne in 811 censures the abbots as caring
only to swell the numbers of their monks and to obtain good
chanters and readers, witliout any solicitude as to their morals.
He sarcastically asks how the monks and clergy understand the
text against entangling themselves with the affairs of this life ;
whether they suppose the only difference between themselves and
secular men to consist in their being unmarried and carrying no
arms ; whether those can be said to have forsaken the world who
are incessantly striving to increase their possessions by all sorts of
means — who use the hopes of heaven and the terrors of hell, the
names of God and the saints, to extort gifts not only fi'om the rich
but from the poor and ignorant, and, by diverting property from
the lawful heirs, drive many to theft and- robbery. How, he
continues, can they be said to have forsaken the world who suborn
perjury in order to acquire what they covet? or those who retain
their secular property, and are surrounded by bands of armed
men ? ''
Abbots, as well as bishops, were addicted to war, to hunting
and hawking, to games of chance, to the company of minstrels
and jesters. There arc many ordinances against irregularities of
this kind — some of them extending to abbesses also;'' and there
are frequent complaints of gross immorality among recluses of both
sexes, with attempts to restrain such practices.^
" Pertz, Leges, i. 223 ; Planck, ii. for gloves, girdles, or the binding of
51G. '> Lingard, A. S. C. i. 225. books ; but in such cases it would seem
" Dupin, vi. 25. that the work was to be performed by
d Pertz, Leges, i. 167-8. the lay dependants of the house. See
<= E. g. Capit. a.d. 789, c. 15 ; Capit. the charters granted by Charlemagne to
A.D. 802, c. 19 ; Cone. Mogunt. A.D. 813, St. Denys, in 774 (Bouquet, v. 727) ; and
c. 17. Some monasteries had a special to Sithiu (St. Berlin's, at St. Omer), in
permission to kill the beasts of the chase, 788 (ib. 752).
that the Hesh might be used for the re- ' E. -/. Cone. Nic. IL a.d. 787, c. 20 ;
fectiou of sick members, and the skins Cone. TruUau. a.d. 691, c. 47; Cone.
220 BENEDICT OF ANIANE. Boor III.
Towards the end of the period, a remarkable reformer of the
monastic life appeared in France. Witiza, afterwards known as
Benedict of Aniane, was of Gothic descent, and son of the count
of Maguelone in Septimania. When a boy, he was placed in the
court of Pipin, to whom he became cupbearer, and he continued
in the service of Charlemagne. In returning: from Rome after his
master's visit to Adrian in 774, he narrowly escaped drowning in
a vain attempt to save his brother,^ who had rashly plunged into
a swollen ford ; and, in gratitude for his preservation, he carried
out a thought which he had already for some time entertained,
of embracing the monastic life, by entering the monastery of
St. Seine, in Burgundy.'* Although he had assumed the name of
Benedict, the rule of the Nursian monk appeared to him fit only
for weak beginners,' and he rushed into the austerities of eastern
monachism. He macerated his body ^y excessive fasting ; his
dress was of rags, swarming with vermin, and patched with a
variety of colours ; he took very little sleep, and that on the bare
ground ; he never bathed ; he courted derision and insult as a
madman, and often expressed his fear of hell in piteous outcries.
His abbot repeatedly urged him to relent from these rigours, but
Benedict was inflexible."^
On the death of the abbot, Benedict was chosen as his successor ;
but he fled from St. Seine, and built himself a little hermitage on
his father's estate, by the bank of the river Aniane.'" Some monks
attempted to live with him, but found themselves unable to support
the excessive severity of his system." In course of time, how-
ever, a considerable society was gathered around him, and a
monastery was erected near his cell. Benedict himself took part
in the building of it ; he and his monks were obliged to carry
the materials, as they were unable to provide oxen for the work."
The walls were of wood ; the roof was thatched with straw : the
vestments for divine service were coarse, whereas silk was usually
employed for such purposes ; the eucharistic vessels were of wood,
afterwards of glass, and finally of pewter. The monks lived chiefly
on bread and water, varied sometimes by milk, and on Sundays and
holydays by a scanty allowance of wine.P If the rigid simplicity
of Benedict's first arrangements was partly dictated by fear lest
richness of architecture and of ornament should prove injurious to
monastic discipline,*^ he must afterwards have changed his opinion
Arelat. a.d. 813, c. 7 ; Capit. Aquisgr. •' C- 7. "' C. W.
A.D. 802, c. 17. " C. 11. ° C. 12. 1- C. 14.
s Vita ap. Mabill. v. 192 seqq. c. 1. 'i This was sometimes matter ofcom-
. *• C. 2. ' C. 8. plaiut. See Mabill. V. ciii. and the ca-
Chap. IX. DECAY OF MONACHISM IN ENGLAND.
221
on the subject ; for in 782 the humble wooden buildings made way
for a splendid monastery. The church was adorned with marble
pillars ; there were several costly chapels ; and all that belonged
to the furniture and to the services was of unusual magnificence/
Charlemagne, who had contributed to the expense, exempted the
monastery from all taxes, and from the jurisdiction both of bishops
and of counts.^
Benedict became a man of great note and influence. His name
has already come before us, as one of the commissioners employed
by Charlemagne to reclaim the adherents of Felix of Urgel i^
Louis the Pious, while king of Aquitaine, employed him to reform
the monasteries of that country ; and the effect of his institutions
was widely felt." He collected in two books the monastic rules
of the east and of the west ; in a third book he added the rules for
nunneries ; and from the whole he composed a " Harmony of the
Rules," in which the precepts of St. Benedict on every subject are
illustrated by those of other monastic legislators.'' In his reforms
he was content to enforce the Benedictine system, which experience
had shown him to be better suited for general use than the rigours
of oriental monachism.^ In his own practice, he was obliged to
abate somewhat of the violence with which he had begun ; but his
life continued to be strictly ascetic, and he shared with his monks
in the labours of ploughing, digging, and reaping.'' Soon after the
accession of Louis to the empire, he resigned the abbacy of Aniane,
and removed to a new royal foundation on the bank of the Inda,
near Aix-la-Chapelle ; "" and, after having played an important part
during the earlier years of his patron's reign, he died at the age of
seventy, in 821.^
In England, monachism fell into decay from the earlier part of
the eighth century." The monasteries were often invaded and oc-
cupied by secular persons, and, although a canon of Clovcshoo was
directed against this evil, the terms which are used significantly
prove that the council had little hope of being able to suppress it.'^
Boniface in his letters to Archbishop Cuthbert, and to Ethelbald,
pitulary of 811, c. 11. Funck's idea ^ 'Concordia Eegulanxm,' piintecl with
(Ludwig d. Fromme, 239) that Charle- his other writings in vol. ciii. of the
magne, in his sarcastic questions of that ' Patrokigia.'
year (quoted above, p. 219), intended to ^ Neand. vi. 98. ^ Vita, 32.
glance at Benedict, seems extremely im- « lb. 48. Charter of Louis, a.d. 821,
probable. Patrol, civ. 110.5. It was afterwards
r c_ 26. called Corneliusmunster. See Rettb. i.
» A.D. 787. Bouquet, v. 751 ; Mabill. 548.
V. 202 ; Patrol, civ. 1419, seqq. ^ Schrockh, xx. 36.
t See p. 170. " See p. 78.
" Vita, 36, 40; Mabill. v. 218. '' Cone. Clovesh. a.d. 847, c. 45.
222 DECAY OF MONACHISM IN ENGLAND — NUNNERIES. Book III.
king of Mercia, complains that the English monasteries are op-
pressed beyond any others in Christendom ; that their privileges
are violated, that they are heavily and unjustly taxed, that they
are ruined by the expense of entertaining the king and his hunting
train ;^ that the monks are forced to labour at the royal buildings
and other works/
But much blame is also laid on the communities themselves.
The monks are often charged with riotous living and with drunken-
ness, which Boniface describes as a peculiarly national vice;^ and
the fondness for gay clothing, which was another characteristic of
the English, defied all monastic rules. Boniface complains of it
to Cuthbert ; '^ the council of Cloveshoo censures it in clergy, in
monks, and in nuns, denouncing especially in men the affectation
of a laical head-dress, and the fashion of adorning the legs with
fillets of various colours ;* the council of Chalchy the '^ desires monks
and canons to use the same habit with those of the continent,™
" and not dyed with Indian dye, or very costly." But some years
later Alcuin is found continuing the complaint against such va-
nities ; and the love of them was not to be overcome."
In addition to the causes which have been mentioned — the se-
cular oppression to which the monks were subjected, and their own
unwillingness, when the first period of fervour had passed away, to
bear the restraints of the monastic rule— the introduction of the
canonical life contributed to the decline of English monachism.
The occupants of religious houses became canons instead of monks ;
and about the middle of the ninth century the Benedictine order
was almost extinct in England."
The regulations of this period as to female recluses correspond
in general character with those for monks. Abbesses are required
to be subject to their bishops ; ^ they are censured for interfering
with the sacerdotal function by presuming to veil virgins, and to
give benedictions and imposition of hands to men — apparently by
« The cost of entertaining sovereigns ' Cc. 19, 28.
was also complained of elsewhere. - See '' a.d. 785, c. 4.
Ducange, s. v. Gista. " That this is the meaning of Orien-
' Ep. 62 (Patrol. Ixxxix. 7G1) ; Ep. tales appears from Can. 19 (see above,
ad Cudbei'ct. c. 11, ap. Bed. ed. Hussey, p. 120, note '). In a doubtful epistle,
353. This passage does not appear in Charlemagne is represented as styling
Dr. Giles' edition of Boniface, or in the himself the most powerful of eastern
Patrologia (Ep. 63), but was edited by and Offa the most powerful of western
Spelman from a MS. Dr. Giles gives kings (Patrol, xcviii. 937).
it in his ' Anecdota Beda3, &c.' Lond. ° Epp. 9 (Patrol, c. 151) ; 14(ib. 165);
1851, p. 16. 224 (ib. 499) ; Lingard, A. S. C. i. 232.
s Ep. ad Cudb. 10; Cone, Clovesh. c. ° Lingard, A. S. C. i. 233-6.
21 ; Lingard, A. S. C. i. 232-3. p E. fi. Cone. Forojul. a.d. 796 (?),
" C. 9. c. 47 ; Cone. Cabilon, a.d. 813, c. 65.
Chap. IX. LANGUAGE OF DIVINE SERVICE.
223
way of ordination to the lower grades of the ministry.'^ There are
frequent complaints of dissolute life in nunneries, and the abbesses
themselves* are sometimes charged with a share of the guilt/ Other
canons are directed against the practice of allowing widows to take
the veil during the first agitation of their bereavement, as it had
been found that such nuns often relapsed into worldly business or
gaieties, and endeavoured to secure at once the privileges of the
monastic and of the secular life/
The Benedictine rule was adapted to the use of female societies;
and towards the end of the period the example of Chrodegang's
rule led to the institution of canonesscs, who lived together under a
less rigid code than nuns, and without being obliged to give up
their private property/
V. Rites and Usages.
(1.) Throughout the West, Latin had from the first been used
as the language of Divine service. As it was spoken in all the
western provinces of the empire, there v/as no necessity for trans-
lating the liturgy into other tongues ; and, after the barbarian
conquests, Latin remained as the language of superior civilisation,
and especially as that of the clergy, whose ranks were for a long
time generally filled from among the Romanized inhabitants."
It was the medium by v.hich nations carried on their official inter-
course \^ it alone remained stable, while the dialects of the invaders
were in a course of fluctuation and change ; and, where new
languages were formed on its basis — a process in which the eccle-
siastical use of the Latin contributed greatly to secure its pre-
dominance—the formation was gradual, so that it would have been
impossible to fix on any time at which the ancient Roman tongue
should have been disused as obsolete.>' The closer connexion
established with Rome by Pipin and Charlemagne confirmed the
use of Latin in the Frankish church. And thus an usage which
1 Capit. A.D. 789, c. 75. advantage is taken of them for mischief,
■■ E. q. a capitulary of 789 (Pertz, i. c. 14.
68,c. 3) forbids nuns to write or to send ^ Capit. Aquisgr. a.d. 817, c. 21;
amatory verses {imnilcudos. See Rettb. Cone. Wormat. a.d. 829, c. 17 (Perlz,
i. 452 ; ii. 695). There are prohibitions Leges, i. 343) ; Cone. Paris, a.d. 829, cc.
of intercourse between monks or clergy 39, 44.
and nuns (Rettb. ii. 695). The Council ■ ' Rettb. ii. 697-8.
of Aix-la-Chapelle, in 836; states that " Hist. Litt. iii. 15 ; Neand. v. 174-5.
many nunneries have become lupa- ^ Milman, vi. 258.
narvi, and this, in some cases, because ^ Schmidt, i. 183; Milman, i. 377;
the abbesses storrcd their uuus into ii. 351. On the gradual corruption of
temptation (cc. 12-3). Abbesses are Latin, see Ducaiige's_ Preface to his
ordered to take care that there be not Glossary ; Hist. Li«. i. 27, seqq. ; Hal-
many dark corners in their houses, as lam, M. A. ii. 340-351.
224 LANGUAGE OF DIVINE SERVICE. Book III.
originally arose out of circumstances, came at length to be regarded
as necessary, and at a later time to be justified by theoretical
argument,"" although confessedly as contrary to the prafttice of the
early church * as it appears to be to reason. Charlemagne, how-
ever, notwithstanding his attachment to the Roman ritual, combated
the growing opinion on this point. " Let no one," it is said in his
capitulary at the council of Frankfort, " suppose that God may not
be prayed to except in three languages ; forasmuch as in every
tongue God is worshipped, and man is heard if he ask the things
which are right." ^
The chanting was now left to the choir, and the people joined
only in the Kyrie eleeson.'' But Charlemagne and others were
careful that preaching — which by means of missions regained an
importance which it had once appeared likely to lose — should be
frequent, and in the vulgar tongue.'^ His measures for the instruc-
tion of the people in the Creed and the Lord's Prayer have been
noticed in a former chapter.®
In England, Latin was employed as the ritual language, not
only by Augustine and his followers, but by the Scotch and Irish
teachers, who had been accustomed to it in their native churches.^
The Epistle and Gospel, however, were read in the vernacular
tongue, and in it sermons were delivered.^ The Scotch or Irish
» Neand, v. 175. Fleury (Disc. ii. alias omnes ad laudem et gloriam
23) and Dr. Lingard (A. S. C. i. 308) suam " (Ep. 107, ap. Hard. vi. 86).
allege, iu favour of Latin service, that, The legend of St. Ludmilla, in relating
but for the necessity of learning the the same matter, tells us, " Erant qui
language for this purpose, the clergy of blasphemabant Slovenicas litteras, lo-
the dark ages would have altogether queutes— ' Dedecet nllum populum ha-
neglected it, and consequently would bare libros hos, nisi Hebraicos, Graicos,
have allowed the remains both of Latinosque, secundum titulum Pilati ' —
pagan and of Ciiristian antiquity to quos papaPilaticos asseclas et trilingues
perish. But this argument from a sup- nominaus damnavit." c. G, ap. GinzeJ,
posed result, whatever it may be worth Anh. 25.
in itself, has obviously nothing to do " Giesel. ii. 279 ; Eettb. ii. 779.
with the justification of using an un- There is a curious passage in the 27th
known tongue in service — much less of canon of Cloveshoo, as to those who
retaining it, when the dark ages were at sing without understanding the words—
an end. exhorting them to suit their own
^ Martene, i. 101. thoughts and desires to them. See John-
b Capit. Francof. a.d. 794, c. 52. M. son's note, i. 259.
Guizot supposes (ii. 2'2G) that the Ian- •* Cone. Arel. a.d. 813, c. 10, &c. ;
guages meant are Greek, Latin, and Rettberg, ii. 772-4. See above, p. 146.
German. But the very thing which is Such sermons of the time as remain are
condemned is the prejudice against the Latin ; but they were either the originals
use of German : the three languages or translations of the German or " rustic
were evidently those written over the Roman," Avhich was preached to the
cross, as appears further from the people. Eettb. i. 775-7.
words of John VIII. in sanctioning the " See p. 145.
Slavonic liturgy. "Qui fecit tres ' Johnson, I. xiii. -xiv. ; Lingard,
linguas principales, Hebrajam, scilicet, A. S. C. i. 302.
Grajcam. et Latinam, ipse creavit et « J^ingard, i. 307-8.
Chap. IX. ORGANS. 225
liturgy was suppressed by the council of Cloveshoo in those parts
of southern Enoland where it had before been used;'' but, not-
withstanding the influence of AVilfrid, it kept possession of the
church of York until the time of Alcuin, who is found recom-
mending that it should be abandoned.' It would, however, seem
that, in the adaptation of the Roman ritual for England, some use
was made of that license of selection from other quarters which
had been granted by Gregory to Augustine."^
In the East, Greek had been the usual language of the Churc^h,
and continued to be so under the Mahometan rule, where Arabic
was used for the ordinary business of life. The Monophysites of
Egypt, however, employed the Coptic in their -service, and the
Nestorians the Syriac.™
(2.) The use of organs was now brought into the service of the
Latin church. The earliest mention of such instruments (as dis-
tinguished from the ancient hydraulic organ, of which the invention
is ascribed to Archimedes "j is perhaps in a passage of St. Augus-
tine." Venantius Fortunatus, bishop of Poitiers about the year
COO, compares the voices of boys and men in a choir to the smaller
and the larger pipes of an organ respectively," but does not speak
of the instrument itself as used in churches ; so that his words are
not inconsistent with the opinion which ascribes the introduction
of organs into churches to Pope Vitalian (a.d. 657-672.)'' It
appears from the testimony of Aldhelm that they were known in
England at the beginning of the eighth century;' but it would
seem that, after the age of Venantius, the organ had again
become a novelty to the Franks when one was sent by Constantine
Copronymus as a present to Pipin in 757.^ The St. Gall bio-
grapher of Charlemagne tells us that a similar instrument, " emu-
lating at once the roar of thunder and the sweetness of the
^ Cc. 13, 15 (a.d. 747). des-Prds, at Paris, had an organ in the
' Ep. 171, ad Symeonem. time of Venantius; but it will be seen
•< Lingard, A. S. C. i. 294-5. (See that this is a mistake.
above, p. 18.) ■ i "Ut quidam vohiut." Platina, Qfi.
™ Fleury, Disc. ii. 7. ■■ Aldh. de Laudibus Virginura (Pa-
" Plin. Hist. Nat. vii. 38 ; Tertull. de trol. Ixxxix. 240) ; Turner, Hist.
Anima, 14; Claudian. de Consul. Mall. Anglos, iii. 457-8; Lingard, A. S. C. ii.
Theod. 315. See Ducange, s. v. Or- 375-6.
(jamiin. » Einhard, a.d. 757. The author of
" Enarr. in Psalm. Ivi. 16; cf. Isid. the article Organ in the 'Encyclopaedia
Hi.spa]. Etymol. ii. 21, Britannica' (xvi. 709) supposes that the
P " Hie puer exiguis attempcrat ovgana catinis word organa here may mean "A'arious
liide senex largam nictat ab ore tubam." musical instruments." But there is no
j/uceH««ea, ii. 13 (I'atrol. lxx.xviii.). grotmd for seeking so to explain it,
This seems to be the passage to which more especially as the best MSS-, ac-
M. de M(mtalembert refers (ii. 291) aS cording to Pertz, read " oi'gan)«»."
proving that the church of St. Germain-
Q
226 EUCHARISTIC DOCTRINE. Book III.
lyre," which was brought by some Greek ambassadors to the great
emperor, excited the imitative talent of the Franks ; ' and so skilful
did they become in the manufacture, that about a century after the
date of Constantino's gift to Pipin, Pope John VIII. is found
requesting a bishop of Freisingen to send him an organ, because
those of the north were superior to any that could be made in
Italy."
(3.) The history of the eucharistic doctrine during this period
has been disputed with as much zeal and partiahty as if the
question between modern Rome and its opponents depended on
the opinions of the seventh and eighth centuries. The word
figure, when it occurs, is hailed by one party, and such words as
body, Hood, or changed, by the other, as if they were sufficient to
determine the matter. But the truth seems to lie between the
extremes. Both in language and in opinion there was a progress
towards the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the feeling of
individuals may have closely bordered on it ; but there was no
recognition, nor apparently even any assertion, of more than an
effective grace, by which the consecrated elements, while retaining
their original substance, convey to the faithful receiver the benefits
of the Saviour's death. Some passages of Bede and of Alcuin,
for example, which are produced by Romanists as favourable
to their views,'' appear really to maintain nothing beyond the
doctrine of the English Reformation ; when Alcuin speaks of a
bishop as consecrating bread and wine into the substance of our
Lord's body and blood,^ it would seem that by " substance " he
does' not mean any thing material, but only a virtual efficacy;
and after this, the Caroline Books, in which Alcuin himself is
supposed to have been largely concerned, express themselves in a
manner entirely accordant with our own eucharistic doctrine.'^
John of Damascus appears to have gone further than any of the
western teachers. He rejects- the term "figure," as unauthorised
by Scripture, and declares the consecrated elements to be " the
very deified body of the Lord." * Yet the sense of this startling
expression may be reduced by a comparison with the language
' Mou. Sangall. ii. 10. ^ Ep. 36, p. 49. Dr. Lingard, how-
" A.D. 873. Joh. Ep. 1 (Patrol, ever, quotes the words as conclusive in
cxxvi.). Baldric, archbishop of Dol, favour of transubstantiation. A. S. C.
in the beginning of the twelfth century, ii. 465.
mentions with admiration an organ at '■ £".,(/. ii. 27 (pp. 274-8, ed. Goldast.) ;
Fe'camp, as the first which he had seen, iv. 14 (pp. 419-420). The words which
although he had travelled widely in Dr. Lingard quotes from the latter pas-
France, and had visited England. Iti- sage (A. S. C. ii. 464) do not warrant
nerarium, 7 (Patrol, clxvi.). his inference from them.
" SeeSchrockh, xx. 164-5. " De Fid. Orthod. iv. 12 (t. i. 271).
Chap. IX. EUCHARISTIC DOCTRINE AND USAGES. 227
then curreiit as to the union of our Lord's natures or wills — where
it was said that the flesh or the human will was " deified " by its
connexion with the Godhead.'^ If the meaning- were more than
this parallel would warrant — if John intended to maintain that the
material elements were changed, instead of being united with
something higher — it is certain that the eastern church did not
adopt his view,*^ The Eucharist was mentioned in the controversy
as to images by the hostile synods of Constantinople and Nicsea.
The iconoclastic assembly declares that the only true image of the
Saviour is the Eucharist — meaning that the union of the Divine
grace with the earthly elements represents that union of Godhead
and manhood in his person which images failed to convey, inas-
much as they could only set forth the humanity. The Nicene
council, in answering this, finds fault with the term image, as being
one which no father had applied to that which is His body and
blood.*^ Yet no objection is made to the substance of the com-
parison ; nor do we find anywhere in this controversy the distinction
which must have occurred if the modern Roman doctrine as to the
sacrament had been then received — that the consecrated elements
are unlike images, forasmuch as they are not a representation, but
are really Christ Himself.''
Instead of the common bread in which the Eucharist had originally
been administered, wafers were now substituted in the west. They
were of very fine flour, unleavened, round in shape, and stamped
with an instrument/ The communion of infants appears to have
been still in use,^ and many superstitions were practised with the
*> E. g.. in the sixth general council it is said to have shed blood (<?. g. Greg,
is said that the human flesh and -will are Turou. vi. 21, and frequent instances in
" deified, not destroyed." (See p. 53.) Gregory the Great). These might be
See tool. iii. c. 17, of Damascene's own supposed evidence of a belief in tran-
work, where he explains how Christ's substantiation ; but we find also in
flesh can be said to be "deified" — that Gregory the Great (Ep. iv. 30) a story
it is not by any change or confusion, of a cloth which, having been applied
but merely by union, the two natures to the body of a saint, shed blood on
remaining entire and distinct. I have, being cut. This cannot mean that the
however, some doubt as to the pos- cloth had been changed into the saint's
sibility of clearing the passage in the body, but only that the virtue of the
text by this parallel. There would body had been communicated to it ; and
be no difficulty if he had said that the the explanation will serve for the other
bread and wine are deified ; but instead cases.
of this he says that they are the deified ' Mabill. Acta SS. III. xxxv.-xL, xlv.
body. seqq. ; Analecta, 538, seqq. ; Rettb. ii.
<^' Schrockh, xx. 174. 786-7.
•^ Hard. iv. 368-372. That this asser- e Schrockh, xx. 175. For its con-
tion was incorrect, see Schrockh, xx. tinuance into the twelfth century, see
161-3. D'Achery, n. in Guib. Novigent. (Patrol.
<^ Schrockh, xx. 592 (from Rossler's clvi. 1023). Compare Lanfianc, Ep. 33
Bibliothek d. Kirchenvater). During (ib. cl.). See, however, Waterland, vi.
this period there are many tales of 67, ed. Oxf. 1843 ; and vol. i. p. 165.
miracles in which the consecrated host
Q 2
228 EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE — PURGATORY. Book III.
consecrated bread — such as giving it to the dead and burying it
with them,^* The cup continued until the twelfth century to be
administered to all communicants.'
The height to which the idea of a sacrifice in the Eucharist was
carried (an idea which appears in the earliest ages of the church,
although with some indefiniteness of meaning),'^ now led to some
important consequences. The sacrifice was supposed to avail not
only for those who were present but for the absent ; for the dead
as well as for the living. One result of this was, that the obliga-
tion of receiving the sacrament was less felt, so that there is much
complaint as to the rarity of communion, and that canons are
passed for restoring the three receptions yearly which had been
prescribed by the council of Agde.™ At length masses came to
l3e celebrated privately, and by the priest alone." This practice
was forbidden by Theodulf of Orleans ; '- it is censured, although
not in absolute terms, by the council of Mentz in 813," is more
decidedly condemned by the sixth council of Paris, in 829,i and
in the following century it is again forbidden by Atto, bishop of
Vercelli.''
From the time of Gregory the Great, the doctrine of Purgatory
spread and was developed. In the English church, the offspring
of Gregory's own exertions, it appears to have especially taken
root. Bede relates stories of persons who had been transported
in vision to the regions of the dead ; they returned to consciousness
with a sad and awestruck air, told their tale, and soon after died.
Thus Fursey^ and Drithelm* were permitted to see the punish-
ments of hell and purgatory, and the bliss of the righteous who
were awaiting their consummation in paradise. The vision of
Drithelm was versified by Alcuin ; other narratives of the same
kind appeared ; the idea of such visions became familiar to men's
minds ; and, six centuries later, the dreams of the obscure Irish or
Northumbrian monks issued in the great poem of the middle ages."
^ This is forbidden by Cone. Trull, -without the priest's communicating.
A.D. 691, c. 8-3. c. 6.
' Mabill. III. liii.-lv. . ' Capit. 7 (Patrol, cxxxiv. 30).
^ See Blunt on the ' Use of the Early " Bed. iii. 19. See Southey, 'Vin-
Fathers,' ser. ii. lect. 12. dicisp,' letter iv.
™ A.D. 506. See vol. i. p. 570. Corap. ' Bed. v. 12. Other stories are in the
Bed. Ep. ad Egbert. 9; Cone. Turon. chapters 13-4; and some of a similar
A.D. 813, c. 50, &c. kind are told by the Spanish abbot
° Schrockh, xx. 176-180; Rettb. ii. Valerius, in the end of the seventh
785; Giesel. II. i. 156. century (Patrol. Ixxxvii. 431-6). See,
" Capit. 7, ap. Hard. iv. 914. too, the Chronicle of Monte Cassino, iv.
P " Ut nobis videtur." c. 43. 66 (Pertz, vii., or Patrol, clxxiii.).
'1 C. 48. The capitulary of 789 for- " Palgrave, Norm, and England, i. 72;
bids another irregularity — consecration Ampere, ii. 365 ; iii. 121-2. The vision
Chap. IX. THE LORD'S DAY.
229
With the belief in purgatory, that in the utility of masses for
the departed grew. Fraternities were formed, especially among
monks, to say a certain number of masses for the soul of every
brother at his death, and on the anniversary of it, or to provide
for the purchase of them by a payment, which in England was
called soidscot.'' The performance of these masses became an im-
portant source of income to the clergy, and is recognised as such
by Chrodegang's rule.^' Additional altars were on this account
erected in churches, which before had only one.^ Masses were
also used in order to obtain temporal benefits, such as fair weather
or seasonable rain.*
(4.) A greater strictness in the observance of the Lord's-day
had gradually been introduced into the church,'^ and occupations
which councils of the sixth century had vindicated against a
judaizing tendency," were now forbidden as contrary to the
sanctity of the day, which it became usual to ground on the fourth
commandment."^ Many canons throughout this period, and shortly
after, enact that it should be kept by a cessation from all trade,
husbandry, or other manual labour. No lawcourts or markets
may be held, men are to refrain from hunting, women must not
sew, embroider, weave, card wool, beat flax, shear sheep, or
publidi/ wa&h clothes." No journeys were to be taken except such
as were unavoidable ; and these were to be so managed as not to- in-
terfere with the duty of attending the church-service.* Theodore of
Canterbury states that the Greeks and the Latins agree in doing no
work on Sunday ; that they do not sail, ride, drive, except to church,
hawk, or bathe ; that the Greeks do not write in public, although at
home they write according to their convenience.^' Penalties were
enacted against such as should violate the sanctity of the day.
Thus the council of Narbonne, in 589, condemns a freeman to
of Wettin (see p. 136), in the ninth cen- 1, 116, seqq.
tury, marks, as M. Ampfere observes, an « Cone. Matisc. a.d. 585, c. 1 ; Cone.
important step in the progress towards Narbonn. a.d. 589, c. 4; Greg. Ep. ix.l ;
Dante — the introduction of political Cone. Cabil. I. a.d. 650, c. 18; Cone.
matter into such narratives, and the Clovesh. a.d. 747, c. 14; Capit. a.d.
employment of them as vehicles of per- 789, c. 80; Cone. Foroj. a.d. 796 (?),
soi.al reproof. c. 13; Theodulph. Cap. 24 (Hard. iv.
" Mabill. III. Ixxxvi. seqq. ; Ducange, 917); Cone. Arel. a.d. 813, c. 16;
s. V. Fratcrnitas (.3); Soames, A. S. C. Cone. Cabil. a.d. 813, c. 50; Cone.
282 ; Rettb. ii. 788-9. Mogunt. a.d. 813, c. 37; Laws of
y C. 32 ; see Mabill. III. xliii. Northumbrian Priests, in Thorpe, 421,
^ Mabill. III. Iv.-lvi. No. 55, &c. , . , ^, „ .
» Schrockh, xx. 182; Rettb. ii. 788. ^ The council of Aix-la-Cnapelle, in
b See vol. i. p. 349. 830, suggests that marriages should not
« E. CI Cone. Aurel. III. a.d. 538, be celebrated on Sunday, iii. 18.
g 28. s Pceniteutiale, c. 8 (Patrol, xcix.).
'' See Hessey's Bampton Lectures, ed.
230 THE LORD'S DAY. Book III.
pay six solidi, and a serf to receive a hundred lashes.^ Ina,
king of Wessex (a.d. 688-725), directs that, if a serf work on the
Lord's-day by his master's order, he shall be free ; if at his own
will, he shall pay a fine or shall " suffer in his hide." ' The
council of Berghamstead (a.d. 696) enacts that a freeman break-
ing the rest of the day shall undergo the heahfang^ and imposes
a heavy fine on a master who shall make his servant work between
the sunset of Saturday and that of Sunday."^ The authority of
pretended revelations was called in to enforce the observance of
the Lord's-day. It appears that this was the object of a letter
which was said to have fallen from heaven in 788, and of which
Charlemagne, in his capitulary of the following year, orders the
suppression ; " and the same pious fraud, or something of the same
kind, was employed in England." Under Louis the Pious, councils
are found speaking of judgments by which persons had been
punished for working on the Lord's-day — some had been struck
by lightning, some lamed in their members, some reduced to
ashes by visible fire. The clergy, the nobles, and the emperor
himself, are desired to show a good example by a right observance
of the day.P
But the idea of identifying the Lord's-day with the Jewish
sabbath was condemned. Gregory the Great speaks of it as a
doctrine of Antichrist, who, he says, will require the observance of
both days — of the Sabbath, for the sake of Judaism ; of the Lord's-
day, because he will pretend to rival the Saviour's resurrection.
Gregory goes on to notice the scruples of some who held that it
was wrong to wash the body on the Lord's-day. It is allowed,
he says, for necessity, although not for luxury, and he adds a
curious attempt at Scriptural proof. 'i The councils. of Lestines
and Verne censure an extreme rigour in the observance of the
day, as " belonging rather to Jewish superstition than to Christian
duty." '■
The Lord's-day was commonly considered to begin on Saturday
evening, and to reach to the corresponding hour on Sunday.®
^ C. 4. _ of this council is supposed to have been
' C. 3, in Thorpe, 45; Comp. Laws of Berstead, near Maidstone.
Edward and Guthrun, c. 7, ib. 73. " Capit. 77. See above, p. 112, note <!.
^ ' Healsfang' — i.e. a, neck-catch — pro- " Soames, A. S. C. 257.
perly a sort of pillory ; but, as this was v Cone. Paris, VI. a.d. 829, i. 50; iii.
very early disused, the word came to 19 ; Cone. Wormat. a.d. 829, c. 11
mean a fine or pecuniary commutation (Pertz, Leges, i.). i Ep. xiii. 1 .
for the ignominy, graduated according >• Cone. Liptin. a.d. 743 (Hard. iii.
to the offender's rank. See Thorpe, 1924-6); Cone. Vern. a.d. 755, c. 14
Glossary to Ancient Laws and Insti- (Pertz, Leges, i.).
tntes. s Capit. a.d. 789, c. 15 (Pertz, Leges,
■" C. 10-12 (Thorpe, 17). The place i. 57); Cone. Francof. a.d. 794, c. 21.
Chap. IX. FESTIVALS. 231
Such, as we have seen, was the length of the labourer's rest in
England at the time of the council of Berghamstead (a.d. 696) ;
but by the middle of the tenth century it was extended, and reached
from nones (3 p.m.) on Saturday to the dawn of Monday.'
(5.) The festival of All Saints (which was intended to make up
for the defects in the celebration of saints individually ") has been
generally connected with the beginning of this period, when Boni-
face IV. obtained a grant of the Pantheon at Rome from Phocas,
and consecrated it as the church of St, Mary ad Martyres in 607.''
It would, however, appear that a festival of martyrs, on May 13,
which arose out of the consecration of the Pantheon, has been con-
founded with All Saints' Day (Nov. 1), and that the latter was
not observed at Rome until the eighth century.^' It was raised to
the first class of festivals, and was recommended for general cele-
bration, by Gregory IV. in 835.^ In the east, the Sunday after
Whitsunday had been connected with the memory of All Saints as
early as the time of St. Chrysostom."
The growing reverence for the Blessed Virgin led to an increase
of festivals dedicated to her. The " Presentation in the Temple "
became the " Purification of St. Mary." Her Nativity (Sept. 8)
-was already celebrated both in the east and in the west,^ and her
own "Presentation" (i. e. her supposed dedication to the service
of the Temple) was established as a festival in the Greek church
(Nov. 21), although it was not adopted in the west until the
fourteenth century.*^ In Spain, the appearance vouchsafed to Ilde-
fonsus of Toledo occasioned the establishment of the " Expectation
of St. Mary" (Dec. 18).^ The Assumption (Aug. 15) was also
now introduced. In the silence of Scripture as to the Blessed
Virgin's death, legends on fhe subject had arisen. At the time of
the council of Ephesus (a.d. 431), she 'was supposed to have spent
her last years with St. John in that city, and to have been interred
in the church where the council met. But afterwards it came to
be believed that she had been buried in the valley of Jehoshaphat,
and thence had been caught up to heaven. From this tale, ^hich
' Lingard, A. S. C. i. 310-1. ed. Aug. Viudel. 1763; Marteue, iii.
" Pseudo-Alcuiuus de Div. Officiis, 31 21.5.
(ratrol. ci.). " Augusti, iii. 271 ; Giesel. 1. cit.
" Anastas. 135; Baron. 607. 1. >> Martene, iii. Ill; Augusti, iii.
> Giesel. II. i. 160-1. See Martene, 105.
i. 215. Augusti seems to be wrong in " Martene, iii. 217 ; Augusti, iii.
supposing that the festivals are the 107.
same, and that the celebration • was '^ See above, p. 63 ; Pseudo-Liutprand.
transferred from May to November by Chron. a.d. 657 (Patrol, cxxxvi. 1019);
Gregory III. (iii. 272-3). Baron. 657. 56, and Pagi, xi. 509 ;
^ Gavanti, Thes. Sac. Rituum, ii. 243, Martene, i. 199.
232 reverp:nce for salxts. bookih.
originated in a conjecture of Epiphanius that she never died,'' and
was afterwards supported by sermons falsely ascribed to Jerome
and Augustine, the festival of the Assumption took its rise.' In
One of the Capitularies it is mentioned as a subject for inquiry;^
but the observance of it is sanctioned by the Council of Mentz,
in SIS.'' The other festivals named in the same canon are —
Easter with the week following, Ascension-day, Whitsunday and
the week after it, the Nativity of St. John Baptist, St. Peter and
St. Paul, St. Michael, St. Eemigius, St. Martin, St. Andrew, four
days at Christmas, the Circumcision, the Epiphany, the Purifica-
tion, the dedication of each church, and* the feasts of the martyrs
and confessors whose relics are preserved in the diocese or parish.*
This last provision contained the germ of a great multiplication
of festivals, which naturally ensued as saints of local fame became
more generally celebrated, and as their relics were more widely
dispersed.''
The Council of Mentz also sanctions the celebration of the
Ember-weeks,'" which was now generally established.
(6.) The superstitions connected with an excess of reverence
for saints were continually on the increase. Stories of visions in
which saints appeared, and of miracles performed by them, are found
in immense profusion — so great, indeed, that even some contem-
poraries began to murmur. Thus we are told by the biographer
of Ilildulf, abbot of Moyen-Moutier, in the Vosges," vvho died
in 707, that the death of one of his monks named Spinulus was
followed by a number of miracles. Three mineral springs burst
"= Hser. Ixxviii. 11. of the death of saiuts, without imply-
f Giesel. II. i. 157-160. Gregory of ing anything miraculous. See Ducange,
Tours is supposed to be the ohlest s. v. '
authority for the Assumption (Deploria *f " Interrogandum relinquimus." An-
Martyrum, i. 4; Augusti, iii.' 113). segis. Capitul. i. 158, ed. Baluze, i. 732.
Arculf, a pilgrim to Jerusalem in the The date is probably 809 (Piper, ' Karls
end of the seventh century, says that des Grossen Kalendarium/ 70, Berlin,
the Virgin was buried in the valley of 1858). The Assumption is in Charle-
Jehoshaphat, but that how or by whom magne's Calendar of 781, ib. 27.
her body was removed, and in what '• C. 36.
place she awaits the resurrection, no ' " Parochia." See an English list
man knoweth (Adamnan de Locis Sanctis, in Alfred's Laws, c. 43 (Thorpe, 40-1).
13 ; Patrol. Ixxxviii.). In the eighth There is much information on these
century Willibald, an English pilgrim raattei-s in Pipei''s pamphlet, cited above,
for his biographer), says that she died ^ Schruckh, xx. 140.
in Jerusalem, and that angels carried '" C. 34.
her away out of the hands of the " In a life composed in the eleventh
apostles to Paradise (Willib. Peregri- century- (c. 3, Patrol, cli.), and in a
natio, c. 8, ap. Canis. ii. 112 ; cf. chronicle in D'Achery's Spicilegium (ii.
Andr. Cietens. in Dormitionem S. Mar. 607), he is said, but untruly, to have held
Patrol. Gr. xcvii. 1057; Bernardi Mo- the archbishoprick of Treves before re-
nachi Itinerarium, a.d, 870, Patrol. Lat. tiring to this monastery (c. 3, Patrol,
cxxi. 572). The terra asstmqjtio is used cli. ; Kettb. ii. 467-9, 523).
ClIAI'. IX.
RELICS, 233
forth in the abbey garden, and crowds of people were attracted
to the place. Hildulf understood the advantages which his house
was likely to derive from the offerings of pilgrims ; but he feared
that the monks might be drawn away from their proper work to
attend to earthly business: he therefore knelt down at the tomb
of Spinulus, and, after having thanked God for the assurance of
his brother's beatification, charged the deceased monk, by the
obedience which he had owed him while alive, to save the society
from the threatened danger. Spinulus complied ; the springs
dried up, and the miracles ceased." Other stories might be pro-
duced, which show that some persons felt the general craving
after miracles to be unwholesome in its effects, even where they
did not venture to question the reality of the wonders which were
reported.^
The passion for relics was more and more developed. The
second Council of Nicsea orders that no church should be con-
secrated without some relics, and imputes a disregard of them to
the opponents of images ; '^ but these, as we have seen,"" were
anxious to relieve themselves of the odium. Relics of our Lord
and of his Virgin mother, the most precious class of all, were nml-
tiplied. The seamless coat and the napkin which had bound the
Saviour's head in the sepulchre were each supposed to be preserved
in more than one place.** Among the treasures of the abbey of
Centulles,'^ under Angilbert, who died in 801, were fragments of
the manger in which our Lord was laid, of the candle lighted at
his birth, of his vesture and sandals, of the rock on which He sat
when Lie fed the five thousand, of the wood of the three taber-
nacles, of the bread which He gave to his disciples, of the cross,
and of the sponge ; with portions of the Blessed Virgin's milk, of
her hair, her dress, and her cloak.** In honour of the Cross were
instituted the festivals of its Invention and Exaltation."
Other relics also were diligently sought for, and were highly
prized. Not only are saints said to have appeared, as in former
ages, for the purpose of pointing out the resting-places of their
" Vita Hildulphi, ap. Mabill. iv. 149) quotes from Heidegger de Pere-
478-9. grinat. Relig., a curious list of niulti-
p See Mabill. III. Ixxxviii.; Schrockh, plied relics connected with our Lord.
XX. 1 16-7. Amulo, bishop of Lyons, ' This abbey, near Abbeville, after-
about the middle of the ninth cen- wards took the name of its founder^ St.
tury, speaks of pretended miracles, and Riquier.
of impostures practised by pretended " Vita S. Angilberti, c. 9, ap. Mabill.
demoniacs. (Inter Opera Agobardi, ii. v. 113-4; Chrou. CentuU. ii. .5 (Patrol.
142-3.) clxxiv.). See D'Achery, n. in Guib.
a C. 7. '' P. 163. Novig. Patrol, clvi. 1044.
>* Schrockh, xx. 121-4. Augusti (x. " Scbruckh, xx. 120.
234 RELICS. Book III.
remains/ but it was believed that sometimes, in answer to earnest
prayer, relics were sent down from heaven.^ A great impulse was
given to this kind of superstition when, on the approach of the
Lombards to Rome, in 761, Pope Paul removed the bodies of
saints from their tombs outside the city to churches within the
walls.^ The Prankish records of the time abound in accounts of
the translation of relics to various places in France, and of the
solemnities with which they were received.'^ The very connexion
with Rome was supposed to confer a sanctity and a miraculous
power. Thus it is related that Odo, duke of Aquitaine, a con-
temporary of Charles Martel, having got possession of three
sponges which had been used in wiping the pope's table, divided
them into little morsels, which he caused his soldiers to swallow
before a battle ; that no one of those who had partaken was
wounded, and that while 375,000 Saracens were slain in one day,
the duke's losses throughout the war amounted only to 1500 men."
Charlemagne repeatedly condemns some ecclesiastical supersti-
tions, as well as those of the heathens whom he subdued. He
forbids the veneration of. fictitious saints and doubtful martyrs;'*
the invocation or worship of any but such as the (Church had
sanctioned, or the erection of memorials to them by the way-side f
y Thus Pope Paschal I. (A.D. 817-824) p. 354.) Of the miracles which fol-
states that one day when he had fallen lowed, one specimen may he given. A
asleep during the psalmody before St. deacon, who was charged to convey a
Peter's tomb, St. Cecilia appeared to portion of the relics as a present from
him, assuring him that, although the Einhard to a monastery, stopped to feed
Lombards under Aistulf had sought for his horses in a meadow. Forthwith the
her body, the vulgar belief of their occupier of the land appeared— a hunch-
having found it was quite incorrect, back, whose face was swollen by violent
and that the discovery was reserved toothache— armed with a pitchfork, and
for him. Ep. i. (Patrol, cii.): comp. beside himself with rage on account of
Anastas. 216. the trespass. In answer to his outcries,
'■ Schrockh, XX. 125. the deacon told him that he Mould do
a Anastas. 173. better to kneel down before the relics,
'' In answer to the archchaplain Ful- and pray for the cure of his toothache,
rad, who had asked for the body of a The man laid down his pitchfork, and
saint, Pope Adrian says that he had obeyed ; and when he rose up, after a
been deterred by revelations from dis- few minutes, his face was reduced to its
turbing any more bodies, but informs natural size, and he was freed not only
him where one which had formerly from his toothache but from his de-
been granted might perhaps be obtained formity (pp. 328-330). St. Willibrord
(Bouquet, v. 560). Among Einhard's dealt more severely with a churl who
works (ii. 176-377, ed. Teulet) is a tract remonstrated against a similar trespass,
on the translation of two saints named He deprived him of the power of drink-
Marcellinus and Peter (a.d. 829), which ing, and the man suffered horribly until
gives a very curious view of the prac- the Saint, on revisiting the place after
tices of relic-hunters and of the super- a year, released him. Vita S. Willibr.
stitions connected with the veneration of (Mabill. iii. 612-3).
relics. Einhard's agents stole the bodies ' Anastas. 155.
by night from a church at Rome— an '' Capit. a.d. 789, c. 42^
act which appears to have been regarded *= Capit. Francof. a.d. 794, c. 42.
as quite lawful in such cases. (See vol. i.
Chap. IX. LEGENDS, 235
the circulation of apocryphal or questionable narratives ; ^ the intro-
duction of new names of angels, in addition to those for which
there is authority — Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael/ The council
of Mentz forbids the translation of the bodies of saints, unless with
permission from the sovereign and the bishops.'^
Legendary lives of saints were now produced in wonderful
abundance, and were the most popular literature of the times. In
addition to their falsehood' (which, where consciously introduced,
may have been held excusable by the writers for the sake of the
expected good effects), and to their enforcement of all the errors
which had grown upon the Church, they carried the minds of men
to look for visible prosperity and chastisement according to indi-
vidual desert in the ordinary government of the world."^ Yet the
evil of such legends was not without a large compensation of good.
They set forth the power of religion, not only in miracles but in
self-denial and renunciation of earthly things. In contrast with the
rudeness and selfishness which generally prevailed, they presented
examples which taught a spirit of gentleness and self-sacrifice, of
purity, of patience, of love to God and man, of disinterested toil,
of forgiveness of enemies, of kindness to the poor and the oppressed.
The concluding part of the legend exhibited the saint triumphant
after his earthly troubles, yet still interested in his brethren who
were engaged in the struggle of life, and manifesting his interest
by interpositions in their behalf. And above all there was the
continual inculcation of a Providence watching over all the affairs
of men, and ready to protect tlie innocent, or to recompense and
avenge their sufferings.'"
f Capit. A.D. 789, c. 77. Alfred Maury, in his ' Essai sur les
s lb. c. 16. This professes to be Legendes Pieuses du Moyen-Age '
from a canon of Laodicea (a.d. 372 ?), (Paris, 1843) — an able and learned book,
c. 35, which, however, prohibits all but written on the principles of Strauss
invocation of angels. The new turn — traces the fictions of the bagiologists
given to the prohibition may have been to three causes— (1.) The attempt to
intended against such teachers as Adel- assimilate the lives of their subjects to
bert. (See above, p. 112.) Among that o-f our Lord or to those of Scripture
other superstitions which are forbid- saints. (2.) The mistake of understand-
den were the baptising of bells (Cap. ing literally things which were said in
A.D. 789, c. 69), the practices of divina- a figurative sense — c. 9., where a spiritual
tion and sortilege (ib. c. 68), and the was represented as a bodily cure. (3.)
employment of charms against sickness The invention of stories in order to
in men or in cattle. Cone. Turon. a.d. explain symbols of which the real
813, c. 42. meaning had been lost. As to this last,
h C. 51 (a.d. 813). see also Dollinger, ' Hippolytus u. Kal-
' I must confess my inability to ac- listus,' 63.
cept M. Ampere's definition of the "^ Fleury, Disc. ii. 3.
legend — " Ce recit, sou vent merveilleux, '" Guizot, Lecture 17; Lobeli, ' Gregor
que personne 7ie fabriquc sciemment, et que v. Tours,' 3S8 ; Ampere, ii. 360 ; Ste-
tout le mondc altere et falsifie sans le phen's Lectures, i. 142.
tmlovr" (i. 310-1 ; cf. ii. 355-6). M.
236 PILGRIMAGES. Book III.
(7.) Even as early as the fourth century, some of the evils
attendant on the general practice of pilgrimage had been noticed
by Gregory of Nyssa and others ;" and strong complaints of a like
kind continue to be found from time to time. Gregory the Great
tells Rusticiana, a lady of the imperial court, that, while she had
been on a pilgrimage to Sinai, her affections had been at Constan-
tinople, and expresses a suspicion that the holy objects which she
had seen with her bodily eyes had made no impression on her heart.*>
But the idle spirit in which pilgrimages were often undertaken
was not the worst mischief connected with them. Boniface writes
to Archbishop Cuthbert, that of the multitude of English women
who flocked to Rome, only a few escaped the ruin of their virtue ;
that it was rare to find a town of Lombardy or France in which
some dishonoured English nun or other female pilgrim had not
taken up her abode, and by her misconduct brought disgrace on
the church of her native land.^ Another unhappy effect of pil-
o-i-imao-e was, that for the sake of it bishops and abbots absented
themselves for years from their proper spheres of labour, to the
o-reat injury of religion and discipline among those committed to
their care.*^
From Britain, pilgrimages were most commonly made to Rome,
where the English had a quarter of their own, known, as the
bioo-rapher of the popes . informs us, by the Saxon name of the
Burg.^ Some pilgrims from our island even found their way to
the Holy Land.' In France, the chief place of pilgrimage was
the shrine of St. Martin, at Tours ; but the resort from that
country to Rome became gi-eater after the accession of the Caro-
lingian dynasty. The lives of pilgrims were regarded as sacred ;
many hospitals were built for their reception,*— among them, one for
Latin pilgrims, which was founded at Jerusalem by Charlemagne."
The emperor in 802 orders that no one, whether rich or poor,
shall refuse to pilgrims a roof, fire, and water, and encourages
those who can afford more to greater hospitality by a consideration
of the recompense which Scripture promises. '^ There are, however,
canons against some of the abuses connected with pilgrimage.
The Council of Verne, in 755, orders that monks shall not be
allowed to wander to Rome without their abbot's consent.^ The
n Vol. i. p. 356. " Ep. iv. 46. Willibald the biographer of St. Boniface,
1' Ep 63 (Patrol. Ixxxix.). in Canisius, ii. 100, seqq.
'1 Fleury, Disc. ii. 5. ' Capit. Laugobard. a.d. 782, c. 10. _
'■ Anastas. 214; Paul. Warnef. vi. 37. " Beniardi Itinerarium, a.d. 870, in
^ See the Lives of the Saxon Willi- Patrol, cxxi. 572.
bald, afterwards the first bishop of " Capit. Aquisgr. A.n. 802, c. 27.
Eichstedt, and probably the same with > C. 10.
PILGRIMAGES — PENITENTIx\L BOOKS.
237
Council of Chalons, in 813, forbids the clergy to go either to
Rome or to Tours without leave from their bishop ; and while it
acknowledges the benefit of pilgrimage for those who have con-
fessed their sins and have obtained directions for penance, who
amend their lives, give alms, and practise devotion, it denounces
the error of such as consider pilgrimage a license to sin, and begs
the emperor to take measures against a common practice of nobles
who extorted from their dependents the means of paying the
expense of their own pilgrimages/'
In soma cases, persons who had been guilty of grievous sin were
condemned by way of penance to leave their country, and either to
wander for a certain time, or to undertake a pilgrimage to some
particular place. Many of them were loaded with chains, or with
rings which ate into the flesh and inflicted excessive torture.''
Ethelwulf, the father of Alfred the Great, at his visit to Rome in
855, obtained from Benedict III. the privilege that no Englishman
should ever be obliged to leave his own country for this sort of
penance i^ but long before his time impostors had found their
account in going naked and in irons under the pretence of having
been sentenced to pilgrimage. The capitulary of 789 forbids such
vagabonds to roam about the country, and suggests that those who
have really been guilty of some great and unusual oflTence may
perform their penance better by remaining in one place.'^
(8.) The discipline of the Church in dealing with sin was now
regulated by Penitential Books. These books were of eastern
origin ; the earliest of them was drawn up by John, patriarch of
Constantinople, the antagonist of Gregory the Great ;'^ the first in
the western church was that of Theodore, the Greek archbishop of
Canterbury, which soon gained a great authority in the continental
churches as well as in England.'' The object of Theodore was to
reduce penance to something practicable, as the impossibility of
fulfilling the requirements of the ancient canons had led to a
general evasion or disregard of them.'' While tlie penalties which
^ Cc. 44-5. " C. 78 : cf. Capit. a.d. 802, c. 45.
» Notices of this are found as early as '' Schrockh, xx. 146-7. John's Peni-
Gregory of Tours, in the end of the tential is in the Appendix to Morinus,
sixth century. De Glor. Confess. 87 ; De Pcenit. 77, seqq. ; and in the Patrol,
see Martene, i. 208 ; Ducauge, s. v. Gr. Ixxxviii. For the western Peni-
Peregrinatio. tentials, see Walter, Kirchenrecht, 179-
•> Th. Kudborne, Hist. Winton., in 182.
Wharton, i. 202 ; Lingard, H. E. i. 177. " Lingard, A. S. C. i. 335. It is in
According to Gaimar, this privilege was Thorpe, 277, seqq., and (with illustra-
obtained for the English by Canute, on tions by Petit) in vol. xcix. of the
his visit to Rome in 1027 or 1031 (Mon. Patrologia.
Hist. Brit. 821). f Planck, ii. 292 ; Rettb. ii. 740.
238 PENITENTIAL BOOKS. Book III.
he appointed were at least as severe as in earlier times, a scheme
of commutation was introduced ; for example, a certain amount of
fasting might be redeemed by the recitation of a prescribed number
of psalms. From this the transition was easy to a system of pecu-
niary commutations s — a system recommended by the analogy of
the tvehr)" That institution had been extended from its original
character of a composition for life to the case of lesser bodily inju-
ries, so that the loss of a limb, an eye, a finger, or a tooth was to
be atoned for by a fixed pecuniary fine ;* and the principle was now
introduced into the penitentials, where offences were rated in a scale
both of exercises and of money nearly resembling that of the civil
damages. As yet, however, these payments were not regarded as
a source of profit to the Church, but were to be given to the poor,
according to the penitent's discretion.'' In England, the rich were
able to relieve themselves in their penance by associating with
themselves a number of poor persons for the performance of it.
By such means, it was possible to clear off seven years of penitence
within a week ; and, although the practice was condemned by the
Council of Cloveshoo,™ it was afterwards formally sanctioned,"
The necessary effect of the new penitential system was not only
to encourage the fatal error of regarding money as an equivalent
for sin — an error against which some councils protested in vain,**
while the language of others seems to countenance it^ — but to
introduce a spirit of petty traffic into the relations of sinners with
their God. In opposition to this spirit Gregory III. said that
canons ought not "to lay down exactly the length of time which
should be assigned to penance for each offence, forasmuch as that
which avails with God is not the measure of time but of sorrow.'i
The Council of Chalons denounces the penitential books, of which
it says that "the errors are certain and the authors uncertain ;" it
s Theodore, in Thorpe, 309-310, 345 ; but one not possessing means may not
Egbert, c. 2 (Wilkins, i. 115); Lingard, so proceed, but must seek it in him-
A. S. C. 335-7. self the more diligently ; and that is
h Planck, ii.' 296; Rettb.ii. 737, 741-2. also justest, that every one avenge his
See above, p. 207. own misdeeds on himself, with dili-
i See Alfred's Laws, in Thorpe, 41-4 ; gent hot (compensation). Scriptum est
Perry 436. enim. Quia nuusquisque onus suum por-
'< Planck, ii. 330 ; Rettb. ii. 741-2 ; tabit."
Grimm, Deutsche Rechtsalterthiimer, " Cone. Clovesh. c. 26 ; Cone. Cabil.
661-4, Gutting. 1828. a.d. 813, c. 36.
m j^_D_ 747^ c. 27. P Cone. Agath. a.d. 506, c. 6 ; Cone.
" Turner, Hist'! Anglos, iii. 86 ; Lin- Matisc. a.d. 585, c. 4. The Capit.
gard, A. S. C. i. 338-9. See the chapter Aquisgr. a.d. 816, c. 1, speaks of
"Of'powerful Men" in Edgar's canons " pretia peccatorum." See vol. i. p.
(Thorpe, 414-5\ The conclusion is— 553.
" This is the alleviation of the penance 'i Hard. iii. 1870 ; cf. Hahtgar. Prpet.
of a man powerful, and rich in friends ; ad Pcenitent. (Patrol, cv. 654, 657).
Chap. IX. PENANCE — EXCOMMUNICATION — ORDEALS. 239
charges them with " sewing pillows to all arm-holes," and requires
that penance should be restored to the footing of the ancient
canons;'' and there are similar passages in other French councils
of the ninth and tenth centuries/
Confession of secret sins was much insisted on ; but the priest
was regarded rather as an adviser than as a judge, and the form of
his absolution was not judicial but deprecatory.* Absolution was
usually given immediately after confession, and the prescribed
penance wa,s left to be performed afterwards, so that, whereas in
earlier ages the penitents had been excluded for a time from
the full communion of the Church, they now remained in it
throughout."
The penalty of excommunication became in the Frankish church
much mare severe than it had formerly been. The Council of
Verne lays down that an excommunicate person " must not enter
the church, nor partake of food or drink with any Christian ;
neither may any one receive his gifts, or kiss him, or join with
him in prayer, or salute him.'"' It has been supposed that the
new terrors of this sentence were borrowed from the practice of
the Druids,^ with a view to controlling the rude converts who
would have disregarded a purely spiritual penalty. The power of
wielding it must doubtless have added greatly to the influence of
the clergy, although this effect did not yet appear so fully as at
a later period.
(9.) The trial of guilt or innocence by means of a solemn appeal
to heaven had been practised among many heathen nations, in-
cluding those of the north.'^ The Mosaic law had sanctioned it
in certain cases ; ^ it fell in wdth the popular appetite for miracles,''
and the Church now for a time took the management of such trials
into her own hands. The Ordeal, or Judgment of God,'' was
not to be resorted to where the guilt of an accused person was
clear, but in cases of suspicion, where evidence was wanting or
insuflBcient. The Appeal was conducted with great solemnity.
The accuser swore to the truth of his charge ; the accused (who
■■ A.D. 813, C. 38. . '■ fifiev S' eToi;U.oi KaX nvSpov<; a'tpeif x^po'''.
'^ Giesd. II. i. 168. On" the evil of k.t.x. Sophod. Antig.26i-i.
the Penitentials, see Martineau, 234-5 ; For other instances see Grimm, Rechts-
on the good which they were able to alterthlimer, 933 ; Augusti, x. 254-8.
effect in such ages, there is an eloquent " As in the trial of jealousy, Numb,
passage in Milman, i. 380-1. v. ; and in the casting of lots, Josh.
• Bingham, xix. ji. 5-6 ; Rettb. ii. \u. *> Planck, iii. 540.
738. "^ Ordeal is the same with the modern
" Planck, ii. 316. German Urtheil, judgment. Augusti,
^ A.D, 755, c. 9 (Pertz, i. 25). x. 248 ; see Ducange, s. v. Judicium
y Mosheim, ii. 135. Dei.
240 ORDEALS. Book III.
for three days had been preparing himself by fasting and prayer)
asserted his innocence in the same manner ; and he was adjured
in the most awful terms not to approach the Lord's table if he
were conscious of any guilt in the matter which was to be sub-
mitted to the Divine judgment. Both parties then communicated ;
and after this, the clergy anointed the instruments with which the
trial was to be raade/^
The ordeal was of various kinds. That by judicial combat or
wager of battle ^ was introduced into the Burgundian law by the
Arian king Gundobald, the contemporary of Clovis, against the
remonstrances of Avitus, bishop of Vienne.' It was not uncommon
among the Franks, but appears to have been unknown in England
until after the Norm.an conquest/ Persons who were disqualified
for undergoing this ordeal by age, sex, bodily weakness, or by the
monastic or clerical profession, were allowed to fight by champions,
.who were usually hired, and were regarded as a disreputable class.'*
In the trial by hot itvti, the accused walked barefoot over heated
ploughshares,' or (which was the more usual form), he carried a
piece of glowing iron in his hand nine times the length of his foot.
The foot or the hand (as the case might be) was then bound up
and sealed until the third day, when it was examined, and accord-
ing to its appeartoce the guilt or innocence of the party was
decided."^ The trial of hot water consisted in plunging the arm
^ A colltction of forms used in the men only, and is not a sure test in any
ordeal is given in Baluze's edition of case. (De Pressuris Eccles. Patrol,
the Capitularies, and is rt'printed by cxxxiv. 58, 61.) In later times, the
Bouquet, v. 59.5-609, and in the Patro- privilege of exemption from the combat
logia, Ixxxvii. 929, seqq. See too Mar- was often granted by emperors or other
tene, ii. 332; Patrol, cxxxviii. 1127, sovereigns to the inhabitants of parti-
seqq. The fullest code is that in Athel- cular cities or districts. In Scotland,
stane's laws (which may be found in the burgesses of royal burghs might
Thorpe), Planck, iii. 540. claim the combat against those of burghs
^ See Ducange, s. v. Duellum^ Grimm, dependent on subjects, but could not in
927. their turn be obliged to grant them the
f Agobard adv. Legem Gundobaldi, combat (Leges IV. Burgarum, c. 14, in
C.13; adv. Judicium Dei, c. 5 ; Datt, 4. Acts of Pari, of Scotland, i. 23).
F(?\' this there is no ritual in the church- "Knights an(k free tenants might do
books. Augusti, x. 298. battle by proxy, but those of foul kin
K Lingard, A. S. C. ii. 136 ; Phillips, were obliged to fight in person." Innes,
ii. 127. For the Anglo-Norman laws 185.
on this subject, see the 'Tractatus de ' Ducange, s. v. Tw»e;'cs ; Grimm, 914.
Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliaj,' ^ Grimm, 915 ; Lingard, ii. 13G.
1. ii. c. 3, in Phillips' Appendix. For There is a question how this trial could
the early Scottish laws as to the combat ever have been successfully borne. Mr,
and other ordeals, see Innes, Scotland in Soames supposes that the hand was for-
the Middle Ages, 185 seqq. tified against the heat by some sort of
^ Ducange, s. v. Cnmpiones. Atto, preparation, and that this, with the
bishop of Vercelli, in the tenth centurj', shortness of the distance,, and the inter-
complains that clergymen and monks val of three days before the inspection,
were obliged to fight by proxy. The might be enough to account for it (A. S.C.
judicial combat, he says, belongs to lay- 293). Mr. Hallam, although less con-
ORDEALS.
241
into a boiling cauldron, and taking out a stone, a ring, or a piece
of iron, which was hung at a greater or less depth in proportion
to the gravity of the offence in question."" That of cold ivater was
performed by throwing the accused into a pond with a cord attached
to him, by which he might be drawn out. If he were laden with
weights, sinking was a proof of guilt ; if not, it was held to prove
his innocence." In the ordeal of the cross (which, notwithstanding
the name which it acquired, was probably of heathen origin)," the
accused or his proxy held up the right arm, or both arms ; psalms
were sung during the trial, and the sinking or trembling of the
arms was evidence of guilt.^ Among other kinds of ordeal were
— holding the hand in fire ; walking in a thin garment between
two burning piles ; '^ eating a cake, which in England was called
the corsned ; ^ and receiving the holy eucharist.^
So-me of these practices were condemned after a time. Louis
the Pious, after having in 816 prescribed the trial of the cross as
a means of deciding between contradictory witnesses,' abolished
fidently, suggests a like explanation
(IVr. A. ii. 359), and ancient receipts for
enabling the hand to bear fire exist
(Ducange, s.vv, Ferrmn Candens ; Miin-
ter, ii. 229 ; Raumer, v. 284). Grimm,
(911) and Eettberg (ii. 753) say that the
trial was very rarely made, and only in
the case of persons against whom the
popular feeling would be strong if they
failed. Freemen might clear themselves
by their own oath, or by that of com-
purgators (Ducange, s.v. Juramentmn ;
Grimm, 911; Kemble, i. 210), so that
the ordeal would be left to slaves (Mar-
tene, ii. 331) and to such women as
could not find a champion. This expla-
nation, however, does not at all account
for the instances of success ; and, more-
over, cases are recorded in which the
trial of hot ii'on was endured by monks
and other freemen (Ducange s.v. Fer-
rum Candens ; Muratori, in Patrol,
ixxxvii. 9G2-4). Planck says (iii. 543-6)
that in all recorded instances the issue
of these ordeals was favourable, and sup-
poses that the clergy employed a pious
fraud to save the lives of innocent per-
sons. See Augusti, x. 273.
™ Ducange, s.y\. AqucB ferventis Judi-
cium ; Grimm, 919 ; Lingard, A. S. C.
ii. 135.
° Ducange, s.vv. Aqua frigidce Judi-
cium ; Murat. in Patrol. Ixxxvii. 959 ;
Augusti, X. 289 ; Grimm, 523. Hinc-
mar combats the objection raised by the
opponents of ordeals, that (when there
were no weights) the guilty ought to
sink, and the innocent to swim (i. 605),
as is said to have happened in a case
recorded by Gregory of Tours, De Gloria
Martyrum, i, 69.
" Grimm, 926. See Ducange, s.vv.
Crucis Judicium.
p Capit. A.D. 779, c. 10 ; Pagi, xiii.
112.
'1 Grimm, 912. Of this we shall meet
with instances hereafter.
■" Laws of Cunt, c. 5 (Thorpe, 155);
Lingard, A. S. C. ii. 132; Augusti, x.
299. Some writers (as Ducange, s.v.)
derive this word from corse (cui'se), and
snaed (a piece or mouthful) ; but Grimm
and Mr. Thorpe (Glossary to Ancient
Laws) prefer a derivation from cor,
trial.
* Grimm, 932. This trial was espe-
cially used for ecclesiastics, who were
not allowed to swear (Ducange, s.v.)
Fiicharistia,-p. 115). A council at Worms,
in 868, prescribes that, for discovery of
theft ina monastery, all the monks should
communicate (c. 15), but this was after^
wards forbidden as improper (Hai-d. n.
in loc). Froumund, a monk of Te-
gernsee, in the earlier part of the
eleventh centurv, by way of clearing
himself from the suspicion of having
stolen a book, prays that, if he had
been anyhow concerned in the theft, the
Eucharist may turn to his condemna-
tion. Ep. 2 (Patrol, cxli.),
' This was by way of alternative, if
they were not strong enough to fight
with clubs and shields. The loser was
to forfeit his right hand. Capit. a.d,
816, c.i.
K
242 OKDEALS. li<xjKlll.
it in the followiiifj year, " lest that which hath been glorified by
the passion of Christ should through any man's rashness be brought
to contempt." " Under the same emperor, the ordeal of cold water
was forbidden in 829," although in 824 it had been sanctioned by
Eugenius II. — the only pope who ever countenanced the system of
ordeals.^ Agobard, archbishop of Lyons, a strenuous opponent of
])opular superstitions, addressed to Louis two tracts against the
judicial combat.'' He reflects on the heresy of the Burgundian
king who had sanctioned it.'' He denounces such duels as un-
christian, and as involving a breach of charity more important than
any good which could be expected from them."^ He argues that,
if truth might be thus ascertained, all judges are superfluous ;^
that the system holds out a premium to brute strength and to
perjiu-y ; that the idea of its eflScacy is contrary to Scripture, since
we are there taught to despise the success of this world — since
God suffers his saints to be slain, and has allowed believing
nations to be overcome by unbelievers and heretics;** and he
appeals to instances in which the vanity of such trials had been
manifested.^ The ordeal, however, continued to be supported by
the popular feeling, and the cause which Agobard had opposed
soon after found a powerful champion in Hincmar.'"
(10.) The privilege of Asylum in the Germanic kingdoms dif-
" Capit. A.D. 817, c. 27. popes against the system, aud exhorts
^ Capit. Wormat. c. 12. Hildebert by no means to countenance
y Mabill. Analecta. IGl ; August!, x. it (Ep. 74; cf. Ep. 205, Patrol, clxii.).
251. A few jears later, however, we find
2 Adv. Legem Gundob. ; Adv. Judic. Gille, bishop of Limerick, in a tract
Dei (Opera, t. i.). intended to inculcate Roman usages on
" Adv. Jud. Dei, 5. his countrymen, speaking of the priest
^' Adv. Leg. Gund. init. ; Adv. Jud. as entitled to bless the water or the
Dei, 6-11. bread in ordeals, and of the bishop as
"^ Adv. Jud. Dei, 5. blessing the "judicial iron"(ib. clix.
J Adv. Leg. Guud. 9. * lb. 14. 1000-2). Alan of llyssel, in the end of
f See below, Book IV. c.ii. The third the twelfth century, says that an oath
council of Valence, a.d. 855, ordered is the only lawful purgaaon, " cum
that persons who slew or hurt others alia; purgationes ab ecclesia sint pro-
in judicial combats should be put to hibitce, ut judicium aquae frigidae, et
penance as robbers and murderers ; and ferri candentis, et ignis ; hoc enim modo
that those slain in such combats should se purgare, est Deum tentare" (contra
be excluded from the sacrifice of the Haereticos, ii. 19, Patrol, ccx.). The
mass aud from Christian burial (c. 12). Fourth Council of Lateran, in 1215, for-
It also condemned the custom of admit- bade the clergy to take part in ordeals
ting contradictory oaths (c. 11). There (c. 18). But although popes aud kings
is a letter of Ivo, bishop of Chartres, endeavoured to suppress the practice of
A.D. 1099, to Hildebert, bishop of Le judicial combat (Ducange, s. v. i>Mc^/«OT,
Mans (and afterwards archbishop of p. 593 ; Gratian, Deer. IL ii. 5,
Tours), who had been required by Patrol, clxxxvii.), it continued to
William Rufus to clear himself, by the flourish, and, as is well known, it was
ordeal of hot iron, from the charge of sanctioned by English law down to the
having been concerned in the surrender present century, when it was abolished
of Le Mans to Elie de la Fleche (see by 59 Geo. IIL c. 46 (Kerr's Blackstone,
Lappenb. ii. 204). Ivo cites several iii. 359-362).
Chap. IX. ASYLUM. 243
fered considerably from that which had existed under the Roman
empire. It arose out of the ancient national usages ; the object
of it was not to bestow impunity on the criminal, but to protect
him against hasty and irregular vengeance, to secure for him a
legal trial, to afford the clergy an opportunity of interceding for
him, and, if possible, of mitigating his punishment.^ The opera-
tion of this institution was aided by the system of pecuniary com-
position for wrongs. The clergy wei'e usually able to stipulate
for the safety of the offender's life and limbs on condition that he
should pay a suitable fine, or perhaps that he should submit to a
course of penance.'' Charlemagne in 779 limited the right of
sanctuary by enacting that murderers or other capital offenders
should not be allowed to take refuge in churches, and that, if they
gained admittance, no food should be given to them.^ According
to the Roman idea of asylum, the denial of food would have been
an impiety sufficient to draw down some judgment from the patron
saint of a church ; but it was not inconsistent with the German
view."^ The clergy, however, soon discovered a way of evading
this law, by construing it as applicable to impenitent criminals
only — i. e. to such as should refuse to confess to the priest, and to
undergo ecclesiastical j^enance — a refusal which was not likely to
be frequent, where it involved the choice between starvation and
loss of sanctuary.™ The prohibition of food does not appear in
later enactments of the reign." \
The church could not fail to derive popularity from the power
of offering shelter within its precincts against the lawlessness of
which the world was then so full." With a view of investing it
with such popularity among his new subjects, Charlemagne
ordered, in his capitulary for Saxony (a.d. 785), that any person
who should take sanctuary should, for the honour of God and His
church, be safe in life and limb, and should be unmolested until
the next court-day, when he was to be sentenced to make suitable
amends for his offence.^ In legislating for the country after it
had been reduced to a more settled state, this privilege was with-
s Planck, ii. 256 ; Grimm, Rechtsal- 259-260.
terthlimer, 886 ; Rettb. ii. 745 ; Ozanam, " E. g. the additions to the Salic law,
139. A.D. 803, c. 3 (Pertz, i. 113); Cone.
>» Schrockh,xix.471 ; Planck, ii. 257 ; Mogunt. ad. 813, c. 39. It is, how-
Rettb. ii. 746-7. ever, in Alfred's laws, c. 5. (Thorpe,
' C. 8. This is the Lombard form, 29.)
which is clearer than the Prankish. " Planck, ii. 261 ; Hallam, M. A. ii.
See both in Pertz, i. 36. 366.
^ Rettb. ii. 747. p C. 2.
Schroekh, xix. 471 ; Planck, ii.
K 2
244 - SLAVERY. Book III.
drawn, and the church was required to surrender up persons con-
victed of capital crimes.*^
Among the Anglo-Saxons, the earliest law on the subject of
asylum was that of Ina, in G96, which ordered that fugitives guilty
of capital crimes should have their life protected by the church,
but should be bound to make legal satisfaction ; and that delin-
quents who had " put their hide in peril " — i. e. who had incurred
the penalty of whipping — should be forgiven/ But the shelter of
the church was only to be granted for a certain time. The laws of
Alfred (a.d. 877) limit it in some monasteries to three days ;* it
was, however, afterwards extended ; and even in the same laws a
longer term is allowed to other places.* Persons guilty of murder,
treason, or crimes against religion, might ordinarily be dragged
even from the altar ; but some churches of especial sanctity, among
which that of Croyland enjoyed the most extensive immunities,
had the right of protecting all fugitives whatever." The effect of
such a privilege was probably felt as a serious hindrance to the
execution of justice ; for when Croyland, after having been laid
waste by the Danes, was restored in the reign of Edred by his
chancellor Turketul, the aged statesman declined to accept a
renewal of its ancient rights of sanctuary."
VI. Slavery.
Instead of absolutely condemning slavery as an unlawful insti-
tution— a course which would probably have introduced anarchy
into society, and would have raised a serious hindrance to the
progress of the Gospel — the New Testament had been content to
prepare the way for its gradual abolition by exhorting both master
and slave to the performance of their mutual duties on the ground
of their common brotherhood in Christ. And as yet the church
aimed only at a mitigation, not at an extinction, of slavery.
Servitude was of two kinds— that of slaves properly so called,
and that of the coloni. The slaves were individually liable to
1 Rettb. ii. 412, 748. In Alcuin's Epp. 118-9, 195.
correspondence, there is much about a ''0. .5. Wilkins, i. 59 ; Thorpe, 46.
dispute between him and Theodulf of « C. 2. Thorpe, 28.
Orleans, on the subject of a convicted ' C. 5. See Thorpe, 27-9 ; Lingard,
clerk, who escaped from Orleans and A. S. C. i. 275.
took refuge in St. Martin's abbey at " Lingard, A. S. C. i. 276. See as to
Tours. The monks and the mob of Hexham, Ric. Hagustald. ap. Twysden,
Tours rose in his defence, and Alcuin 292.
incurred the displeasure of Charlemagne ^ Ingulf, ap. Fell, Rer. Brit. Script,
by supporting his brethren, who seem to 40, Oxf. 1684.
have been altogether in the wrong.
Ciur.IX. SLAVERY. 245
removal and sale ; they were incapable, under the Roman empire,
of contracting a legitimate marriage,^ and their property belonged
to their master. The coloni were regarded as freeborn, so that,
unlike slaves, they might become soldiers; they were attached
to the land, so that they could not be separated from it, nor could
it be sold without them. They were capable of marriage and of
possessing property ; for the land which they cultivated, they paid
a fixed rent, generally in kind, and they were subject to the
land-tax and to a poll-tax.'' It would, however, seem difficult to
distinguish thoroughly between these classes in the canons which
relate to the subject.
Theodore of Canterbury notes it as a point of difference between
the eastern and the western monks, that, while the Latins have
slaves, the Greeks have none.'' The oriental monks themselves
performed the labour which was elsewhere devolved on slaves ; it
was usual for persons entering on the monastic life to emancipate
their slaves ; '' and some teachers, as Isidore of Pelusium in the
fifth century ° and Theodore the Studite in the ninth, altogether
questioned, or even denied, the lawfulness of having such property."
In the west there are occasional appearances of a like kind.
Thus Wilfrid, on getting possession of the Isle of Selsey, eman-
cipated all the serfs who were attached to the soil ; ^ and Benedict
of Aniane, whose ideas w^ere chiefly drawn from the eastern monastic
rules, on receiving gifts of laud for his monasteries, refused to
accept the serfs with it.*" Som"ewhat in the same spirit was the
enactment of the council of Chalchythe, in 816, that a bishop at
his death should liberate such of his English slaves as had been
y In the East, the marriage of slaves of the institution is unknown (Sa-
was only concubinage, till Basil the vigny, 145. See Guiznt, 133). Prince
Macedonian (a.d. 867-88(J) altered the A. de Broglie quotes Wallon, ' De I'Es-
law ; and that emperor's edict was not clavage,' as having shown that they
observed in practice (Biot, De rAboli- were originally small landholders who
tion de I'Ksclavage en Occident, Paris, in bad times placed themselves in the
1840, p. 213; Milman, i. 339). The condition here described for the sake of
barbarian codes, however, recognise it as protection, &c., ii. 275-9.
proper marriage ( Milman, i.3G3). There " Poenit. 8 (Patrol, xcix.).
are many regulations as to marriages ^ See e. g. Theodor. Studit. Laudatio
between parties of various conditions, as Platonis, 8 (Patrol. Gr. xcix.j.
to the effects of separation by sale, &c. ; "^ Kp. i. 142.
e. g. Cone. Tolet. IX. a.d. 055, c. 13 ; '' Theodore, in his will (p. 66, ed.
Theodor. Capit. 17; Egbert. Excerpt. Sirmondj, forbids the abbot of his mo-
1-20 ; Cone. Vernier, a.d. 753, c. 6 ; Cone, nastery to have slaves, since the use of
Compend. a.d. 756, c. 5 ; Cone. Cabil. them, as of marriage, is allowed to
III. A.D. 813, c. 30. secular persons only. But the reason
^ Guizot, iii. 125-133; Savigny, on which he gives— that they are men,
the Poman Coloni, in Philolog. Museum, made in God's image — would hold
ii. 11 7-1 40 ; Thierry, Essai sur le Tiers equally against all slavery whatever.
Etat, c. 1. The coloni appear only in ' Beda, iv. 13.
the later times of Pome, and the origin ' Vita, c. 14, ap. Mabill. v. 197.
246 . SLAVERY. BookUI.
reduced to bondage in his own time/ But the usual practice of
the west was different. In donations of land to the church, the
serfs passed with the soil, as in other transfers.^' Bishops were
restrained by a regard for the property of their churches from
emancipating the serfs who belonged to these ; the fourth council
of Toledo (a.d. 033) declared such emancipation to be a robbery
of the church ; it enacted that the next bishop should assert his
right over any persons whom his predecessor had thus wrongfully
liberated, and that any bishop wishing to emancipate a slave
should indemnify the church by providing another in his stead.'
An earlier council— that of Agde, in 506— had restrained the
power of bishops to alienate slaves; and, in a spirit curiously
opposed to the oriental principles, it forbade monks to manumit
their slaves, "lest they should keep holiday while the monks
work." ^
Yet with all this the church did very much to abate the evils
of slavery."" It insisted on the natural equality of men, and on the
brotherhood of Christians, as motives to kindness towards slaves ;
and in the treatment of its own dependents it held out an example
to lay masters." It threw open its sanctuaries to those who fled
from cruelty ; it secured their, pardon before surrendering them to
their owners ; it denounced excommunication against any master
who should break a promise made to a fugitive slave.*' It placed
the killing of a slave without judicial authority on the same footing
of truilt as the killing of a freeman.^ It endeavoured to restrain
the sale of slaves, by limiting the power which parents among the
heathen nations exercised over their own offspring,i and by pro-
hibiting that any should be sold to Jews or heathens.' It declared
K C. 10; comp. the will of ^Ifric, who sell their children (Poenit. iv. 26. p.
archbishop of Canterbury, a.d. 1006, in 381),— a seeming inconsistency, which is
the Abingdon Chronicle, i. 419, explained by supposing the excomniu-
^ Planck, ii. 348-350. nication to apply to the case of boys
i (jc 67-8. over seven years of age. Kenible, i.
k 0.56. 199-200.
■n c'hurton, 149-152; Kemble,!. 208-9; "■ E. g. Cod. Theod. III. i. 5; Cod.
P.ettb. ii. 735. Just. I. iii. 56. 3 ; I. x. ; Gregor. Epp. i.
■' Lingard, Hist. Eug. i. 418 ; Rettb. 10 ; ix. 36, and elsewhere ; Cone. Cabil.
ii. 736 ; Mon'talemb. i. Introd. 214. a.d. C50, c. 9 ; Cone. Tolet. x. a.d, l5G,
" See Neander, v. 138, who quotes a c. 7 ; Laws of Ina, a.d. 696, c. 1 1
horrible story from Gregory of Tours, (Thorpe, 48) ; Capit. Mantuan. c. 7
^, j3 (Pertz, i. 41). Constantius had for-
p Planck, ii. 3.i0. bidden the sale of even a heathen slave
q Theodore of Canterbury ' (Pcenit. to a Jew, lest his conversion should be
28) and Egbert of York (Pcenit. i. 27 ; hindered (Biot, 138). Gregory III.
Thorpe, 354) recognise the right of a charges Boniface to prevent Christians
father, 'in cases of need, to sell his son from selling slaves to pagans for sacrl-
uuder'the age of seven, but not above fice ^Ep. i. 8; Patrol, Ixxxix,). There
that age, except with the son's consent, is a remarkable letter of Adrian I. to
Egbert elsewhere excommunicates those Charleniagne, who had been told that
Chap. IX. SLAVERY.
247
the enfranchisement of slaves to be a work conducive to salvation,''
and it was through the influence of the church that innumerable
masters directed by their wills that their slaves should be set free
" for the deliverance of their own souls." ' The liberation was
often, as under the Roman law, visibly associated with religion
by being performed in church : the master at the altar resigned
his slave to the church, with which the freedman was thenceforth
connected by a peculiar tie — he and his descendants paying some
slight acknowledgment to it, while, in the failure of posterity, the
church was heir to his property."
There was also another way by which the church signally con-
tributed to raise the estimation of the servile classes. As the
freemen of the conquering nations were prevented from becoming
clergy or monks without the sovereign's leave, in order that he
might not lose their military service, the bishops were obliged to
recruit the ranks of their clergy chiefly from the classes which
weVe below the obligation to such service.'' The fourth council
of Toledo requires that serfs ordained to be clergy should be
emancipated ;>" but it was not until the year 817, in the reign of
Louis the Pious, that a similar law was established in France,"
although before that time the clergy of ser\ile race had been
exempted from servile duties.'' The serf, when ordained, became
capable of rising to honour and power ; when promoted beyond the
minor orders, he was assessed at a wclir corresponding to that of
high secular rank ; and this rose with each step to which he was
advanced in the hierarchy.'' The clergy who had thus been raised
from a servile condition to dignity and influence felt themselves
bound (apart from all religious motives) to labour for the benefit
of the class to which they had originally belonged, and a general
elevation of that class was the result.''
the Romans had sold slaves to the Benevento, a. p. 771, to the monastery
Saracens, apparently with the pope's of Monte Casshio.
sanction. Adrian, with much indignant " Planck, ii. 3.52 ; Neaud.v. 135. For
language, endeavours to clear himself of the laws as to ordination of slaves, see
the imputation, and throws the blame Gratian, Dist. 54 (Patrol, clxxxvii.).
on Greeks and Lombards, whom, he f a.d. 633. C. 74. Justiniau had for-
says, he had attempted to check, but in bidden that slaves should be ordained,
vain, as he had not ships to enforce his even with the leave of their masters ; be-
wishes (Bouquet, v. 557). On the sale cause these, by freeing them, could open
of slaves to the Saracens, which was the lawful path to ordination (Cod. Just,
chiefly carried on by the Venetians, see I. iii. 37); but afterwards ordination
Leo, Gesch. v. Italien, i. 223-6. itself emancipated. See the notes, 1. c,
» See Marculf,ii. 32 (Patrol. Ixxxvii.). and comp. Novell, cxxiii. 17; Leo,
t Planck, ii. 3fi0-l ; Turner, Hist. Const. 9, 11.
Anglos, iii. 480 ; Kemble, ii. 212. '■ Capit. Generale, c. 6; Planck, ii.
" Cone. Tolet. iv. a.d. 633, cc. 70-1 ; 355. The form then used is in Bouquet,
Planck, ii. 360 ; Kemble, i. 224 ; Rettb. vi. 447.
ii. 736. See in Chron. Casiu. i. 10 (Pertz, => Planck, ii. 354-6. _>' See p. 207.
vii.), the donation made by a citizen of "■ Planck, ii. 356-8 ; Guizot, ii. 32.
248 SLAVERY. BuoK III.
The advancement of persons servilely born to high ecclesiastical
station was not, however, unattended by a mixture of bad effects,
Thegan, the biographer of Louis the Pious, gives a very unfa-
vourable representation of such clergy. He tells us that, when
they have attained to offices of dignity, the gentleness of their
former manners is exchanged for insolence, quarrelsomeness,
domineering, and assumption ; that they emancipate their relations,
and either provide for them by church-preferment or marry them
into noble families ; and that these upstarts are insufferably insolent
to the old nobility,'^ The picture is no doubt coloured both by
Thegan's prejudices as a man of high birth, and by his indignation
at the behaviour of some ecclesiastics towards his unfortunate
sovereign ; but the parallels both of history and of our own
experience may assure us of its substantial truth.
'' Vita Hludov. 20. (Pertz. ii.) On France, see Thierry, sur le Tiers Etat,
the gradual disappearance of slavery in 10, seqq. ^
( 249 )
BOOK IV.
FROM THE DEATH OF CHARLEMAGNE TO THE DEPOSITION
OF POPE GREGORY VI., a.d. 814-1046.
CHAPTEEI.
LOUIS THE PIOUS (a.d. 814-840) — END OF THE CONTROVERSY AS TO
IMAGES (A.D, 813-842) — THE FALSE DECRETALS.
I. The great defect of Charlemagne's system was, that it required
a succession of such men as himself to carry it on. His actual
successors were sadly unequal to sustain the mighty burden of the
empire.
Feeling the approach of his end, Charlemagne, after obtaining
the concurrence of the national diet, summoned his only ^ ^ ^^^
surviving legitimate son, Louis, from Aquitaine to Aix-
la-Chapelle, where, in the presence of a vast assemblage, he de-
clared him his colleague and successor.'' He exhorted the prince
as to the duties of sovereignty, and received from him a promise of
obedience to his precepts. He then desired Louis to advance to
the high altar, on which an imperial crown was placed, to take the
crown, and with his own hands to place it on his head" — an act
by which the emperor intended to assert that he and his posterity
derived their title neither fi'om coronation by the pope nor from
the acclamations of the Romans, but immediately from God.°
After this inauguration, Louis returned to the government of
Aquitaine, but was soon again summoned to Aix-la-Chapelle, in
consequence of his father's death, which took place in January 814.''
• The chief authorities for the reign and then omitted. In like manner Chlo-
of Louis are the lives by Thegan, a suf- tachar became Lothair. Sismondi, u. 442.
fragan of Treves, and by an unknown >> Eiuhard, Vita Kar. 30 ; Thegan, 6 ;
writer, who, from his mention of cou- Astron. 20 ; Funck's ' Ludwig der
versations which he held with the Em- Fromme,' 41-5, Frankf. a. M. 1832.
peror on astronomical subjects (c. 58), " See Fleury, xlvi. 7 ; Gibbon, iv.
is styled the Astronomer. Both are in 507 ; Luden, v. 227.
Pertz, ii., in Bouquet, vi., and in the •> Thegan, 8. Charlemagne was heati-
' Patrologia,' civ., cvi. The name Ludwig ficd by the antipope Paschal III., in 1 1 65,
or Louis is the same with Chlodowig, the at the instance of the emperor Frederick
harsh aspirate having been first softened, I. Altars are dedicated to him at Aix-
250 LOUIS THE PIOUS. IJwic IV.
Louis, at the time of his accession to the empire, was thirty-six
years of age. In his infancy, he had been crowned by Pope
Adrian as king of his native province, Aquitaine.*^ He had
for many years governed that country, and had earned a high
character for the justice and the abihty of his administration. He
was brave, learned, and accomplished ; kindhearted, gentle, and
deeply religious.' But when from a subordinate royalty he was
raised to the head of the empire, defects before unobserved began
to appear in his character. His piety was largely tinctured with
superstition ; he had already thought it his duty to abjure the
study of classic literature for such as was purely religious,^ and,
but for his father's prohibition, he would have become a monk like
his great-uncle Carloman.'' He was without resolution or energy,
wanting in knowledge of men, and ready to become the victim of
intrigues.'
In Aquitaine Louis had been surrounded by a court of his own,
and his old advisers continued to retain their authority with him.''
The chief of these was Benedict of Aniane, whose rigid virtue
could not fail to be scandalised by the licentiousness which, after
Charlemagne's example, had increased in the imperial household
during the last years of the late reign. This Louis at once pro-
ceeded to reform by banishing from the court his sisters and their
paramours, with other persons of notoriously light reputation.™
Nor were the statesmen who had been associated with Charle-
magne spared. Among these the most important were three
brothers, related to the royal family — Adelhard, Wala, and
Bernard." Adelhard had in his youth left the court of Charle-
magne in disgust at the divorce of the Lombard queen," and had
entered the monastery of Corbie, of which he became abbot. In
later years he had ac(}uired a powerful influence over the great
emperor ; he had been the principal counsellor of his son Pipin,
in the government of Italy, and, in conjunction with Wala, he had
la-Chapelle, Frankfort, and Zurich (Boh- ' Astron. 19; Sismondi, ii. 424-6;
mer, Reg. Karol. 27). His name is not Palgrave, Norm, and England, i. 178.
in the Roman calendar, but the local s Thegan, 19. '' Astron. 19.
veneration of him is regarded by canon- ' Luden, v. 231; Palgrave, Norm.
ists as legalised, inasmuch as the sen- and Eng. i. 187-8; Funck, 39.
tence of the antipope has not been dis- '' Thegan, 20.
allowed by any legitimate pope. (Haron. "' AstroKom. 21-3.
814. 03; Butler's Lives of the Saints, " The lives of Adelhard and Wala
Jan. 28 ; Pagi, xix. 271 ; Patrol, xcviii. (' Epitaphium Arsenii ') were written
13.57). Some churches, however, as that in the form of dialogue by Paschasius
of Metz, still have for had in the last Radbert, whose work on the Eucharist
century) a yearly office for the repose will be mentioned in the next chapter,
of his soul (Fleury, xlvi. 9.) Both are in Mabillon, v., and in Patrol.
' Easter, 781 ; Astron. 4 ; Funck, 7. cxx. " P. 130 ; Vita Adelh. 7-8.
Chap. I. a.d. 814-6. TRANSACTIONS WITH THE POPES. 251
advised Charlemagne to name Pipin's son Bernard as heir of the
empire, in preference to Louis.^ Adelhard and the youngest
brother were banished ; Count Wala was compelled to become a
monk in the abbey from which Adelhard was removed ; and thus
was laid the foundation of a lasting enmity between the men of the
old and those of the new reign."
Leo III., dissatisfied (as it would seem) at the manner in which
Louis had received the crown, omitted to congratulate him on his
accession, and did not exact from the Romans the usual oath of
fidelity to the emperor.' The feuds which had once before endan-
gered this pope's life broke out afresh shortly after the
death of his protector. There were serious disorders
and much bloodshed at Rome ; and Leo took it on himself
to punish some of his enemies with death — an act which Louis
regarded as an invasion of his own sovereignty. He therefore
sent his nephew Bernard, king of Italy, to inquire into the matter
on the spot ; but the pope disarmed his indignation by submitting
to give an explanation of his conduct.** Leo died in 816.' The
wealth which he had at his disposal appears to have been enor-
mous, and the papal librarian Anastasius fills many pages with an
enumeration of the splendid gilts which it enabled him to bestow
on his church.
The Romans hastily chose as his successor Stephen IV., who was
consecrated without any application for the emperor's
consent.*" Stephen felt the necessity of apologising for
this irregularity, which he ascribed to the emergency of the time,
when popular tumults were to be apprehended. He published a
decree by which it was enacted that the consecration of future
popes should be performed in the presence of imperial commis-
sioners;'' and, after having made the citizens of Rome swear
allegiance to Louis, he himself went into France for the purpose
of explanation and excuse, — perhaps, also, to secure himself from
the violence of the Roman faction?.^' But the devout emperor did
not wait for his submission. He met him at tlie distance of a
mile from Rhelms : each dismounted from his horse, ^ ^ „, ,
and Louis thrice prostrated himself at the popes teet
before venturing to embrace him.' On the following Sunday, the
V Vita Adt'lh. c. 16 ; Vita Wiilse, " Einhard, a.d. 816.
ed. Mabill., pp. 453, seqq. ; Funck, 42. " Gratian. Deer. Pars I. d. Ixiii. 28.
'1 Vita Adelh. 32-5 ; Vita Waloe, i. 2, (See notes iu Patrol, cxix. 795; clxxxvii.
11 ; Fuuck, 48. ' Funck,. 5.5. 337 ; Jafie', 221.)
=* Einhard, a.d. 815 ; Astron. 25 ; y Thegan, 16 ; Mihnan, ii. 248.
Baron. 815. 1 ; Funck, 55. ' Thegan, 16 ; Astron. 26 ; Flodoard,
» Pagi, xiii. 568. ii. 19 (Patrol, cxxix.).
252 REFORM OF CLEPwGY AND MONKS. Bi>ok IV.
pontiff placed on the head of Louis a splendid crown which he
had brought with him, and anointed both him and his empress
Ermengarde.'^ Anastasius tells us that the honour paid to the
pope almost exceeded the power of language to describe ; that he
obtained from the emperor whatever he desired ; that, after our
Lord's example of forgiveness, he pardoned all who in the time of
Leo had been obliged to seek a refuge in France on account of
offences against the church, and that they accompanied him on
his return to Rome.*^ On the death of Stephen, in the beginning
of the following year (817), Paschal was immediately chosen and
consecrated as his successor. The nev^^ pope sent a legation to
assure the emperor that he "had been forced rather than had
leapt into " his see, and his apology was accepted.''
Louis was bent on effecting a reformation both in the church
and in the state. By means of his 7nissi he redressed many
grievances which had grown up under his father's government;"
and in councils held at Aix in 816 and 817, he passed a great
immber of regulations for the reform of the clergy, and of the
religious societies.*^ The secular business in which bishops had
been much employed by Charlemagne had not been without an
effect on their character and on that of the inferior clergy, so that
the condition of the church towards the end of the late reig-n had
retrograded.^ The canons now passed testify to the existence of
many abuses. Their general tone is strict ; they aim at securing
influence and respect for the clergy by cutting off their worldly
pomp, and enforcing attention to their spiritual duties. The
canonical life is regulated by a code enlarged from that of
Chrodegang.^ The acquisition of wealth by improper means is
checked by an order that no bequest shall be accepted by churches
or monasteries to the disinheriting of the testator's kindred, and
that no one shall be tonsured either as a monk or as a clergyman
for the sake of obtaining his property.'^ We find,' however, com-
plaints of the evils against which this canon was directed as well
after its enactment as before.' Another important canon ordered
that every parish priest should have a mansits, or glebe ; that
» Thegan, 17. Luden observes that Charlemagne. Stephen, i. 112.
the biographer does not, until after this ^ See Pertz, Leges, i, 201, seqq.
coronation, give Louis the title of em- ^ EUendorf, ii. .51-2.
peror. v. 579. s See p. 213.
b Anastas. 213 ; Astrou. 26. >> Capit. a.d. 817, c. 7.
"= Astron. 27. ' Elleudorf, ii. 58-62, gives quota-
•* Thegan, 13 ; Sismondi, ii. 432. The tions from Paschasius, Wettin, &c. The
scheme of administration by missi had evil had been noted by the council of
been very imperfectly carried out under Chalons in 813, c. 6-7.
Chap. I. a.d. 816-7. SUCCESSION TO THE EMPIRE. 253
both the glebe and his other property should be discharged from
all but ecclesiastical service ; ^ and that, when this provision should
have been fulfilled, every parish, where there was a sufficient
maintenance, should have a priest of its own."" Benedict of
Aniane was president of the assembly which was charged with the
monastic reform. He recovered to their proper use many monas-
teries which had been alienated either to laymen or to secular
clergy ; and he obtained relief for many from the burdens of gifts
to the crown and of military service, — burdens which had pressed
so heavily on some of them that the remaining income had been
insufficient even for food and clothing." The rule of St. Benedict
was taken as the basis of the new reforms ; but the canons are
marked by a punctilious minuteness very unlike its original
spirit."
These reforms were the work of the independent Frankish
church, and were sanctioned by the supreme authority of the
emperor, who exercised the same prerogative as his father in
matters concerning religion.^
In the holy week of 817, as Louis and his household were
passing along a gallery which led from the palace to the cathedral
of Aix, the wooden pillars on which it rested gave way. The
emperor suffered little hurt ; but the accident suggested to his
counsellors the possibihty of his death, and the expediency of pro-
viding for that event.'^ By their advice he proposed the subject to
the national assembly, and obtained its consent to the association
of his eldest son, Lothair, as his colleague in the empire ; "" but
this measure, which was intended for the preservation of peace,
became the source of fatal divisions. The younger brothers, Pipin
and Louis, who held respectively a delegated sovereignty over
Aquitaine and Germany,'^ were discontented at finding themselves
placed in a new relation of inferiority towards their senior,^ to
whom they were bound to pay "gifts," and without whose consent
they were not at liberty to make war or peace, to receive ambas-
■^ C. 10. The Astronomer says that a became emperor. Martin, ii. 373.
male and a female serf were also attached * Pagi, xiii. 539.
to each living. 28. °» C. 11. ' This word, from meaning the eldest
° Vita S. Ben. Anian. (Mabill. v.), or head of a family, had come, as early
50, 54 ; Astron. 28. as the time of Gregory of Tours, to bear
° Guizot, ii. 317. the sense oi lord or master, which its de-
p Guizot, ii. 318; Milman, ii. 249. rivatives have in the Homauce languages,
Barouius, however, ventures to assert and from the eighth century was used
the contrary. 819. 11. to denote a king or other superior in re-
1 Astrou. 28. lation to his dependent homines (Perry,
^ Funck, G2-3. It was not by primo- 400). Hincmar seems to object to this
geniture but by election that Lothair use of it as novel and improper, ii. 835.
254
DEATH OF BERNARD. B.k.k IV.
sadors, or to marry." But the elevation of Lothair was still more
offensive to Bernard, son of the emperor's elder brother Pipin by
a concubine. Bernard had been appointed by Charlemagne to
succeed his father in the kingdom of Italy. The defect of his birth
was not regarded by the Franks as a bar to inheritance ; as it had
not prevented his receiving an inferior royalty, it did not disqualify
him for succeeding his grandfather in the empire ;'' and, as it was
chiefly on the ground of maturer age that Louis, the younger son
of Charlemagne, had been preferred to the representative of the
elder son, Bernard might have now expected on the same ground
to be preferred to the children of Louis.^ The king of Italy had
hitherto endeavoured, by a ready submission and compliance with
his uncle's wishes in all things, to disarm the jealousy which the
empress Ermengarde continually strove to instil into her husband's
mind.'' But he now yielded to the influence of the discontented
party, of which Theodulf of Orleans, a Goth or Lombard by birth,
and the bishops of Milan and Cremona, were the most active
members, while Wala from his monastery zealously aided them
by his counsels. The pope himself. Paschal, is said to have been
implicated in their schemes."^ But the emperor and his partisans
made demonstrations, which showed that any attempt to subvert
the government would be hopeless. Bernard repaired to Chalons
on the Saone — decoyed, according to some writers,^ by the empress,
under a promise of forgiveness and safety. He confessed to his
uncle his guilty designs, and, after a trial, was sentenced to death.
The sentence was compassionately changed by Louis to the loss of
eyesight ; but, whether from the cruelty with which the operation
was performed, or from grief and despair, the unhappy Bernard
died within three days.*^ Theodulf was deprived of his see, without
any regard to his plea that, as having received the pall, he was
subject to no jurisdiction except the pope's.*^ Louis, now rendered
suspicious of all his kindred, compelled three of his illegitimate
" Divisio Imperii, cc. 7,8,13. (Pertz, = Both reasons are given. Ermen-
Leges, i. 199.) garde is said to have instigated the
" See Funck, 42, 240, 243. cruelty. See Thegan, 22-3 ; Murat. IV.
y Michelet, ii. 93 ; Luden, v. 262-3. ii. 304 (citing Andrew, as above) ; Sis-
^ Sismoudi, ii. 436. mondi, ii. 443-5; Funck, 66 ; Palgrave,
" Ellendorf, ii. 90. i. 231. The Astronomer seems to mean
'' Sismondi, ii. 443-6 ; Funck, 65. that Bernard and another committed
Dean Milman (ii. 252) questions this, suicide — " Dum impatientius oculorum
which he supposes to have no authority ablationem tulerunt, mortis sibi con-
but that of Funck ; but it is also said sciverunt acerbitatem " (30). See the
by Muratori (IV. iii. 302) on the autho- various accounts in Luden, v. 268, and
rity of an ancient chronicler, Andrew, note.
in Mencken's collection. Luden thinks "^ Theodulph. Carm. iv. 5 (Patrol,
it uncertain, but not unlikely, v. 265-6. cv.) ; Funck, 68.
Chap. I. a.d. 817-S23. LOUIS THE PIOUS.
255
brothers — of whom Drogo was afterwards creditably known as
bishop of Metz — to be tonsured.®
The empress Ermengarde, whose zeal for the interest of her sons
had Leen a principal cause of the late troubles, died shortly after.
Louis in his sorrow was disposed to resign his crown and become
a monk. But the ecclesiastics whom he consulted dissuaded him ;
the daughters of his nobles were assembled for his inspec-
o A.D. 819.
tion, and he chose Judith, daughter of Welf, count of
Bavaria, to, be the partner of his throne.*" The new empress is
described as not only beautiful, but possessed of learning and
accomplishments unusual in the ladies of that age ; and her power
over her husband was absolute.^
In 821, on the marriage of Lothair, Theodulf, Wala, Adelhard,
and the other accomplices of Bernard were forgiven ^ — an act of
grace which has been traced to the removal of Benedict by death
from the emperor's councils.' But Louis was still disturbed by
the remembrance of the severities which had been exercised in
his name ; the alarms of his conscience were increased by some
reverses, by earthquakes, and other portents;'' and at the diet of
Attigny, in the following year, he appeared in the dress ^ ^
of a penitent. He lamented his own sins and the sins
of his father. He expressed remorse for the death of Bernard
— an act in which his only share had been that mitigation of
the sentence which had been so unhappily frustrated in the ex-
ecution. He entreated the forgiveness of Wala and Adelhard,
who were present. He professed sorrow for his behaviour to
Drogo and his brothers, and bestowed high ecclesiastical dignities
on them by way of compensation. He gave large alms to monks,
and entreated their prayers ; and he issued a capitulary acknow-
ledging his neglect of duty towards the church, and promising
amendment of abuses."" Wala was sent into Italy, to act as
« Thegan, 24 ; Sismondi, ii. 445-6. xcviii. 579.) Pagi's candour in this
To this time belongs the pretended date matter is distressing to a later annotator
of a document known from its first words on Baronius (xiii. 625), and to the Abbe'
by the name of Ego Ludovicus (Pertz, Rohrbacher, xi. 404.
Leges, ii. Append. 6), in which the em- ' Astron. 32 ; Thegan, 26 ; Einhard,
peror is represented as giving up a large a.d. 819. *=' Michelet, ii. 96-7.
part of Italy to tlie pope, and as order- ^ Vita Adelh. 46 ; Astron. 34 ; Einh.
ing that no Frank, Lombard, or other a.d. 821 ; Pagi, xiv. 20-3. Theodulf
person shall interfere in the appoint- died the same year. Pagi, 23.
ment of popes. Sir F. Palgrave seems ' Funck, 71, 241 ; Gfrorer, iii. 727.
to regard it as genuine. (Norm, and "^ Luden, v. 278.
England, i. 262, 727.) But it is ge- "» Capit. Attiniac. (Pertz, Leges, i.
nerally considered a clumsy forgery. 231) ; Astron. 35 ; Vita Adelh. 51 ; Sis-
(Sce Pagi, xiii. 591 ; Schrockh, xxii. mondi, ii. 453-5 ; Palgrave, i. 249. On
44 ; Planck, ii. 779 ; Pertz, p. 9 ; Patrol, this assembly, see Hefele, iv. 31.
256 LOTH AIR AT ROME. Bcwk IV.
adviser to Lothair, who had obtained that kingdom on the death
of Bernard."
On Easter-day, 823, Lothair, who had gone to Rome on the
invitation of Paschal," was there crowned by the pope as emperor.
He had ah-eady been crowned by his father, at the time of his
elevation to a share in the empire ; but Paschal, by persuading
him to accept this second coronation, as an ecclesiastical sanction
of his authority, carried on a chain of policy which resulted in
persuading the world that sovereignty was derived from the suc-
cessors of St, Peter.
Soon after Lothair's departure from the city, two high officers
of the church, who were among the chief of the emperor's Roman
partisans, were decoyed into the Lateran palace, where — in punish-
ment, as was believed, of their attachment to the Frank interest-^
they were blinded and afterwards beheaded.^ Louis, on hearing
of this affair, sent a count and an abbot to investigate it. The
pope appeared before the commissioners, and, with thirty-four
bishops and five other clergymen, swore that he had no share in
the death of the victims. But he maintained that they had
deserved it as traitors ; and he refused to give up the murderers,
on the ground that they had sought the protection of St. Peter,
and belonged to the Apostle's family. The commissioners, having
no authority to use force, reported the circumstances to their
master, and Paschal at the same time sent some envoys to offer
explanations. The emperor did not pursue the matter further;
but he resolved to place his relations with Rome on a more satis-
factory footing.'^
An opportunity was soon furnished in consequence of Paschal's
death, which took place in May, 824.'' A severe contest arose
for the papacy. Lothair went to Rome, and asserted the Prankish
sovereignty by acknowledging Eugenius IL, the candidate who
was supported by Wala's influence,^ as the rightful successor of
St. Peter,* The young emperor complained of the late murder of
n Vita Walse, i. 25. Eugenius ordered the body to be iu-
0 Astron. 36 ; Einhard, a.d. i. 823. terred in a place which Paschal had
Paschasius untruly says that Louis sent prepared. (Thegau, 30.) Funck sup-
his son to be crowned at Rome. See posesthatby;MjuM/((sThegan here means
EUendorf, ii. 26. the no6;7(Y// of Rome. 78,251.
p Astron. 37 ; Einh. a.d. 823. See ^ Vita Walaj, i. 28. He was the candi-
Luden, v. 293. date of the party opposed to Louis.
1 Einh. A.D. 823 ; Astron. 37-8 ; Luden, v. 295.
Funck, 76-7 ; Sismondi, ii. 458-9. ' Baron. 824. 12. Pagi (xiii. 60, 93)
' Paschal was so detested by the Ro- points out that Lothair acted as sove-
mans that they would not allow him to reign, not as protector of the chm-ch.
be buried with his predecessors ; but
Ohap. I. A.).. 823 9. INTRIGUES AGAINST LOUIS. 257
his adherents. He inquired why the popes and the Roman judges
were continually spoken against. He discovered that many pieces
of land had been wrongfully seized by the popes (perhaps under
the pretence that they were legacies to the church), and caused
great joy by restoring them to the rightful owners. He settled
that, " according to ancient custom," imperial commissioners should
visit Rome at certain times, for the general administration of
justice." He exacted of the Romans individually an oath of
fealty to the empire, saving their faith to the pope. He enacted
that no person should interfere with their right of electing a
bishop ; but he bound them by an engagement that they would
not allow any one to be consecrated as pope, until he should have
sworn allegiance to the emperor in the presence of an imperial
commissioner.^ Although this engagement was in the sequel
sometimes neglected or evaded, the report of Lothair's proceedings
is evidence of the ideas which were then entertained as to the rela-
tions of the papacy and the empire. It was considered that the
emperor was entitled to investigate elections to the Roman see,
and to decide between the pretensions of candidates ; and, while
the pope was the immediate lord of Rome, his power was held
under the emperor, to whom the supreme control of the adminis-
tration belonged.^
After four years of childless marriage, Judith in 823 gave birth
to a son, Charles, afterwards known as " the Bald." The jealousy
of the emperor's sons by Ermengarde was excited ; they declared
Charles to be the offspring of adultery, and charged Judith with
bewitching their father.'^ The empress, on her part, was bent on
securing for her son an inheritance like that of his elder brothers,
and in 829 he was created duke of Germany — probably in the
vain hope that such a title would give less offence than the title
of king.'' Louis, under the influence of his wife, laboured to buy
partisans for Charles by profuse gifts from the hereditary domains
of his family and from the property of the church.^ On this
account he had been bitterly attacked by Wala, at a diet held in
828 ;" and when his elder sons now broke out into rebellion, they
were aided by a powerful party of the hierarchy, headed by Wala
(who in 826 had succeeded Adelhard in the abbacy of Corbie),''
with the archchaplain Hilduin, abbot of St. Denys, Jesse, bishop of
" Einh. A.D. 824 ; Astron. 38. ^ Sismondi, ii. 467.
" Pertz, Leges, i. 240; Milman, ii. » Fiinck, 101. ^ Fuuck, 98-9.
256. " Vita Mai. ii. 2-3.
y Murat. IV. ii. 330-2 ; Luden, v. 298 ; '• Pagi, xiv. 118.
Funck, 81.
258 DIET OF NIMEGUKN. Btok IV.
Amiens, and Elissachar, abbot of CentuUes (St. Riquier).^ Of the
motives of these ecclesiastics it is difficult to judge. They may
have honestly felt the dangers which threatened the empire from
the system of partition which had been introduced;*^ they may
have been galled by the imperial control of ecclesiastical aftairs,
as well as by the invasions of church property. But the preten-
sions to superiority over the crown which now began to be asserted
in their councils are startling,^ and the conduct by which they
followed up their theories was utterly indefensible.
Judith was caught by the insurgents at Laon, and was pursued
by the curses of the people into a convent at Poitiers,
A.D. 830. ^,^QYe she was compelled to take the veil.'^ She was
also forced to engage that she would use her influence over her
husband to persuade him to enter a monastery. But the inclina-
tion which Louis had formerly felt towards the monastic life was
now mastered by his love for Judith ajid Charles. He asked time
for consideration ;' in spite of all opposition he contrived that
the next national assembly should not be held in Gaul, where the
population were generally disaffected to the Frankish rulers, but
at Nimeguen, where he might hope to be supported by the kindred
and friendly Germans;'^ and the event answered his expectation.
At Nimeguen the emperor found himself restored to power.
Hilduin, who had ventured to transgress an order that the
members of the diet and their followers should appear unarmed,
was banished ; and a like sentence was passed on Wala, with
others of his party.*" Lothair (who had rebelled after having
sworn to maintain Charles in his dukedom), with characteristic
meanness, made his submission, abandoned his accomplices, and
joined in giving judgment against them." Judith was brought
forth from her convent, the pope having declared that her forced
profession was null." She undertook to prove by ordeal her
innocence of the witchcraft and adultery imputed to her, but,
as no accuser appeared, she was allowed to purge herself by
oath ; and Bernard, count of Septimania, her supposed paramour,
on offering to clear himself by the wager of battle, found no
one to accept his challenge.^ Some of those who had been most
«^ Theo^an, 3G ; Ellendorf, ii. 105. Parisian Council, or in Pertz, 34(5.
f Vita'^Wal. ii. 10. '' Sismondi, iii. 6-7.
e In 829, councils were held at Paris, ' Astrou. 44 ; Funck, 109.
Mentz, Lyons, and Toulouse (Hard. iv. ^ Sismondi, iii. 9-10 ; Stephen, ii. 117.
1279),'and their decrees were cousoli- •" Funck, 113. " Astron. 45.
dated' by a fifth assembly at Worms " Thegan, 37.
(Pertz, Leges, i. 332, seqq. ) ; their views i' Thegan, 3S. Against Bernard, see
as to the right of controlling the sove- the Life of Wala, ii. 7.
reign may be seen in book ii. of the
Chap. I. a.d. 830-3. GREGORY IV. IN FRANCE. 259
hostile to Louis in his distress were condemned to death ; but,
with his usual gentleness, he allowed them to escape with slighter
punishments.'^
Again and again Judith's eagerness for the interest of her own
son, and the jealousy of the elder brothers, brought trouble on the
unhappy Louis, who seems to have fallen into a prematm-e decay.
A fresh insurrection took place in 832, in consequence of Charles'
advancement to the kingdom of Aquitaine ; the pope, Gregory IV.,
who partly owed his dignity to the influence of Wala and
Hilduin, crossed the Alps, and appeared in the camp of
the rebels, where Wala and the other ecclesiastical chiefs of the
party waited on him. Louis was supported by many bishops, who,
on a report that the pope meant to excommunicate them and the
emperor, declared that, if he had come with such intentions, he him-
self should be deposed and excommunicated."^ An answer which
Gregory issued, and which was probably written by Paschasius,^ one
of Wala's monks, had no eftect ; and he began to show uneasiness
and discontent with the part which he had undertaken, when Wala
and Paschasius reassured him by producing a collection of canons
and decretals, which were intended to prove that the pope had the
right to judge all causes, and could himself be judged by no man.*^
It seems to have been at this time" that Agobard, archbishop
of Lyons, sent forth two tracts — the one, a comparison between
hierarchical and secular authority ; the other, a defence of the
rebel princes. In the first of these, he insists on the superiority
of the ecclesiastical power ; he utters many reproaches against the
emperor, and exhorts him to submit to the pope. " If, indeed,
pope Gregory had come without reason, and for the purpose of
fighting, he would deserve to be opposed and driven back ;'' but
if he came for peace, he ought to be obeyed." In the other
pamphlet, Agobard charges Judith with gross and notorious pro-
fligacy ; he justifies the proceedings of the emperor's sons ; and,
as a precedent for the part taken by himself and his brethren, he
alleges the opposition which the priests and prophets of Israel
'i Astron. 46. that these must have beeu something
^ Astrou. 48; Vita Wala?, ii. 16 ; Greg, unknown at Rome — the elements of the
Ep. ad Episcopos, ap. Bouquet, vi. 353. forged Decretals, Which soon after ap-
The genuineness of this letter has been peared. (See the last part of this
questioned. Bouquet (252) considers chapter.)
that it is established by De Marca (1. iv. " Funck, 132 ; Ellendorf, ii. 115.
c. 11). Ludeu is against it. v. 008. " " Certe si nunc Gregorius papa
s This letter also is questioned. See irrationabiliter et ad pugnandum -veuit,
Jaffe, 227, who dates it July 8, after the merito et pugnatus et repulsus recedet."
" Field of Lies." De Conipar. utriusque regiminis, 6.
Vita Wala;, ii. 16. Luden (v. 610) (Agob. Opera, t. ii.)
and Gfrorer (Karolinger, i. 81) argue
s 2
260 THE FIELD OF LIES. B"^"^ i^^
offered to Jezebel and Athaliah.^ He tells the emperor that
Samson, for his love to an unchaste and unbelieving woman, lost
his eyes and his judgeship ; he exhorts him, since he has thus far
been like Samson in the loss of his power, to study that, like him,
he may escape the forfeit of his eternal portion by humbly and
penitently submitting to his lot.''
On St. John Baptist's day, the two armies encamped opposite
June 24, to eacli other near Colmar. Gregory paid a visit to
^^3- the emperor, who received him without the usual marks
of respect ; ^ but they afterwards exchanged presents, and the pope
continued to pass from the one camp to the other. Arguments,
threats, money, and other inducements were employed to influence
the adherents of Louis ; and, on the morning of St. Peter and
St. Paul's day, he found that all but a handful of his men
had deserted him during the night. On discovering his
forlorn condition, he professed himself unwilling to be the cause of
bloodshed ; he advised those of his followers who could expect no
mercy from the rebels to save themselves by flight, desired the
others to follow the example of the majority, and gave himself
up as a prisoner to his sons.^ The pope is said to have returned
to Italy in deep grief and shame on account of liis share in these
transactions," while the popular feeling with respect to them was
shown by the name given to the scene where they took place —
LUf/enfeld, " the Field of Lies." ^'
Judith, for whose safety hi life and limb the successful rebels
had pledged themselves by oath, was sent across the Alps to
Tortona,*^ while Charles was shut up in the abbey of Priim, and
Louis was led about as a captive by his eldest son. But Lothair
and his advisers soon became aware that a general feeling of pity
was rising in favour of the unfortunate emperor ; ^ and they re-
solved to defeat it by an act which was intended to disqualify him
for reigning. At a diet held at Corapiegne, a bishop (probably
Agobard) ^ begged Lothair's permission that a representation
should be made to Louis of the misdeeds by which he had lowered
the empire of the great Cliarles. There was little show of opposi-
tion to the proposal ;^ Louis in his captivity was importuned to
become a monk by a number of bishops, among whom Thegan
)■ Lib. Apolog. pro filiis Ludovici, 11. '^ Palgrave, Norm, and Eng. i. 290-1.
■'■ Cc. 12-3. <• Thegau, 42.
■' Astron. 48 ; Vita Wala?, ii. 17. ' Astron. 49.
1' Thegan, 42 ; Astron. 48. n Fuuck, 156.
<= Astron. 48 ; Nithard in Patrol, cxvi. '' Astron. 49.
48.
Chap. I. a.d. 833. DEPOSITION OF LOUIS.
261
tells us that the most active were some of servile or barbaric birth,
and, above all " shameless and most cruel," the emperor's foster-
brother, Ebbo of Rheims, who had turned against him at the
Field of Lies ; and, as their solicitations were in vain, they resolved
to proceed by other means.' In an indictment of eight heads,
drawn up with much iteration, and partly relating to oifences for
which he had already done penance at Attigny, he was charged
with acts of violence towards his kinsmen — the death of Bernard,
the tonsuring of Drogo and his brothers ; with frequent breach of
oaths, especially as to the partition of the empire ; with having
violated the rest of holy seasons by military expeditions and by
holding courts or diets ; with outrages and injustice against many
of his subjects ; with having caused waste of life, and an infinite
amount of misery, through the calamities of war.'^ The bishops
assumed the right of judging the emperor. They condemned him
in his absence, declared him to be deprived of earthly power, and,
in order to prevent the loss of his soul, they sentenced him to do
penance before the relics of St. Medard and St. Sabinian at
Soissons."" He was strictly guarded in a cell, until the day
appointed for the ceremony, when he was led forth, not
. • [> T /^^ • • 1 • t> ^ October.
as a sovereign, but as a smiul (christian desirous ot show-
ing penitence for his offences. Lothair was present, with a large
body of bishops and clergy, and the cathedral was filled by a crowd
of spectators." The emperor, clothed in sackcloth, prostrated him-
self before the altar ; he acknowledged that he had been guilty of
misofovernment, offensive to God, scandalous to the church, and
disastrous to his people ; and he professed a v.ish to do penance,
that he might obtain absolution for his misdeeds. 11ie bishops
told him that a sincere confession would be followed by forgiveness,
and exhorted him that he should not, as on the former occasion,
attempt to hide any part of his sin. The list of charges against
him was put into his hands ; with a profusion of tears he owned
himself guilty of all ; and he gave up the document, to be placed
on the altar as a record of his repentance. He then laid down
his sword and his military belt ; he was "stripped of the secular
dress, which he had worn under his sackcloth ; and after these
acts it was pretended that, according to the ancient canons, he
was incapable of returning to the exercise of arms or of
sovereign power." Every bishop who had been concerned in
' Thegan, 43-4. See Ludeu, v. 363-4. " Acta, ap. Bouquet, 244.
k Acta Exauctorationis, Bouquet, v. " Sismondi, iii. 30. " Contrarium est
t.'43-G, or Pertz, Leges, i. 3fif>. oniiiino ecclcsiasticis regidis post poeni-
"" Bouquet, '244 ; Astron. 4'.). ■ teiiti;i> actionem rediri; ad niilitiam sijecu-
262 RESTORATION AND Book IV.
the affair drew up a memoir of it, which he gave into the hands
of Lothair.P
But the projectors of this humiliation were mistaken in their
hopes. Compassion for the emperor, and indignation against those
who had outraged him under the pretence of religion, were almost
universal. His younger sons, Pipin and Louis, took his part, and
Lothair, alarmed by the tokens of the general feeling, hastily with-
drew from St. Denys, leaving his father at liberty. Friends speedily
gathered around Louis ; he was advised to resume his military
ornaments, but refused to do so unless with the formal sanction
of the church. He was therefore solemnly reconciled in the abbey
of St. Denys ; his belt and sword were restored to him by some of
the same bishops who had been concerned in his degradation ; it
was declared that a penitent who had laid down his belt might
resume it on the expiration of his penance ; and the popular joy
at the emperor's restoration drew encouragement from a sudden
change of the weather, which had long been boisterous and
ungenial.*^
In February, 835, a council was held at Thionville, where eight
archbishops and thirty-three bishops condemned their brethren
who had shared in the proceedings at Compiegne and Soissons.
Among these delinquents the most noted was Ebbo, a man of
servile birth, who had been foster-brother of Louis, and, like other
low-born clerks, had been promoted by him with a view of counter-
balancing the aristocratic prelates who aimed at independence of
the crown.^ Ebbo was a man of learning, and had laboured as a
missionary among the northern tribes ; * but his behaviour towards
his benefactor had been conspicuously ungrateful.* His treason
had been rewarded by Lothair with a rich abbey, and, when the
cause of Louis again became triumphant, he had fled, with all the
wealth that he could collect, in the hope of finding a refuge among
the Northmen." He was, however, overtaken, and, after having
for some time been detained in the monastery of Fulda, he was
larem, cum apostolus dicat, nemo mUitans noble family, who had been nominated
Deo implicat se scecnlaribus negotiis (II Tim. to the see, but was found unable to read.
ii. 4)." Decret. Leonis M. c. 24, ap. Dion. Hist. Litt. v. 100.
Exig. (Patrol. Ixvii. 290). Cf. Cone. ^ See below, chap. iv.
Tolet. XII. A.D. 681, c. 2. ' He is the especial object of Thegan's
p Acta, ap. Bouquet, v. 246. Ago- abhorrence. See above, p. 248. In re-
bard's paper is given there, and in his lating the penance at Soissons, the bio-
Works, ii. 73. grapher apostrophises Ebbo, and re-
'I Thegan, 4.5-8; Astron. 51; Annal. preaches him with clothing in sackcloth
Bertin. a.d. 834; Funck, 143-150. the prince who had clothed Ami in purple,
■• Flodoard, Hist. Rem. ii. 19 (Patrol. &c. c. 44.
cxxxv.); Milnian, ii. 261. Ebbo was » Flodoard, ii. 20.
promoted instead of Giselmar, a man of
Chap. I. a.d. 834-840. DEATH OF LOUIS. 263
compelled to ascend the pulpit of a church at Metz, where, in the
presence of Louis, and of the assembled bishops, clergy, and laity,
he acknowledged that all the late proceedings against the emperor
were unjust and sinful. At Thionville, he wrote and subscribed a
profession of his own unworthiness ; he was deposed from his see,
and remained in monastic custody, or in exile, until the death of
Louis. Other bishops were gently treated, on confessing their
guilt, while Agobard, who did not appear, was condemned for his
contumacy.^
Lothair was deprived of the imperial title, and was confined to
the kingdom of Italy.^ But Judith afterwards found it expedient
to make overtures to him, and a partition — the last of the parti-
tions which attest the difficulties and the weakness of Louis — was
made in 839, by which Pipin, the emperor's grandson, was to be
excluded fi-om inheriting his father's kingdom of Aquitaine ; and,
with the exception of Bavaria, which was left to the younger Louis,
the whole empire was to be shared between Lothair and Charles."
To the last the unhappy reign of Louis was distracted by the
enmities of his sons, who had alike cast away all filial and all
brotherly regards. He died on the 20th of June, 840, in an island
of the Rhine opposite Ingelheim, when engaged in an expedition
against his son Louis of Germany. On his deathbed he received
the consolations of religion from his illegitimate brother Drogo,
bishop of Metz. His last words, " Out ! Out ! " were interpreted
as an adjuration commanding the evil spirit to depart."
During the earlier years of this reign, the fame of Charlemagne
continued to invest the empire with dignity in the eyes of foreign
nations, and Louis himself carried on successful war in various
directions.'^ But the dissensions of the Franks afterwards exposed
them to enemies from without. The Northmen, whose first appear-
ances on the coast had filled the mind of Charlemag-ne with
gloomy forebodings,'^ advanced up the Scheld in 820." Li 835,
they burnt the great trading city of Dorstadt, with its fifty-four
churches ; "^ and their ravages were felt on the banks of the Loire
and elsewhere. To the south, the Saracens were a no less formi-
• " Annal. Bertin.A.D. 835 ; Clerici Re- (v. 400) supposes the meaning to be Es
menses (Patrol, cxvi. 18) ; Flodoaixl, ii. ist aus, " It is over." Louis the German
20; Hincmar, i. 324-7 ; Thegan, 56; had, in ? 74, a vision, in which his father
Astron. 54. begged him, in Latin, to obtain his re-
y Sismondi, iii. 36. lease from purgatory. Annal. Fuld.
^ Astron. (Patrol, civ. 973) ; Pruden- (Pertz, i. 387.)
tius, A.D. 839 (ib. cxv. 1387); Palgrave, ^' Funck, 66-9.
i. 306.. ' Monach. Sangallen. ii. 14.
" Huz, huz, equivalent to the modern '' Sismondi, ii. 449.
German Aus. (Astron. 63-4). Luden "^^ Palgrave, i. 297.
264 LEO THE ARMENIAN. Hook IV.
dable foe ; in 838 they plundered Marseilles, and carried off its
monks and clergy as prisoners.'' And on the east, the Slavonic
nations had taken advantage of the Frankish contests to make
inroads on the imperial territory. The dangers which thus
threatened the empire on various sides became yet more serious
under the successors of Louis.
II. Although the decision of the second Nicene council had
been established as law in the eastern empire, the conformity to
it which was enforced was in many cases insincere. A consider-
able party among the bishops and clergy was opposed to the
worship of images ; and in the army, the enthusiasm with which
the memory of the martial iconoclastic emperors was cherished
was usually accompanied by an attachment to their opinions.^
Leo v., " the Armenian," who in 813 became emperor by the
deposition of Michael Rhangabe, was, by the influence both of his
early training and of his military associations, opposed to the
worship of images.'' His enemies speak of him by the name of
Chameleon,' on account of the insincere and changeable character
which they impute to him ; but even they allow that he was a man
of unusual energy, and of abilities which fitted him to sustain
the declining empire.'^ The patriarch Nicephorus — not (it would
seem) from suspicion, but merely in compliance with custom —
required him on his elevation to subscribe a profession of foith ;
but Leo desired that the matter should be deferred until after his
coronation, and, when the application was then renewed, he
refused.™
Like other adventurers who rose to the possession of empire
(and probably like a far greater number in whom the promise was
not fulfilled), Leo had in early life been told that he was destined
to become emperor. Hence he derived an inclination to believe
in prophecies ; and a monk, who, by a rare exception to
the feeling of his class, was adverse to the cause of
images, now assured him of a long and glorious reign if he would
suppress the worship of them, while he threatened him with calamity
f Sismondi, iii. 41-2. Niceph. 32-3; Walch, x. G67 ; Finlay,
8 Schlosser, 40,5 ; Neand. vi. 263. ii. 134. Auct. Incert. says that he pro-
'' Schlosser, 393. mised to make no innovations as to re-
' Auctor Incertus (i. e. an anonymous ligion (431). It is said that when the
continuator of Theophanes) in vol. ix. patriarch at the coronation touched the
of the Byjcantine historians, ed. Paris, head of Leo, his hands were wounded
p. 4"9. Vita Nicephori, 30 (Patrol. Gr. by the emperor's hair, wliich felt like
c.) ; Georgius Monachus, de Leone, i. 3. thorns or thistles — an awful omen of
'' Cedren. 49tt. what was to follow. Const. Porph. i. 18.
"' Const. I'orphyrog. i. 17 ; \'ita
^sAi-.l. A.D.S13-4. DISCUSSION AS TO IMAGES.
265
in case of his acting otherwise." The words produced their effect
on Leo ; and he was further influenced by a comparison between
the prosperous reigns of the iconoclastic emperors and the mis-
fortunes of those who had followed an opposite policy." He
resolved to take the Isaurian Leo and his son for his examples ;
but, before proceeding to action, he wished to assure himself as to
the grounds of his cause. He therefore desired Antony, bishop of
Sylseum in Pamphylia, John " the Grammarian," and other eccle-
siastics, to abridge for his information the acts of Constantine's
iconoclastic synod,^ and to collect authorities from the fathers
against the adoration of images.^i He then opened the matter to
Nicephorus, urging that the disasters of the empire were popu-
larly ascribed to the worship of images— an assertion which ought
perhaps to be taken as representing the feeling of the soldiery
.alone ; and he proposed that such as were placed low ' and within
reach should be removed." The patriarch refused his consent ; on
which the emperor asked him to produce any scriptural warrant in
favour of images.' Nicephorus replied that the worship of these,
like many other unwritten things, was matter of apostolical tradi-
tion, and had been taught to the church by the Holy Ghost ; that
it would be as reasonable to ask for scriptural proof in favour of
reverencing the cross or the gospels. And, on being desu-ed to
argue the question with Antony and John, or to refute the autho-
rities which they had produced against his views, he declined, on
the ground that he must have nothing to do with heretics."
Nicephorus and his partisans — clergy, monks, and laity — now
held nightly meetings in the cathedral, where they engaged in
prayer for the frustration of the emperor's designs, and bound
themselves to stand by the cause of images even to the death."
On hearing of these assemblies, Leo in the dead of night sent for
the patriarch, and the question was discussed at great length.^
Nicephorus repeated his declaration as to the unlawfulness of
" Const. Porph. i. 15-6; Cedren, 486- had been accustomed to evade these;
9 ; Hard. iv. 1045 ; Walch, x. 593 ; but that he asked for a New Testament
Schlosser, 405-6. The accounts of these precept, x. 696.
prophecies vary greatly. Walch is in- " Auct. Inc. 437 ; Schlosser, 407.
clined to reject the whole story, x. 624, Nicephorus wrote a chronicle which has
(562-4. " often been cited in the preceding pages.
o Auct. Inc. 415. His Life and remains (which include
I' See p. 98. discourses of great length in favour of
'1 Auct. Inc. 436 ; Schlosser, 406-T. images) are in the Patrol. Gr., vol. c.
■• TO. xaM^a. See Neand. vi. 265. See also vol. i. of the ' Spicilegium Soles-
s Auct. Inc. 437. meuse.'
' Walch remarks that Leo did not " Auct. Inc. 439 ; Walch, x. 672-3.
tyke his stand on the Old Testament '■ Auct. Inc. 438 ; Vita Niceph. 37-53.
prohibitions, as the partisans of images
266 THEODORE THE STUDITE. Book 1V.«
holding conference with heretics/ and, after a time, asked leave to
introduce his friends, who had accompanied him to the palace,
and, during his conference with the emperor, had been waiting
without the gates.'' Of these the most prominent was Theodore,
a priest, and abbot of a monastery in the capital, which had been
founded by Studius, a noble Roman, and was better known by a name
derived from his than by that of its patron, St. John the Baptist.^
Theodore was a nephew of the abbot Plato, who had excom-
municated Constantine VI. on account of his second marriage,*'
and had vehemently opposed Tarasius for his compliance with the
emperor's will in that affair. Theodore himself had taken part
with his uncle ; he had endured exile and other severities
■ in punishment of his contumacy, and had incurred fresh
penalties under the reign of Nicephorus, when some questions
connected with Constantine's marriage were revived.'^
Under his care, the Studite community had increased
the number of its members from about twelve to nearly a thousand ;
the strictness of its discipline had acquired for it an eminence above
all other Greek monasteries ; '^ and the abbot's character and suffer-
ings had won for him an influence which made him important even
in the eyes of the sovereign. Theodore took up the cause of
imajres with all his characteristic zeal. There were, indeed,
among its partisans some extravagances so violent that he felt
himself obliged to reject and censure them -^ but he himself went so
far as to eulogise a high official for employing an image as sponsor
for a child.^ He held that images were not for the unlearned
only, but were necessary for the most advanced Christian ; '' that a
^ See Baron. 814. 9 ; Neand. v. 268-9. 808-9 ; Walch, x. 659.
■» Vita Niceph. 54-5. « Vita, 14, 28, seqq.
b For Theodore the Studite, see * Thus, one of his letters (i. 15) is
Schrockh, xxiii. 105. His i-emains, with addressed to a stylite who had painted
a Life by his disciple Michael, form the angels crucified, and the Saviour and
v"' volume of Sirmond's ' Opera Varia,' angels as in old age. He finds it neces-
Venet. 1728, and are more fully given sary to lay down repeatedly that the
in the Patrol. Gr. vol. xcix. worship to be paid to images is not pro-
>= Vita Theod. c. 20. See pp. 158-9. perly ?((i;Y''i(c, but ?T?rt^ii'e (o-xeTi/crj), and
G. Hamartolus says that Theodote, the that any other is idolatrous (Epp. ii. 85,
second wife of Constantine, was related 151, ICl, 167, 212); and he ends his
to Theodore (cclvii. 14). There is a curi- first dialogue (Antirrheticus, i. p. 83) by
ous letter by Theodore, written towards declaring, " If any one, carrying to ex-
the end of his life, in which he explains cess the reverence of Christ's image, say
why Constantine might be stigmatised that he does not approach it, and would
as a Ilcrod, on account of his marriage, get no benefit from it, unless he were
and yet might be commemorated as an first cleansed from all sin, he is without
orthodox emperor. Ep. ii. 218. reason" (0X0709— a variation from the
■i Vita, 22, 43-5 ; Theod. Laudatio preceding denunciations, of which each
Platonis, 31, 35 ; Ep. i. 21, 28 ; Narratio ends — " he is a heretic ").
de Schismate Studitarum (Patrol. Gr. s Ep. i. 17.
xcix.); Cedren. 477-8; Barou. 795-6, '' Ep. ii. 171.
Chap. I. a.d. 814.' CONFERENCE ON IMAGES.
267
reverence for them was necessary in order to a right faith in the
Incarnation. If images were suppressed, he said, " our preaching
is vain, and your faith is also vain."'
On being admitted into the emperor's presence, Theodore
entered on the subject of images with great vehemence."^ He
reproached Leo for innovating in matters of religion, and re-
minded him of the fate which had befallen emperors who had
been enemies of the faith. The Old Testament prohibitions of
images, he said, are abolished by the Incarnation : if the law of
Moses were to be regarded, how is it we worship the cross, which
the law speaks of as accursed ?— and he urged the other usual
topics of his party. The emperor told him that his insolence was
notorious, but that, if he wished for the glory of martyrdom, he
would be disappointed."' Theodore rejoined that the imperial
power was limited to external matters ; that, according to St.
Paul, God had " set in the church first apostles, then prophets,
and afterwards teachers," but that nothing was said of emperors ;
that the emperor was bound to obey in matters of religion, and not
to usurp the office of others." " Do you exclude me from the
church?" asked Leo. "It is not I," the monk replied, "but the
Apostle ; nay rather, it is you who by your deeds have excluded
yourself." The emperor desired that Antony of Sylseum might
be released from the excommunication which Nicephorus had pro-
nounced against him ; but this was refused, and at length Leo in
anger dismissed the patriarch and his party. On leaving the palace
Theodore was enthusiastically kissed by his companions, and was
ffreeted with demonstrations of the warmest admiration on account
of the stand which he had made."
Leo now desired the friends of images to give up their meet-
ings, to remain quietly at home, and to refrain from discussing the
subjects which were in question ; and he required them to bind
themselves by a written promise of obedience. Some complied ;
but, before Nicephorus had signified his intentions, Theodore sent
forth a violent circular addressed to all the monks of the empire,^
censuring the patriarch for his neglect to take more decided mea-
sures against the emperor, and threatening with eternal punishment
all who should desert the cause of images. He kept up a lively
agitation by means of letters, visits, and conversations,^! and vehe-
mently asserted the cause of images, in verse as well as in prose.
' Vita, 64 (1 Cor. xv. 14). " lb. 74 ; G. Hamart. cclxii. 9.
•' His speech is in the Life, 65-72. " Vita, 75. p Ep. ii. 2.
"> Vita, 73. '' Vita, 76; Schlosser, 411-2.
268 DEPRIVATION OF NICKPHORUS. '<""« 1^.
The chief of his productions are three tracts which bear the title
of " Antirrhetics " — the first two in the form of dialogue between
an orthodox man and a heretic ; the third, consisting of the icono-
clastic objections with a triumphant answer to each of them.
The emperor's opposition to images was not extreme. He did
not wish to destroy them, or even to remove such as might be
retained without superstition; nor did he desire to disturb the
convictions of those who were attached to them, if they would
consent to extend a like toleration to others.' But the vehemence
of Theodore and his party, who regarded the worship of images as.
an inseparable consequence of a right faith in the Incarnation,
provoked Leo to measures of great severity. The soldiery, without
waiting for a legal warrant (yet perhaps incited by the emperor,
as his enemies asserted), broke out into tumult, and
Dec. 814. ^,j^jg|^gjj ^Q ^l^g brazen gate, where the image of "the
Surety," so famous in an earlier stage of the controversy,' had
been reinstated by Irene. They uttered much abusive language,
and pelted the figure with dirt and stones ; whereupon the
emperor removed it, under the pretence of rescuing it from such
indignities, and issued a commission for taking down images in
general, wherever it could be done with safety.' Images were
broken, burnt, or bedaubed with clay and filth." Many refractory
bishops, abbots, and others, were ejected and banished ; among
the sufferers was the chronicler Theophanes, who died in the
island of Samothrace.''
At Christmas 814, the emperor went in state to St. Sophia's,
having previously satisfied Nicephorus that no disorder was to
be apprehended by drawing a picture from his bosom and kissing
it. He advanced to the altar, and kissed the altar-cloth, which
was embroidered with a representation of the Nativity.^ But
when, in the course of the service, a denunciation of idolatry was
read from Isaiah,'' one of the clergy stept forth, and, addressing
the emperor, told him that God, by the prophet's words, com-
manded him to proceed firmly in his measures for the suppression
of image-worship."
>■ Walch, X. 694 ; Neand. v. 270-5 ; had done it out of custom, and refrained
Finlay, ii. 'l39- ' on finding that his act was misconstrued,
s See p'. 90. x- 675. '■ C xl. 18, seqq.
' Auct.'incert. 438 ; Schlosser, 412. " See the various accounts in Walch,
" Vita Theod. 77. x. 605. Cedrenus (490) places the scene
" Cedreu. 489; Baron. 816. 1-4; in the patriarchate of Tlieodotus ; some
Schlosser, 4 1 1 . ' say that Theodolus was himself the
y Auct'. Incert. 439 ; Schlosser, 412-3. speaker (as Const. Porph. i. 20) ; others
He omitted this when he next attended name John the Grammarian. Walcli, x.
the cathedral. Walch supposes that he 618, 628.
Chap. I. a.d. 814-820. THEODORE IN BANISHMENT. 269
Nicephorus fell seriously ill, and it was hoped that his death
would spare the emperor the necessity of proceeding against him.
But he recovered, and, as all attempts to treat with him were
fruitless, he was deprived, and was shut up in a monastery, where
he lived fourteen years longer.^ John the Grammarian was pro-
posed as his successor, but was rejected as wanting in birth and in
age ;" and the patriarchate was bestowed on Theodotus
Cassiteras, a layman connected with the family of the
Isaurian emperors, and the supposed prompter of the monk by
whose prophecies Leo had been induced to attempt the suppression
of image-worship/' Theodotus, who is described by his opponents
as " a man without reason, more dumb than the fishes, and ignorant
of everything but impiety,"*' gave great offence to the monastic
party by his free and secular habits of life.^ He assembled a
synod, which confirmed the judgments of the iconoclastic council of
754, and annulled those of the second Nicene council/ The most
eminent abbots had been summoned to take part in the assembly ;
but Theodore in their name sent a refusal in his usual vehement
strain, condenming all who should attend, and declaring that he
would not share in oi- regard any measures which might be taken
without the consent of- the lawful patriarch Nicephorus.'^ In defi-
ance of the imperial order against the public exhibition of images,
he caused his monks on Palm Sunday to carry in solemn procession
all those which belonged to the monastery, and to chant a hymn
which began with the words, "We adore thine undefiled image."'
The emperor, greatly provoked by this daring contumacy, sent
Theodore into banishment, where he remained for seven years."^
He was removed from one place to another ; he was often cruelly
scourged, even to the danger of his life ; his wounds were undressed,
nor, when he fell seriously ill, could he obtain any attendance or
relief;"" he suffered from want of food; he was imprisoned for
three years in a loathsome subterranean dungeon, and was often
threatened with death." But his resolution rose with the severity
of his treatment. He declared that he would bear whatever might
be inflicted on him, but that nothing should reduce him to silence."
He found means of writing and of circulating letters which sus-
•> Vita Niceph. 59, seqq. ; Auct. « Syui. Magist. de Leone, 6 ; G. Ha-
Incert. 440-1 ; Schlosser, 414-5. It is mart, clxii. 2.
uncertain whether his deprivation was ' Vita Niceph. 73; Auct. Incert. 441 ;
sanctioned by a council. Walch, x. Schrockh, xxiii. 362-3.
G7!), 686. s Vita Nic. 73 ; Walch, x. 691-3.
<^ Auct. Incert. 441. ^ Vita Theod. 79-SO.
d SymeonMagist.de Leone, 3; Walch, * lb. 78. ^ lb. 81-102.
X. 655. '" lb. 93. " lb. 9;)-3. " lb. 83.
270 MURDER OF LEO. I''^^ IV.
tained the determination of his party ; he denounced the emperor
as a Pharaoh and a Nebuchadnezzar, an enemy of the Saviour
and of His vir^rin mother ; and the increased punishment which he
drew on himself by each offence served only to stimulate him to
greater violence.^ He wrote to the bishop of Rome, to the three
eastern patriarchs, and to the heads of some important monasteries,
representing the oppressions of the church in the most moving
terms, and earnestly praying for sympathy.'^
Paschal, who had just been raised to the papacy, refused to
admit the imperial envoys into Rome, sent legates to inter-
^■^" ^^^' cede with Leo for the friends of images, and, in token of
the interest which he took in them, built a monastery for Greek
refuo-ees, to whom he assigned the new church of St. Praxedis for
the performance of service in their own language.'" The clergy
of the party sought ordination in Italy ; the laity, instigated by
Theodore's teaching, refused religious offices at the hands of the
iconoclastic clergy.* Leo was more and more exasperated. The
worshippers of images were scourged, banished, mutilated, blinded,
or put to death ; it was ordered that all pictures should be white-
washed, or taken down and burnt ; spies were employed to discover
all who possessed either images or books in defence of them, all
who should venture to shelter a fugitive or to relieve a prisoner of
the party. All hymns in honour of images were expunged from
the liturgy, and care was taken to instil an abhorrence of images
into children by means of their school-books.'
Michael " the Stammerer," a general to whom Leo had been
indebted for his throne, at length became discontented, and was
convicted, by his own confession, of treasonable designs, on the
eve of Christmas, 820. He was condemned to death, and Leo
would have ordered the execution of the sentence to take place
immediately, but for the intercession of his empress, who entreated
him to defer it until after the festival. The emperor agreed, but,
with a melancholy foreboding, told her that her pious scruples
would cost her and her children dear." Michael was confined in
the palace, and Leo, anxious to assure himself, went in the middle
of the night to look whether the prisoner were safe. He found
V Epp. passim; Schlosser, 418-423. " Const. Porph. i. 21. It is said that
(, Epp. ii. 12-17. Leo was about to throw him into the
■■ Auastas. 215; Baron. 818. 14-17; furnace used for heating the baths of
Schlosser, 421-3. the palace (Sym. Mag. de Leone, 7;
» Epp. ii. 215, p. 583 ; Neaud. V. 276. Cedrenus, 492)— " a tale," says Mr.
t Sym. Mag. de Leone, 6; Vita Ni- Finlay, "fitter for the legends of the
ctph. 79 ; Schlosser, 423; Schrockh, saints than for the history of the em-
xxiii. 364 ; Neand. v. 278-9. pire." ii. 148.
Chai'. 1. A.D. 820-1. MICHAEL THE STAMMERER,
271
both him and the officer who guarded him asleep ; but the keeper
had resigned his bed to the criminal, and was lying on the floor.
A slave, who was in the room unobserved, had recognised the
emperor by his purple buskins, and, on his withdrawal, aroused
the sleepers. The officer, knowing that the indulgence which he
had shown to his prisoner must render himself suspected as an
accomplice, concerted with Michael a plan for instant action.
Under pretence that a confessor was required, he introduced into
the palace one of Michael's partisans, who, on going out, commu-
nicated with others. It was the custom to celebrate the earliest
service of Christmas-day at three o'clock in the morning ; the
" ivory gate " of the palace was opened to admit the clergy and
singers, and among them a band of disguised conspirators entered.
These attacked the chief chaplain, supposing him to be the
emperor, who usually led the psalmody on such occasions ; but
the priest escaped by uncovering his tonsured head. They then
fell on Leo, who for a time defended himself by swinging the chain
of a censer, and then, seizing a large cross from the altar, dealt
heavy blows around him, until a conspirator of gigantic size dis-
abled him by a stroke which cut off his right hand. On this, the
emperor was immediately despatched; his head was cut off, and
his body was dragged into the circus. Michael, before a smith
could be found to release him from his chains, was hastily enthroned,
and, on the same day, was crowned in the cathedral.''
The friends of images now flattered themselves that Leo's policy
would be reversed. The deposed patriarch Nicephorus wrote to
request that the emperor would restore the images ; ^ while
Theodore the Studite warmly congratulated Michael on his acces-
sion,'' and celebrated the murder of Leo with ferocious exultation.
" It was right," he said, " that the apostate should thus end his
life. It was fitting that in the night death should overtake the son
of darkness. It was fitting that he who had desolated the temples
of God should see swords bared against himself in God's temple.
It was fitting that he should find no shelter from the altar who
had destroyed the altar itself, and that that hand should be cut off
which had been stretched forth against the holy things. It was
fitting that a sw^ord should pierce through the throat which had
vomited forth blasphemies." After exercising his rhetoric in this
style through other points of congruity, Theodore adds, in words
'^ Const. Porph. i. 24-5 ; ii. 2 ; Cedren. y Const. Porph. ii. 8 ; Walch, x. 70C.
494-6 ; Gibbon, iv. 418 ; Schlosser, 427- ^ Ep. ii. 74.
4.31.
272 MICHAEL THE STAMMEREIt. B'x^'k IV.
which it is possible that he may have liimself believed—" I do not
mock at the manner of liis death, as rejoicing in the fate of the
impious man, but I speak in sorrow and with tears. It is because,
as He hath said who cannot lie, that wicked man hath lieen
miserably destroyed ;" '' and he goes on to express his hope that a
new Josiah or Jovian may arise for the restoration of images and
of religion.''
Michael recalled those who had been banished for their attach-
ment to images, and the return of Theodore 'was celebrated by a
sort of public triumph.*^ But the hopes which had been rashly
entertained were soon disappointed. The emperor, a Phrygian by
birth, was a rude soldier ; it is said that he could hardly read.
His enemies assert that his highest accomplishments consisted in a
knowledge of horses, asses, and pigs ; and to this it is added, that
in early life he had been connected with a strange sect which mixed
up Jewish tenets with those of the Athingani or Paulicians — that
he still retained its errors, that he denied our Lord's resurrection
and the existence of the devil."^ The joy of the monastic party
was effectually checked when the noted iconomachist Antony of
Sylseum was raised in 821 to the patriarchate of Constantinople.^
Michael declared that he himself had never worshipped any
image ; * he forbade all changes in religion, and all preaching on
either side of the question. Both the friends and the opponents
of images were to enjoy full liberty of opinion ; but no public
worship of images was to be allowed in the capital.^ Thus
Theodore and his friends found that, instead of the ascendency
which they had expected, they were only to enjoy toleration —
and that of a kind which was equal only in name, inasmuch as,
while the opposite party lost nothing, the devotees of images
were restrained from the open exercise of the worship which they
regarded as essential. They once more refused to confer with
their opponents, on the ground that it was unlawful to do so.''
Theodore repeated to Michael the declaration which he had made
to Leo, that earthly princes have no right to intermeddle with
matters of religion. He desired the emperor to restore Nicephorus
to the patriarchal throne, or, if he felt any doubt or distrust, to
* Matth. xxi. 41. 496-9. See Fleiiry, xliv. 44 ; Walch, x.
>> Ep. ii. 73. There are other scanda- 629, 706 ; Schrockh, xxiii. .381 ; Neand.
lous passages of the same kind in Epp. vi. 280.
77 and 80 ; and an extraordinary ac- <= Schlosser, 460.
cumulation of epithets against Leo in ' Vita Theodor. 118.
Ep. 75. fc' Const. Porph. ii. 8 ; Ccdreo. 499 ;
<■ Vita, 102, 115. Schlosser, 433, 458.
'' Const. Torph. ii. 3-4, 8; Cedren. '' Theod. Ep. ii. 86.
Chap. I. a.d. 821-9. DEATH OF THEODORE. 273
follow the tradition of the fathers by referring the matter to the
bishop of. Rome, as the inheritor of the Saviour's promise to
St Peter.' He met Michael's endeavours at a reconciliation
between the parties by labouring to separate the church from the
state.'' He wrote to Marina, the divorced wife of Constantine VI.,
whose daughter Michael had taken from a convent to become his
second wife,"* charging her to leave the palace and her daughter's
company, because the sword spoken of in the Gospel was now^ come
to set the nearest kindred at variance among themselves.'' Michael
was provoked by the intractable behaviour of Theodore
and his followers to abandon his principle of toleration,
and to employ harsh measures against them. The Studite was once
more banished, and died in exile at the age of sixty-nine.°
As the adherents of images relied much on the support of Rome,
the emperor in 824 sent a legation to pope Paschal, with a view
of endeavouring to dissuade him from harbouring refugees of the
party. At the same time, he sent ambassadors to Louis the Pious,
with a letter in which he announced his accession, and his late
victory over a rival, named Thomas, who had pretended to be the
deposed Constantine, and for three years had contested the posses-
sion of the empire.P In this letter Michael clears his faith and
his conduct in ecclesiastical matters from misrepresentations which
had reached the west, and entreats the Frank emperor to aid hira
by the influence which, as lord of Rome, he could exercise over the
pope,'^ and in justification of his proceedings he gives some curious
statements of the excess to which the superstition as to images
was carried. The cross was turned out of churches, and images
were substituted for it ; lights and incense were offered to them,
hymns and prayers were addressed to them. They were employed
as sponsors for children ; and novices entering into the monastic
state, instead of asking religious persons to receive their hair when
cut oft", allowed it to fall into the lap of images. Some of the
clergy, in contempt of the public churches, celebrated the Eucharist
in houses, using pictures for altars. Some scraped oflp the colours
of images, mixed them with the sacramental elements, and admi-
nistered the mixture to communicants ; while others placed the
Mbid. ; Schrockh, xxiii. 382. " Ep. ii. 121; Pagi, xiv. 31;
^ Schlosser, 459. Schiockh, xxiii. 382-5.
m Const. Poi-ph. ii. 24. p Const. Porph. ii. 10 ; Schlosser,
» (Matth. X. .34-6). Ep. ii. 181. Baro- 461-3.
nius supposes the letter addressed to i The letter is in Goldast, ' Tmperialia
the mother-in-law of Leo (816. 23). Decreta,' 611, seqq. ; and in Barouius,
But Pagi corrects him, and shows that 824. 18, seqq.
it was not written until 824, xiii. 561.
274 GREEK EMBASSY TO THE WEST. Book IV.
consecrated bread in the hands of the images, and from these the
communicants received it/ The effect of this embassy fell short of
Michael's expectation ; but we shall see that it was not unimportant
in the history of the western church.
Michael was succeeded in 829 by his son Theophilus. The
young emperor had been carefully educated under John the
Grammarian. He was a friend of literature, arts, and science ; he
composed hymns and church-music, and himself led the choir in
Divine service.^ He prided himself on a strict administration of
justice, which sometimes became an absurd or cruel pedantry ; and
his attempts in war against the Saracens resulted in fruitless displays
of courage and waste of blood, which gained for him the epithet of
" the Unlucky." ' From the lessons of John he had derived a strong
abhorrence of images, and he carried out his views with relentless
determination.*^
The first measure of Theophilus against images was an order,
issued on the occasion of a general taxation, that the opinions of
every person on the question should be ascertained.'' He then, in
832, commanded that images should not be reverenced in any way,
and that they should not be styled holy, forasmuch as God alone is
holy.^ In the same year, on the death of Antony, he bestowed tl;e
patriarchate on his tutor, John,^ who soon after held a synod at
which the decrees of the second Nicene council were condemned.^
The emperor then ordered that pictures of animals and
other common subjects should be substituted in churches
for those of a religious kind ; and he proceeded, with great severity,
to enforce obedience. A general burning of religious pictures and
statues took place. Many of the image party were imprisoned or
banished. Monasteries were to be applied to secular uses ; monks
were forbidden to wear their habit ; such of them as had lived in
rural monasteries were not to be admitted into towns ; and those
who painted images were especially prohibited to exercise their art.''
The zealous party among the monks, on their side, were as resolute
■■ Mich. ap. Baron. 824. 16. ing bymeaus of a bason (for which prac-
' Cedren. 522 ; Schlosser, 4G9. tice see Hippolytus adv. Haeres. iv. 35).
* Const. Porph. iii. 2-4, 37, 41 ; G. He is also called by the name of the
Hamart. cclxiv. 6 ; Cedren. 513-4 ; Egyptian magician Jannes. (2 Tim. iii.
Gibbon, iv. 420 ; Finlay, ii. 170-3. 8.) G. Hamart. cclxiv. 1.5-17; Const.
" Cedren. 536 ; Schlosser, 517. Porph. iii. 26 ; iv. 7, 8. Sym. Mag. de
"^ Baron. 830. 2. Theoph. 12; de Michaele, 2; Cedren.
y Cedren. 518 ; Schlosser, 519. These 536. The frequent mention ofdivina-
orders had before been given by Leo tion by the Byzantine historians is re-
and Michael. Const. Porph. iii. 10. markable.
^ Pagi, xiv. 175, 214. John is styled " Schlosser, 519.
AfKavofxavris by the opposite party, on ^ Const. Porph. iii. 10; Cedren. 518.
account of an alleged practice of divin-
Chap. 1. a.d. 829 833.
THEOPHILUS. 275
as the emperor. Many of them went to him, and told him to his
face that he was accursed for interfering with a worship which was
derived from St. Luke, from the Apostles, and from the Saviour him-
self'= A monastic artist, nam-ed Lazarus, persisted in painting, not-
withstanding repeated admonitions. He was cruelly beaten ; but,
as soon as he had recovered in some degree, he boldly resumed his
occupation. For this defiance of the law, he was again arrested;
by way of disabling him, his hands were seared with hot plates of
iron ; and it was with difficulty that his life was saved through the
intercession of the empress Theodora. Yet no suffering or danger
could subdue the zealous painter, who, on being set at liberty, took
refuge in a church of St. John the Baptist, and 'there produced a
picture which speedily acquired the reputation of miraculous power.''
Two other monks, the poet Theophanes and his brother Theodore,
were summoned to the emperor's presence. Theophilus, who was
fond of displaying his learning and ability in disputation, was pro-
voked at finding that the monks did not yield with the same facility
to which he had been accustomed in his courtiers. He ordered
that each of them should receive two hundred lashes, and should
afterwards be branded on the forehead with twelve iambic verses
of the emperor's own composition f " If the lines are bad," he said,
"they. deserve no better." Yet, notwithstanding these and many
other severities, it does not appear that any persons suffered death
in this reign "on account of an attachment to images.^
But within the emperor's immediate circle the worship of
images was secretly practised. In the beginning of his reign, his
stepmother, Euphrosyne, the daughter of Constantine VI. by his
Armenian empress,^ had caused the noblest maidens of the empire
to be assembled in order that Theophilus might select a consort
from among them. Struck with the beauty of Icasia, he was about
to bestow on her the golden apple, which was the symbol of his
choice, when he paused for a moment, and said, as if unconsciously
uttering his thought — " Of how much evil have women been the
cause ! " Icasia at once answered the reference to Eve with an
'^ Const. Porph. iii. 11 ; Cedren. 519. is certain.
•1 Cedi-en, 5:>0 ; Baron. 832. 5. f Giesel. II. i. 11. Schlosser (517,
= G. Hamart. cclxvi. ; Const. Porph. 524), Mr. Fiulay (ii. 178), and Dean
iii. 14. Sym. Mag. de Theoph. 22; Milman (ii. 136) agree in denying that
Cedren. 520-1 ; Baron. 835. 35. It does there is any authority for Gibbon's
not seem impossible (as some writers statement (jv. 494) as to the extreme
have supposed) to find room for the cruelty of the punishments inflicted by
verses on the tonsured heads of the Theophilus.
monks, if a small letter were used. This e Theophilus afterwards sent Eu-
difficulty is not raised by the ancient phrosyne back to her nunnery. Cedren.
authorities; and, at least, the branding 514.
T 2
276 , THEOPHILUS. • Book IV
allusion to the Redemption — " Yes ; and of how much greater
good ! " But the emperor took alarm at this excessive readiness
of repartee ; he gave the apple to Theodora, a candidate of less
brilliant and more domestic character ; and Icasia sought consola-
tion in founding a monastery, where she lived for the cultivation
of learning.^ Theodora had been brought up in the worship of
images. Her mother,'- who was devoted to them, secretly kept
a number of them, and, when the emperor's children visited her,
she used to bring forth the images, and offer them to be kissed. .
Theophilus, by questioning the children, discovered that their
grandmother was in the habit of amusing them with what they
styled dolls. He strictly forbade them to visit her again, and she
had difficulty in escaping punishment, although she continued to
reprove the emperor very freely for his measures.'' Theodora her-
self was detected in paying reverence to images by a dwarf, who
was kept about the court as a jester. On hearing his tale,'
Theophilus rushed in a fury to the empress's apartment ; but the
images were not to be found, and the dwarf was silenced for the
future by a whipping."^
Theophilus died in January, 842. Fearing, in his last sick-
ness, for the empire which he was about to leave to women and
young children, he endeavoured to secure it by the death of his
brother-in-law, Theophobus, a descendant of the Persian kings,
who had distinguished hims(jlf by military services. The head of
Theophobus was cut off in prison, and was carried to the emperor ;
and, with his hand on it, he expired." .
It is said that Theophilus, with a view to the continuance of his
ecclesiastical policy, had bound Theodora and the senate by oath to
make no change as to religion." The guardians of his son Michael,
however, were either favourable to images or capable of being
gained to the cause.i" The only seeming exception was Manuel,
uncle of the empress. But in a dangerous sickness he was visited
by some Studite monks, who promised him life if he would swear
to undertake the restoration of images;"^ and Manuel, on his
recovery, joined with the other ministers in laying the subject
" h G. Hamart. cclxiv. 2 ; Sym. Magist. Const. Porph. iii. 19-20. The writer
de Theophil. i ; Zonaras, ap. Baron, cited under that name (iii. 38) and Ced-
t. xiv. 151 ; Gibbon, iv. 421. renus (533) say that, according to some,
' See Const. Porph. iii. 5 ; Cedrcn. he was put to death by au oiEcer with-
545 ; Walch, x. 520. out orders.
^ Const. Porpli. iii. 5 ; Cedren. 515-G. " Cedren. 528, 533 ; Walch, x. 720.
" Const. Porph. i. 6 ; Sym. Mag. de p Schlosser, 544-5.
Theoph. 7; Cedren, 51G. ' i Const. Porph. iv. 1. See Walch,
" For the history of Theophobus, see x. 760.
CiiAP. I. A.D. 833-S-12. FINAL ESTABLISHMENT OF IMAGES.
277
before Theodora, who said that her own wishes had long been in
the same direction, but that she had felt herself restrained by her
engagements to Theophilus/ The revolution was speedily begun.
The patriarch John was' ejected, not without personal violence,^
and Methodius, who had been a confessor under the last reign,*^
was put into his place. A- synod, to which those who were known
as resolute iconomachists were* not invited, pronounced in favour
of images ; but the empress still hesitated, and entreated the
assembled clergy to intercede for the forgiveness of her husband's
sins.. Methodius replied that they could only intercede for those
who were yet on earth ; that, if Theophilus had died in his error,
his • case was beyond the power of the church. Thus urged,
Theodora ventured on the fiction (which she is said to have even
confirmed with an oath) that the emperor, before his death, had
expressed repentance for his measures; that he had asked for
some imasres, and had kissed them with ardent devotion ; where-
upon the patriarch assured her that, if it were so, he would
answer for her husband's salvation." There was now no further
hindrance to the restoration of images. Those of the capital were
re-established with great solemnity on the first Sunday in Lent'' —
a day which was styled the Feast of Orthodoxy, and has ever since
been celebrated by the Greeks under that name, although with
a wider application of the term.^ The bodies of Nicephorus,
Theodore the Studite, and other eminent friends of images, who
had died in exile, were translated to the capital." The sees were
filled with members of the triumphant party, and among them was
the branded monk Theophanes, who obtained the bishoprick of
Nicsea.'' The empress, at a banquet, expressed to him her regret
for the cruelty with which her husband had treated him. " Yes,"
said Theophanes, "for this I will call him to account at the
■■ Cedren. 535 ; Walch, x. 787, 790. rally placed in 842 ; but, as in that
^ For the tricks imputed to John— year Theophilus died on Jan. 20, and
-wounding himself, and pretending that the first Sunday of Lent was Feb. 20,
his enemies had assaulted him, &c., see Walch says that the solemnity must be
Const. Porph. iv. 3 ; Cedren. 535 ; put off to 843. x. 743. See Pagi, xiv.
Walch, X. 771. Symeou says that, in 267.
the monastery where he was shut up y Const. Porph. iv. 10 ; Walch, x.
after his deposition, he put out the eyes 804-8.
of an image, and that the empress, on ^ Walch, x. 780.
being informed of this, ordered his own "^ Symeon Magister tells us that some
eyes to be put out. De Mich. 4. objected to him as being a Syrian, and
' Sym. Mag. de Theoph. 24 ; Vita without any warrant of his orthodoxy ;
Method. 7-9 (Patrol. Gr. c.) ; Cedren. butthat Methodius, pointing to the verses
521-2. on his forehead, said, " I could wish for
'•^ Const. Porph. iv. 6 ; Schlosser, no better warrant than this.'' De
548-552. Theoph. 23.
^ Const. Porph. iv. 6. This is gene-
27S IMAGES IN THE FRANKISH CHURCH. Book IV.
righteous judgment -seat of God ! " Theodora was struck with
horror ; but the patriarch Methodius reassured her by blaming the
vehemence of his brother, and by repeating his declaration that
Theophilus was safe.^
The worship of images — although only in the form of painting",
not of sculpture*^ — has ever since been retained by the Greeks,
The opposition to it had not proceeded from the people, but from
the will of the emperors ; and when the imperial authority was
steadily exerted in favour of images, the iconomachist party be-
came, not indeed immediately,'' but within no long time, extinct.®
III. The opinion of the Frankish church as to images had con-
tinued in accordance with the council of Frankfort, when the
embassy from the Greek emperor Michael,^ in 824, led to a fresh
examination of the question. Louis had such confidence in the
correctness of the Frankish view as to hope that, if care were taken
to avoid all cause of irritation, even the pope himself might be
brought to agree in it. He therefore, after having received the
Greek ambassadors, sent some envoys of his own to Rome in their
company, with a request that Eugenius, who had just succeeded
Paschal, would allow the clergy of Gaul to collect the opinions of
the fathers on the subject.^ Having, by this show of deference to
the pope, guarded against offence in the outset, Louis summoned
an assembly which met at Paris in 82 5.^' The bishops drew up
a collection of authorities, which they forwarded to the emperor,
with a letter in which they censure both the extreme parties
among the Greeks, They distinguish, as the Caroline Books had
done, between paying reverence to the cross and to images,' and
b Const. Porph. iv. 11; CecTren. 539. and to his own commissioners are in
There is a similar story as to the re- Hardouin, but Mausi is the only editor
sentment of the painter Lazarus. Const, of the Councils who includes this. Most
Porph. iii. 13. of the documents are given by Baronius
•= The Greeks have a saying that it (824-5), and the whole by Goldast (626,
is unlawful to worship any image whose seqq.) : as also in the ' Patrologia,' xcviii.
nose may be laid hold of with two 1293, seqq.; civ. 1317, seqq. On the
fingers. (Ansaldus, * De sacro et publico attempts of Romanists to suppress them,
pictarum tabularum cultu,' 10, Venet. or to deny their genuineness, see Walch,
1,753). Some Romanists attack the in- xi. 96; Schrockh, xxiii. 406. Baronius
consistency of the Greeks even more contents himself with abusing the anony-
than the entire opposition of Protes- mous first editor — " Arguendus est iste
tauts. Schrockh, xxiii. 394. feeeAugusti, filius esse tenebrarum, qui tenebricosnm
xii. 234. opus, perpetuis tenebris dignum a majo-
•1 See below, c. iii. ; Walch,- x. 818. ribus habitum, et abditum, obscuritate
^ Giesel. II. i. 12 ; Neand. vi. 287 ; nominis, et loci uude pi'odierit, totum
Milinan, ii. 139. densa effusum caligine in odium et in-
f See p. 273. vidiam Catholici nominis sparserit," &c.
s Einhard, A.d. 824; Baron. 824. 31. 825. 2.
h The letters of Louis to Eugenius ' Goldast, C83.
Chap. I. a.d. 824-5. IMAGES IN THE FRxVNKISH CHURCH. 279
declare the opinion of the fathers to be, that images are not to be
worshipped or adored, but are to be used for loving remembrance
of the originals. They strongly censure Pope Adrian's manner
of answering the Caroline Books ; but they charitably suggest that
his reference to his predecessor Gregory the Great, in behalf of
opinions widely diMerent from those which that father really held,
proves his error to have been not wilful, but committed in
ignorance.'^ They congratulate Louis on the prospect which the
Greek application affords him of being able to mediate between
the opposite parties, to convince the pope himself, and to bring
both to an agreement in the truth.™ They send him a sketch of
a letter to the pope, drawn up with an extreme anxiety to avoid all
risl^ of a collision. In this document the emperor is made to extol
the position and authority of the " supreme pontiff," the " universal
pope," as having the means of reconciling the intolerant factions of
the Greeks ; " he will not presume to dictate, but only ventures on
suggestions ; he speaks of the assembly of Paris as not a synod,
but merely a conference of his friends, the children of the apostolic
father." The bishops even go so far as to draw up a letter which
the pope himself might subscribe and send to Constantinople —
forbidding all superstitions as to images on the one hand, and all
acts of contempt or outrage against them on the other.^
Two bishops, Jeremy of Sens and Jonas of Orleans, were sent
by Louis to Rome, with a letter entirely different from the draft
which the council had supplied.'i The emperor requests Eugenius
to mediate between the friends and the enemies of images, and
offers that his own envoys may accompany those whom the pope
should send to Constantinople. The instructions given to Jeremy
and Jonas ' direct them to deal very carefully with the pope. They
are not to show him any parts of the documents drawn up at Paris
which might be distasteful to him ; they are to avoid everything
which might possibly jar on the characteristic obstinacy of the
Romans,^ and thus might provoke him to some irrevocable act ;
they are to present the matter to him in such a way that, instead
of supposing the truth to be forced on him, and thence conceiving
a prejudice against it, he may imagine it to be his own discovery.
I' Bar. 825. 8. "' lb. 11. i Hard. iv. 1259. "• lb. 1260.
n Goldast, 720-1. « " Pertiuacia Eomana." Baronius
° lb. 722, This distinction (which, contends that in that age 2^ertinacia was
after all, does not appear in the letter equivalent to constantia. Very possibly ;
actually sent) is absurdly dwelt on as but only with those who were guilty of
important by Barouius (825. 1) and it, not with those who charged it on
other Romanists. See Walch, xi. 135. others. The words are directly opposed
p Goldast, 723, seqq. See Walch, xi. to each other by St. Augustine, 0, Julian.
128. iv. 20.
280 AGOBARD ON IMAGES. Book IV.
The result of this mission is but imperfectly known. It did not
induce the Romans to abandon their former views ; yet Eugenius
made no such demonstration against Louis as his predecessors
had made against the eastern emperors ; nor did he even attempt
to answer him, as Adrian had answered Charlemagne.* The
envoys whom Louis sent to the east were well received there, and,
as Michael was himself no violent iconoclast, it seems probable
that the two imperial courts agreed as to the question of images."
But the Franks were soon after engrossed by domestic troubles,
which may sufficiently account for the absence of any later commu-
nication with the Greeks on the subject of this controversy.
There were, however, some members of the Frankish church,
who carried their opposition to images beyond the views which had
been sanctioned by the councils of Frankfort and Paris.-^ Agobard,
archbishop of Lyons, whose share in the political movements of his
time has been noticed in the earlier part of this chapter, distin-
guished himself more creditably by his opposition to prevailing
superstitions — as to ordeals,^ to the expectation of miraculous
cures,^ to the excess of reverence lavished on the tombs ^ of saints,
to the belief that storms, diseases of cattle, and other rural troubles
were caused by magical art.'' Among his tracts is one ' On the
Images of Saints,' in which — provoked, as it would seem, by the
eastern emperor's report as to the extravagant superstition of the
Greeks *= — he appears altogether to disallow the use of such repre-
sentations.d He quotes largely from older writers, especially from
St. Augustine, and shows that the early church had employed
images for remembrance only, and not for any religious purpose.^
In answer to a plea frequently advanced by the advocates of
images, he maintains that visible things, even although good in
themselves, instead of aiding towards the contemplation of things
unseen and spiritual, often act as a hindrance to it.^ An image,
he says, represents the body only ; if men were to be worshipped
at all, such honour ought rather to be paid to them while alive,
and complete in the union of body and soul.^ He who adores a
picture or an image pays his worship not to God, to angels, or to
saints, but to the image itself ; to think otherwise is to yield to a
' Walch, xi. 138. '' " De Grandine."
u lb. 132. " Mabill. IV. xxvi.
^ See Mabill. IV. xx.-xxi. '' Baronius is much displeased with
y See p. 242. Agobard. 825. 63.
'■ "Ad Bartholomseum." <^ C. 32. f C. 15.
=> " MemoriEc." See Baluze, n. on " De s C. 28. This was also said by Clau-
Imaginibus," c. 17; Ducange, s.v. dius of Turin.
Chap. I. a.d. 814 825. CLAUDIUS OF TURIN.
281
delusion of the devil, who aims at the restoration of idolatry.*'
Nor is it less absurd to expect good from religious pictures than it
would be to think of recruiting an army by painted soldiers, or to
look for the fruits of the earth from a picture of the harvest or of
the vintage.'
It does not appear that Agobard incurred any censure on
account of his opinions as to images ; but one of his contempora-
ries, Claudius of Turin (who, indeed, took up the subject somewhat
earher), by a more thorough and more active opposition to the
prevailing religion, occasioned much agitation in the Frankish
church."^ Claudius was by birth a Spaniard, and is said to have
been a pupil of Felix of Urgel,™ although he does not appear to
have been a follower of the Adoptionist doctrines. He was a
diligent student of St. Augustine, but spoke contemptuously of the
other fathers in general ; " and it would seem that from the
doctrines of the great African teacher as to the nothingness of
human merit he derived a strong dislike of the current opinions
as to the means of attaining sanctity.'' He had gained reputation
by commentaries on Scripture, of which some are still extant.^
He had been attached to the court of Louis in Aquitaine,i and,
in the first year of his patron's reign as emperor, was ^ ^ g^^
appointed by him to the see of Turin,'' in the hope that
he might be able to effect a reform among his clergy and in the
neighbouring district. The emperor, however, could hardly have
been prepared for reforms so extensive as those which Claudius
attempted. Finding that the churches of his diocese were full of
images and votive offerings," be at once unceremoniously ejected
all such ornaments. No distinction was made in favour of histo-
rical pictures ; and relics and crosses— objects which the eastern
iconoclasts had spared— shared the same fate.' To worship the
images of saints, he said, is merely a renewal of the worship of
h c, 31_ ' C. 33. other remains of Claudius are in the Pa-
1' There is, as Gieseler (II. i. 106) re- trologia, t. civ.
marks, much verbal agreement between i Prtef. ad Comm. in Galat. Patrol.
Agobard and Claudius. Our knowledge civ. 841.
of Claudius is mostly derived from the __/ GtVorer places his promotion in 818.
treatises of Jonas and Duugal against iii. T-VJ..
him— especially from their quotations. >* " Inveni omnes basilicas sordibus
They are both in the Bibl.Patrum,Lugd., anathematum et imaginibus plenas.
t. xiv., where also the chief passages of (Claud, ap. Jon. 170.) Jonas confounds
Claudius are collected, pp. 197-9. unatheuiata (votive offerings) with ana-
'» Jonas, p. 168. Neander without tkemata (curses or^ cursed things), as if
any ground questions this. vi. 120. Claudius had applied the latter term to
■' Jonas, 171, b.c; Dungal, 204, f . ; the images. Neand. vi. 123. (See on
VValch xi. 181. the distinction of the words, EUicott, n.
» Giesel. II. i. 190. on Galat. i. 8.)
p Jonas, Prsef. and p. 108. These and ' Jonas, 168, 170, 174.
282 THEODEMIR. Book IV.
demons under other names;" to worship the cross is to join with
the heathen in dwelhng on the shame of the Saviour's history, to
the exclusion of his glorious resurrection;'' and he followed out
this by arguing, in a somewhat ribald style, that, if the cross were
to be reverenced on account of its connexion with the Saviour, the
same reason would enforce the veneration of all other objects which
are mentioned as having been connected with Him/ He opposed
the worship of saints, supplications for their intercession, and the
practice of dedicating churches to their honour .^ He also objected
to the practice of pilgrimages ; it was, he said, a mistake to expect
benefit from visiting the shrine of St. Peter, inasmuch as the power
of forgiving sins, which was bestowed on the apostles, belonged to
them only during their lifetime, and on their death passed to
others. On being pressed, however, he said that he did not abso-
lutely either condemn or approve pilgrimages, because their effects
were various in different persons.^ The proceedings of Claudius
occasioned much excitement. Pope Paschal, on hearing of them,
expressed his displeasure, although he did not venture to take any
active steps' against a bishop who had been so lately promoted by
the emperor's personal favour ; but ('laudius made light of the
papal censure — declaring that the title of Apostolical belongs not
to him who occupies an apostle's seat, but to one who does an
apostle's work.''
Theodemir, an abbot, •= who had been a friend and admirer of
Claudius, on receiving one of his works which was inscribed to
himself, took alarin and wrote against him. Claudius defended
himself in a scornful and contemptuous tone. He met the charge
of impiety by taxing his opponents with superstition and idolatry ;
and, in answer to Theodemir's statement that he had founded a
sect which had spread into Gaul and Spain, he declared that he
had nothing to do with sects, but was devoted to the cause of
unity."^ The controversy was carried further. The Prankish
clergy in general, who had at first been disposed to countenance
Claudius, now took offence. - Some of them requested Louis to
examine into the bishop's opinions, and the emperor, with the advice
" Claud, ap. Jon. 174. etymologist— "Apostolicusdicitur," says
X lb. i7Pj c. 5' lb. 178. he, '■^ qvveiS^i Apostoli ciisios" I (ibid.) Tlie
7. Jot)_ 174. writing iu question was later than the
" Claud, ap. Jon. 188, 190; Dungal, Parisian synod of 825. Pagi, xiv. 72.
214. See Walch, xil 160, 214. 'Probably of a monastery called
•> Claud, ap. Jon. 19,5, g. Jonas an- Psalmodi/, near Nismes. Hist. Litt. iv.
swers this in a way which draws from 490; Walch, xi. 184. See Patrol, civ.
the editors the marginal rote " Caute 10.30.
lege." Claudius was not happy as an ^ Claud, ap. Jon. 169-70.
CUAP. 1. A.D. 825-839.
DUNG AL — JONAS. 283
of his counsellors,^ pronounced against him. A synod of bishops
was then held ; but Claudius, who had been cited, refused to appear
before it, and is said to have spoken of it as an assembly of asses.^
Dungal, a deacon of Scottish or Irish birth, who had been
established by Charlemagne as a teacher at Pavia,^ wrote against
Claudius in 827, with a great display of learning, but without
much critical judgment ; he speaks, for example, of images as
haviug been used in the church from the very beginning — " about
eight hundred and twenty years or more " — although he produces
no instance earlier than Paulinus of Nola, about the year 400.''
Jonas, bishop of Orleans, one of the commissioners who had been
sent to Rome- after the synod of Paris, also undertook a refutation
of Claudius at the request of Louis.' Before this was finished,
both Claudius'^ and the emperor died, and Jonas had abandoned
the work, when he was induced to resume and to complete it by
finding that the errors of Claudius continued to be spread by
means of his writings and of his pupils.™ The treatise is dedicated
to Charles the Bald : the first book is in defence of images ; the
second, of the cross; the third of pilgrimages. But, although
Jonas is vehement in his opposition to Claudius (whom he charges
with haviug left writings of an Arian tendency"), he preserves on
the subject of images the medium characteristic of the Prankish
church, whereas Dungal had approximated to the Nicene view;"
and he denounces in strong terms the superstitious doctrines and
practices of the Greeks.'* As a lesser matter, it may be mentioned
that he frequently remarks on the ignorance of Latin style, and
even of grammar, which the bishop of Turin had displayed. "^
Claudius died in possession of his see. It has been erroneously
said that he went to the length of separating his church from the
communion of Rome, and the hostility to Roman peculiarities
which was afterwards cherished in the Alpine valleys has been
traced to him, either as its originator, or as a link in a chain
begun by Vigilantius, or earlier ; but, although it may be reason-
ably supposed that his writings, like those of others who more or
« "Palatii sui prudeutissimis viris." ' Jon. Picef.
Jonas, Prffif. ^ (hiudiiis died in 839.
f Dungal, 22.3, g. '" Jon. Pisef.
e See Walch, xi. 186. Mabillon and " lb. See Walch, xi. 222-4.
the authors of the Hist. Littwaire (iv. ° Mabill. IV. xxi xxiii.
493) wrongly suppose him a monk of p " Sceleratissimus error." See Jon.
St. Deuys. Mansi, not. in Baron, xiv. p. 168, g. h. ; Walch, xi. 209.
244. See Lanigau, iii. 256, seqq. i £"• ,'/. that he had used dcstnii as a
h Patrol, cv. 409. See Walch, xi. 161, deponent (171, a), and that he had made
219; Schrockh, xxiii. 414-6. /wyor govern an accusative. 19.5, g.
284 FORGED DECRETALS. Book IV.
less strongly opposed the prevailing system of religion, had some
effect in maintaining the spirit of such opposition, the idea of a
succession of connected "witnesses" against the Roman church
appears to be altogether groundless/ In Claudius, as in many
other reformers, the intemperance of his zeal marred the goodness
of his designs.
Notwithstanding the difference on a subject which had elsewhere
occasioned so many anathemas, the Frankish church remained in
uninterrupted communion with Rome. It continued until nearly
the end of the century to adhere to its distinctive view ; but about
that time a change becomes visible*, which gradually assimilated its
doctrines on the question of images to those which were sanctioned
by the papal authority.*
IV. About the time which we have now reached, the law of the
church received an extraordinary addition, which in the sequel
produced effects of vast importance. The collection of canons and
decretals made by Dionysius Exiguus* had been generally used
throughout the west. But from the seventh century another
collection, which (whether rightly or otherwise) bore the name of
Isidore of Seville, had been current in Spain ; and, as it contained
some pieces which were not in the compilation of Dionysius, it also
found its way into France." The same venerated name was now
employed to introduce another set of documents, distinguished by
some new and very remarkable features.''
In the older collections, the Decretal Epistles had begun with
that addressed by pope Siricius to Himerius, in 385.^ But the
writer who styled himself Isidore produced nearly a hundred
letters written in the names of earlier bishops of Rome, from
Clement and Anacletus, the contemporaries of the Apostles, with
'' See for various views, Allix on the doubtful ; — i. e. between 633 and 636'.
Churches of Piedmont, c. ix. ; Walch, See Arevalo, ' Isidoriana,' iii. 91 (Patrol.
xi. 143; Schrockh, xxiii. 420; Hahn, Ixxxi.) ; Gonzales, ib. Ixxxiv. 11-14;
ii. 28, 57; Ampere, iii. 88; Milman, ii. Santander, ib. 877-888; Planck, ii. 801-
271. G; Walter, 171; Biihr, 596-7; Gfiorer's
' Fleury, xlvii. 5 ; Mabillon, IV. xvi., ' Karolinger,' i. 96.
xxviii. ; Pagi, xiv. 71; Schrockh, xxiii. '^ The pretended compiler is made in
247-8. ' See vol. i. p. 547. some MSS. to style himself " Isidorus
" This collection was first edited by Mercaior." (See Hard. i. 4.) But it is
Gonzales, Madrid 1808-1821, and is re- generally agreed that the bishop of Se-
printed in vol. Ixxxiv. of the ' Patro- ville was meant, and inercator is sup-
logia.' It is supposed to have been posed to be the mistake of a copyist for
formed between the date of the fourth jyeccator — a term which bishops by way
council of Toledo (which is the latest of humility sometimes attached to their
council included in the original form of names. (See Hincmar, ii. 793, quoted
the code) and the death of Isidore, by by Santander, Patrol. Ixxxiv. 893).
whom it was used, although his pei"- Schrockh, xxii. 30-1; Gieseler, II. i.
sonal share iu the formation of it is 1 73. y See vol. i. p. 304.
Chap. I. ' FORGED DECRETALS. 285
some letters from supposed correspondents of the popes, and the
acts of some hitherto miknown councils.'" The spuriousness of
these pieces is established by gross anachronisms, and by other
instances of ignorance and clumsiness ;* as, that persons who lived
centuries apart are represented as corresponding with each other ;^
that the early bishops of Rome quote the Scriptures according to
St. Jerome's^ version ; and that some of them who lived while
Rome was yet heathen, complain of the invasion of church-property
by laymen in terms which evidently betray a writer of the Caro-
lingian period.'' Some of the forgeries included in the work —
among them, the Donation of Constantine — were of earlier manu-
facture ; '^ a great part of the other materials has been traced to
various sources — to Scripture, to the Latin fathers, to the service-
books of the church, to genuine canons and decretals, and to the
Pontifical Books (a set of legendary lives of Roman bishops, whicb
was continued by Anastasius " the Librarian," and is usually cited
under his name). The work of the forger consisted chiefly in
connecting these materials together, and in giving them the
appearance of a binding authority.*^
The date of the composition must be placed between the sixth
council of Paris, in 829, from which the forger has borrowed, and
that of Quiercy, in 857, where the decretals were cited as authori-
tative by Charles the Bald.^ That they were of Prankish origin
is proved by certain peculiarities of language ; ^ and Mentz is now
* There -were also some forgeries in lated from the Decretals. But they are
the names of writers later tlian Siricius now more generally regarded as spurious,
(see vol. i. p. 547, n.°). The earlier and as derived from the Decretals. (Wal-
letters are in Hardouin, i. ; the whole ter, 212 ; Btihr, 302 ; IJettb. i. .501'-9, 652 ;
collection, in vol. cxxx. of the 'Pa- Giesel. II. i. 183.) The first reference to
trologia.' them is by Hincmar of Laou, about 870.
a Gfrorer's Karolinger, i. 72. ^ piauck, ii. 810; Walter, lUS-S ;
^ Thus Victor (a.d. 190-202) writes Gfrorer, Karolinger, i. 90.
to Theophilus of Alexandria (a.d. 400). ' Car. Calv. ap. Pertz, Leges, i. 453 ;
Hard. i. 103. Gieseler, II. i. 181; Gfrorer, Karol. i.
''E.g. Pius (a.d. 142-157), Ep. ii. 82. It has been said that the Decretals
col. 97 ; Urban, (a.d. 223-230;, col. 115. are also indebted to the council of Aix-
(Giesel. II. i. 174-5.) la-Chapelle, a.d. 836 (Walter, i. 191-2);
•^ See Walter, 184 ; Gfrorer's Karol. but this is questioned. (Gfrorer, 81.)
i. 80. There has been much discussion Prof. Deuzinger finds in them allusions
about a set of capitularies said to have to the council of Thionville, a.d. 835,
been presented by Angilram, of Metz, and places them between that date and
to Adrian (or by the pope to the bishop), the treaty of Verdun, a.d. 843. (Patrol,
in 785, which have much in common cxxx. Prolegg. ix-x.) Gfrorer's opinion
• with the forged Decretals. (Hard. iii. that Vv'ala used the elements of the for-
2061-2072.) Gfrorer (Karol. i. 77-80) gery at the Field of Lies, in 833, has
and Denzinger (Patrol, cxxx. Proleg. already been cited, p. 259.
vi.) hold with V\^asserschleben, who, in e Gfrorer, Karol. i. 91. (Denzinger,
his ' Gesch. d. Vorgratiauischen llechts- viii., fi'om Knust, ' De Fontibus et Con-
quellen' (1839), maintains that they are silio Pseudoisidorianai Collect.' Got-
genuine, and were afterwards interpo- ting. 1832.)
286 ORIGIN AND PURPORT Book IV.
commonly supposed to have been the place of the fabrication.
Hincmar says that the collection was brought fi'om Spain by Iliculf,
who held that see from 787 to 814 — a -statement which is probably
founded on Riculf's having obtained from Spain a copy of the older
Isidorian collection, of which the forger availed himself.'' And
Benedict, a " Levite " (or deacon) of Mentz, who between 840
and 847 added to the capitularies of Charlemagne and Louis
three books of spurious collections, which have much in common
with the decretals, states that he cliiefly derived his materials from
the archives of his cathedral, where they had been deposited by
Riculf and had been discovered by the existing archbishop, Autcar
or Otgar.^ This Benedict is generally regarded as the forger of
the decretals also."^
In these decretals, the privileges of the clergy m general, and
especially of the bishops, are set very high ; and the power of the
pope is extended beyond anything that had, as yet been known.
He appears as the supreme head, lawgiver, and judge of the
church, the one bishop of the whole. All causes may be carried
to him by appeal ; he alone is entitled to decide all weighty or
difficult causes ;™ without his leave, not even provincial councils
may be called, nor have their judgments any validity." A very
large proportion of the decretals relates to accusations against
bishops ; indeed almost every one of the popes who are personated
has something to say on this subject. Bishops are declared to be
exempt from all secular judgment ;" evil bishops are to be borne as
an infliction of Providence, which will redound to the eternal benefit
of those who submit to it ;" the judgment of them is to be left to
God.^' If, however, charges should be brought against a bishop,
^ Hincm. Opera, ii. 476 ; Santander, Wenilo of Sens and Rothad of Soissons
in Patrol. Ixxxiv. 892-901 ; Walter, 187; (personages with wliom the next chap-
Giesel. II. i. 182; Denzinger, "viii. ter will make us acquainted) were parties
> Bened. Levit. ap. Pertz, Leges, II. to it. (Karolinger, i. 112.) Phillips
App. 39. The older genuine collection (from whose ' Kircheurecht ' the section
of capitularies, by Ansegis, is in Pertz, on the Decretals is translated in the
Leges, i. 257, seqq. ; those of Benedict Patrologia, cxxx.) supposes the author-
are in the 2nd -volume, with a disserta- ship wholly Neustrian, and that Rothad
tion by Knust, in which they are traced was concerned in it. xxiii.-iv.
to their sources. '" Anacletus iii. 4 (Hard. i. col. 74) ;
^ Planck says that the internal evi- Sixtus,i. (c. SO), ii. (c. 90) ; Eleutherius,
dence proves both the forgeries to have ii. (c. 102); Zephyrinus, c. 106; Fabian,
been carried on at the same time (ii. 311- iii. .5 (c. 129); Melchiades, i. (c. 244);
4); but Walter (192), Knust (ap. Pertz, Julius, i. 1-2 (c. 558) ; ii. 2-4 (c. 563),
ii. 34), and Gieseler (II. i. 181) place &c. ; Planck, ii. 815-6; Gieseler, II. i.
the Decretals first. Gfrorer thinks that 176.
Benedict was concerned in the original " Prsef. col. 5; Giesel. II. i. 180-1.
authorship, but that the forgery was ° Pontianus, i. (c. 117).
probably elaborated in Neustria — the p Zephyrinus, c. 107.
kingdom of Charles the Bald — where it i Pius, ii. (c. 96).
first made any noise ; and, if so, that
Chap. I. OF THE FORGED DECRETALS.
287
care is taken, by the rigour of the conditions which are laid down
as necessary, to render the prosecution of such charges almost
impossible.'' No layman may accuse a bishop, or even a clerk ;
for the disciple is not above his master, nor must the sheep accuse
their shepherd.^ A clerk who would accuse his bishop is infamous,
as a son taking arms against his father ; and therefore he is not to
be heard.* In order to prove a bishop guilty, seventy-two witnesses
are required;" and the qualifications of witnesses are defined with
a strictness which seems intended rather to shut out evidence than
to secure its trustworthiness.
There was, however, one grade in the hierarchy on which the
decretals bore hardly — the metropolitans. In the Frankish system,
the trial of a bishop had belonged to his metropolitan, from whom
the last appeal lay to the sovereign ; '' but by the decretals the
metropolitan was powerless without the concurrence of his suffra-
gans ; he could not even assemble these except by the pope's per-
mission, and all decisive judgment in such matters belonged to
the pope alone.^' And now a broad distinction was drawn between
ordinary metropolitans and the higher grade of primates, who were
distinguished by the commission of vicars under the pope.^
It is matter of conjecture in what interest this forgery was origi-
nally made* — whether in that of the pope, to whom it assigned a
supremacy so awful in its alleged origin and unlimited in its extent ;
or of the bishops, whom it emancipated not only from all secular
control, but also from that of metropolitans and provincial synods,
while it referred their causes to the more distant tribunal of the
pope, as the only judge competent to decide them ; or whether,
without any definite purpose as to the mutual relations of different
classes in the hierarchy, it was merely intended to assert the pri-
vileges of the clergy against the oppressions which they suffered in
the troubled reigns of Charlemagne's successors, and to claim for
them a position independent of the temporal power. The opinion
of the most judicious inquirers appears to point to a combination
of the second and third of these motives— that the decretals were
' Anaclet. ii. (c. 69) ; Fabian, ii. 2 on tlirough the lower grades,
(cc. 126-7); Stephan. ii. 11 (c. 564); "" See p. 149, and tlie case of Tlieo-
Julius, ii. 11 (c. 145); Felix, c. 755; dulf, p. 254.
Damasus, c. 765, &e. See Planck, ii. 821. >• Hyginus, ii. (c. 94); Lucius, iv.
s Anaclet. ii. 9 (c. 69-70) ; Marcellin. (c. loS) ; Giesel. II. i. 138; Elleudorf,
ii. 3 (c. 215); Giesel. II. i. 175-6. ' Karolinger,' ii. 161-3.
' Telesphor. iv. (c. 92); Stephan. ii. ^ Anaclet. ii. (c. 71); Anicet. ii.-iii.
9 (c. 144); Julius, ii. 10 (c. 564). (c. 99) ; Stephan. ii. 6 (c. 144); Julius,
^ Zephyrin. c. 105; Sylvester, iii. ii. 12, 14 (c. 564) ; Walter, 197 ; Giesel.
(cc. 291-2), who also says that there II. i. 178.
must be 44 against a presbyter— and so ^ See Schrockh, xxii. 28-9.
288
OBJECT OF
Book IV.
fabricated for the benefit of the clergy, and more especially of the
bishops ; that they were designed to protect the property of the
church against invasion, and to fix the privileges of the hierarchy
on a basis independent of secular authority ; that the metropo-
litans were especially assailed because they had been the chief
instruments by which the Carolingian princes had been able to
govern the bishops, to depose such of these as were obnoxious,
and to sway the decisions of synods. The popes were eventually
the principal gainers by the forgery ; but this appears to have
been a result beyond the contemplation of those who planned or
who executed it.''
That the author's design was, as he himself professes, *= to
supply a digest of the existing ecclesiastical laws — to promote the
advancement of religion and morality — will hardly be believed on
his own authority, although in our own time the assertion has found
champions whose ability is moi-e evident than their sincerity.*^
Yet we may do well not to judge him too severely for his imposture,
but are bound to remember the vicious principles which his age had
*> See Schmidt, i. 675-8; Planck, ii.
818-824; Guizot, ii. 341; Giesel. II.
i. 174-.5; Gfrorer, Karoliug. i. 83-8,
92-4; EUeiidorf, ii. 167; Deiiziuger,
viii.-ix. ; Milmau, ii. 30.5. The forgery
of both the Capitularies and the Decre-
tals seems to have been especially in-
tended to serve the interest of the arch-
bishoprick of Meutz. Other sees had in
late times gained various advantages
over it ; Cologne and Salzburg had be-
come metropolitan, and Otgar had reason
to fear the dismemberment of his pro-
vince and the loss of his position in the
German hierarchy. Hence the distinc-
tion betvreen metropolitans and the
higher dignity of primates — among
whom, as successor of St. Boniface, he
might reasonably hope to gain a place.
(Blasco, cited by Gieseler, II. i. 178;
Knust, ap. Pertz, Leges, ii. App. 38 ;
Gfrorer, Karol. i. 98-102.) In like
manner Prof. Gfrorer would account for
the part which he supposes Wenilo,
another metropolitan, to have taken as
to the Decretals by supposing that he
aimed at acquiring the degree of pri-
mate, which was afterwards bestowed on
Ansegis, one of his successors in the arch-
bishoprick of Sens. (i. 462.) Professor
Denziuger, who styles Otgar the " moral
author " of the forgery, traces the de-
preciation of synods to the fact that he
himself had been one of the bishops who
suffered by the synod of Thionville.
ix.-x.
<= Praef. 4, e.
'^ As Walter (195) and Mohler (' Frag-
mente aus und iiber Pseudoisidor,' in
vol. i. of his ' Aufsatze '). Mohler
maintains that the writer's object was to
combat Arian and other heresy (287) —
to supply a manual of orthodoxy, prac-
tical religion, morality, and pastoral
care (288, 308). He speaks of him as a
poet or novelist (Dic/iter), and of his
work as dieses Poem (297-8). He sup-
poses him to have been a sincerely
pious man, who had no intention of de-
ceiving (305), but adopted the form of
a fiction because he used the labours of
others (308) ; and that he was obliged
to suit himself to the circumstances of
his own time by representing popes as
having been from the beginning the
general oracles of Christendom (294).
It is a pity that the ingenious author of
this theory was unable to illustrate it by
the history of Solomon Spaulding's ro-
mance, which, in other hands, became
the book of the Mormon revelation. El-
lendorf answers Mohler at some length
(ii. 175-186). That the moral and reli-
gious lessons were merely the frame-
work, appears, he says, from the fact
that they are but a third of the whole
(175-6.) Luden, in the tone which he
usually affects in speaking of the me-
diseval church, goes far to extenuate the
imposture, (v. 472-6.) Denzinger, al-
though a Romanist, gives up MiJhler's
theory, x.
Chap. I. THE FORGED DECRETALS. 289
inherited from several centuries which preceded it as to the lawful-
ness of using falsehood for purposes which were supposed to be
good : nor, although he differed from other forgers in the greatness
of the scale on which he wrought, and although his forgery has
exceeded all others in the importance of the results, would it be
easy to show any essential moral difference between his act and the
acts of others who had fabricated documents of less extent, or of
the innumerable legendary writers who imposed on the world
fictions as to the lives and miracles of saints.
It has been argued in the Roman interest, that the Decretals
made no change in the actual system of the church.'' The only
considerable new claim, it is said, which they advanced in behalf
of the pope, was that which regarded provincial councils ; and this,
it is added, never actually took effect.' To such arguments it has
been answered that the system of the Decretals was a direct reversal
of that which immediately preceded them in the government of the
Frankish church ; ^ but the answer, although true, is even narrower
than the proposition which it is intended to meet. To rest such a
proposition on an analysis of the Decretals is, however, obviously
a fallacy. Although it may be shown in detail that this or that
portion of them was older — that what was now laid down uni-
versally had before been said with a more limited application —
that claims had been made, that jurisdiction had been exercised ;
although, in truth, the main outline of the papacy had been marked
out four centuries earlier by Leo the Great; — the consolidation of
the scattered fragments into one body, the representation of the
later papal claims as having come down by unbroken tradition
in the character of acknowledged rights from the apostolic times,
could not but produce a vast effect, and the difference between the
earlier and the following history abundantly proves their influence.
The history of the introduction of these documents in France
and at Rome will be given in the next chapter. Published in an
uncritical age, they bespoke a favourable reception by holding out
to various classes redress of their grievances and increase of their
privileges ; even those who were galled by them in one respect
were glad, like Hincmar of Rheims, to make use of them where it
was convenient to do so. They were therefore admitted without
any expressed doubt of their genuineness, although some questions
were raised as to their application or obligatory power. In the
<= Dollinger, ii. 41-3; Walter, 196, f Walter, 201. The orders that a lay-
seqq. ; Denzinger, xiv.-xv. ; Phillips, man should not accuse a clerk were also
xix.-xxi. Rohrbacher is worthy of him- imperative. Phillips, xix.
self on this point, xvi. e Ellendorf, ii. 86.
U
290 THE FORGED DECRETALS. Book IV.
next century, they were cited in a collection of canons by Regino,
abbot of Priim ; ^' and they continued to be used by the compilers
of similar works, until, in the thirteenth century, Gratian made
them the foundation of his ' Decretum,' the great lawbook of the
church during the middle ages, and accommodated to their prin-
ciples all the more genuine matter which he admitted/ Although
sometimes called in question during the long interval before the
Reformation,'' they yet maintained their public credit ; and, while
the foundation has long been given up, even by the extremest
writers of the Roman church, the superstructure yet remains."^
^ Baluz. Prsef. ad Regin. (Patrol, spurious, but the first attempt at critical
cxxxii. 179). For other collectors who proof of their spuriousness was in the
used them, see Walter, § 100. Atto of Magdeburg " Centuries." Torres, a
Vercelli, a contemporary of Regino, cites Jesuit, replied ; but Blondel answered
them largely in his tract ' De Pressuris him in a manner which even such
Ecclesiasticis.' (Patrol, cxxxiv.) zealous Romanists as Walter (190) and
i Schrockh, xxii. 22. Phillips (xxii.) admit to be conclusive.
•■ lb. 34 ; Giesel. II. i. 188. As to the later history of the Decretals,
■n Erasmus and Calvin declared them see Robins, 228-234.
Chap. II. a.d. 840-342. ( 291 )
CHAPTER IL
THE FRANKISH CHURCH AND THE PAPACY, FROM THE DEATH OF LOUIS
THE PIOUS TO THE DEPOSITION OF CHARLES THE FAT.
A.D. 840-887.
The history of the Carolingians after the death of Louis the
Pious is marked by a continuance of those scandalous enmities
between the nearest kinsmen which had given so unhappy a cha-
racter to his reign.^ Sometimes these enmities were carried out
into actual war ; but after the battle of Fontenailles, in 841,
where the loss is said to have amounted to 40,000 on one side,
and on the other to 25,000 or 30,000,'' they more commonly took
the form of intrigues, of insincere alliances, and selfish breaches of
treaties.
Charlemagne had found great difficulty in keeping together the
very various elements of which his vast empire consisted. As often
as he led his troops into any quarter, for the purpose of conquest
or of suppressing rebellion, an insurrection usually broke out behind
him.*" In order to conciliate the nationalities which were united
under his sceptre, he appointed kings to govern them, as in Aqui-
taine and in Italy. By his system, which was continued under
Louis, these kings were to be subordinate to the " senior" or head
of the family ; the whole empire was to be regarded as one, subject
to the chief "^ But in the beginning of the period now before us,
this system is broken up ; the delegated government by kings is
found to have been the means of organising the different nations
for resistance to the idea of unity, and for asserting their indepen-
dence of each other.^ Language played an important part in the
dissolution of the empire.* From the time of the Frank conquest
of Gaul, Latin had been the language of the church and of the
state, while German had been that of the army. The king and
the chiefs were familiar with both ; but in the south the Latin—
(or rather the "rustic Roman," which differed from the more
» See Nithard, De Dissensionibus rated. Luden, v. 416.
Filiorum Ludov. in Pertz, iii. " Lehuerou, Institut. Mt?rov, et CaroL
'' Martin, ii. 414. Some have made ii. 558-9.
the total slaughter 100,000 (Murat. •> Gfrorer, i. 64.
Annali, V. i. 3). But these numbers « Lehuerou, ii. 557.
are beyond the truth, and perhaps the ' See Guizot, it 285-290.
effects of the battle have been exagge-
U 2
292 PARTITION OF THE EMPIRE. Book IV.
correct official Latin) — was native, and the German was acquired
by learning, while the reverse was the case in the northern and
eastern territories." The populations which used these different
languages as their mother-tongues now became separate. At the
treaty of Strasburg, in 842, Louis of Bavaria took an oath in
German, and Charles of Neustria in the Romance dialect,'' and
they addressed their subjects in the same tongues respectively.
The Romance oath is the oldest monument of French ; the other
is the oldest specimen of German after the baptismal renunciation
of St. Boniface's time.' A like scene was enacted at Coblentz,
in 860, when, in pledging themselves to the observance of certain
articles, Louis and the younger Lothair employed the German
language, and Charles the Romance.'^
The treaty of Verdun, by which the empire was divided in 843
between the three sons of Louis, established each of them in entire
independence. The portion of the second brother, Louis, may be
broadly spoken of as G-ermany ; Charles the Bald's share may
with a like latitude be styled France ; "^ while Lothair, the emperor,
had a territory lying between the two^ong and for the most part
narrow, reaching from the mouths of the Weser and the Scheldt to
the frontier of the duchy of Benevento, and including the two
imperial cities — Rome, the ancient capital of the world, and Aix,
the chief seat of Charlemagne's sovereignty. The Rhine served
for a considerable part of its course as the eastern boundary of
this territory ; but a deviation was made from it, in order that
Louis might include within his dominions Mentz, the see of
Boniface and ecclesiastical metropolis of Germany, with the
suffragan dioceses of \A^orms and Spires ; while this cession was
compensated to Lothair by a tract to the east of the river in the
lower part of its course." Lothair's kingdom, not being marked
out by any older boundaries of population or language, was called
from him Lotharingia.^ By a later partition, the portion
of it north of the Alps was divided between Louis and
Charles the Bald, when Louis added to his dominions the countries
K Sismondi, iii. 59-60 ; Gfrorer, i. 34. Sismondi, iii. 9-10.
•^ They are given by Nithard, iii. 5, " GfrGrer, i. 21-2, 54, 58. See the
in Pertz, ii. 665-6, with notes by J. secoad map of Germany in Spruner's
Grimm. admirable Atlas, pt. ii.
* See p. 110, note '; Bahr, 62. " Gfrurer, i. 57. Hence the name of
1' Pertz, Leges, i. 473. Lorraine, afterwards given to a part of
" The Gauls, unwilling to renounce it. Some writers have supposed that
the glory of three centuries and a half, Lotharingia was called after the younger
now styled themselves Franks, and their Lothair, son of the emperor ; but see
country Francia, while the eastern Bouquet, vii. 188.
Franks began to be called Germans.
Cavp. II. A.D. 840-887. THE NORTHMEN. 293
of the German and Belgic tongues, and Charles acquired those in
which the Romance prevailed."
The feeling of nationality also showed itself in the rebellion of
the Bretons under Noraenoe, who compelled Charles to acknow-
ledge him as king, and established a new hierarchy under the
archbishop of Dol, independent of the Roman connexion ;'i in
the revolts of the Saxons, who killed or drove out their governors,
and resumed the profession of paganism;'' and in the subdivision
of France towards the end of the century into a great number
of petty principalities, although other causes also contributed to
this result.^
Charlemagne had endeavoured to provide a defence against the
northern pirates by fortifying the mouths of rivers ; but this policy
was now neglected.'' No longer content with ravaging the coasts,
the fierce barbarians of the north made their way in their
" serpent " " barks up every river whose opening invited them,
from the Elbe to the Adour. They repeatedly plundered the more
exposed cities, such as Hamburg, Dorstadt, and Bordeaux ; they
ascended the Rhine to Mentz, and even to Worms ; the Moselle
to Treves ; the Somme to Amiens ; the Seine to Rouen and to
Paris, once the Merovingian capital, and still the chief city of
Neustria, rich in churches and in treasures, and with the royal
monastery of St. Denys in its immediate neighbourhood. From
Paris, they made their way up the Marne to Meaux and Chalons,
up the Yonne to Sens and Auxerre.'^ The Loire gave them a
passage to Tours,^' the city of St. Martin, and to Orleans \'- the
Vienne, to Limoges ; the Charente, to Saintes and Angouleme ;
the Garonne, to Toulouse.* They sailed on to the Spanish penin-
sula, plundered Lisbon, passed the strait of Gibraltar, and success-
fully encountered the Arabs of Andalusia;'' even the coast of
Italy felt their fury." Everywhere they pillaged, burnt, slew,
outraged women, and carried off captives.*^ After a time, growing
p Pertz, Leges, i. 517 ; Palgrave, notes.
Norm, and Eng. i. 370. ^ Sismondi, iii. 85-7. For a list of
1 Sismondi, iii. 90 ; Wiltsch, i. 471 ; places plundered by the Northmen, see
Phillips, i. 34. For documents relating Palgrave, ' Normandy and England,' i.
to Dol, see Martene, Thes. iii. 857, 419-20, 582; for further details, Dep-
seqq. "■ Sism. iii. 74. ping, ' Expe'ditions Maritimes des Nor-
■^ See Guizot, ii. 280 ; Stephen, i. mands,' Paris, 1826.
112. * Hist, de Languedoc, i. 751.
' Einhard, a.d. 800, 811; Michelet, >> Depping. i. 134-5.
ii. 136. " lb. 165-9. See the story of their
" Snchkar, drakar. Depping, i. 71-2; plundering the ancient Etruscan city of
Snorro Sturleson, by Laing, i. 441. Luna. Dudo, in Patrol, cxli. 622-4 ;
» Ang. Sax. Chron. a.d. 887. Gnil. Gemet. i. 10 (ib. cxlix.).
'■ Baron. 845. 29, seqq., and Pagi's ^ Dudo, 622.
294 RAVAGES OF THE Book IV.
bolder through impunity, they would leave their vessels on the
greater rivers, and strike across the unresisting country to pillage
inland places of noted wealth — such as Ghent, Beauvais, Chartres,
Bourges, Rheims, Laon, and Charlemagne's own city of Aix,
where they stabled their horses in the imperial palace.*^ They
established permanent camps, often on islands in the great rivers,
and ravaged in a wide circle around them.* Many of these pirates
were exiles or adventurers who had fled from other countries to the
regions of the north ;® many were men, or the offspring of men,
who had suffered from the forcible means employed by Charlemagne
for the conversion of the pagans. Their enmity against Chris-
tianity was therefore fierce and unsparing ; there was religious
hatred, as well as the lust of spoil, in the rage which selected
churches and monasteries as its especial objects. Wherever the
approach of the Northmen was reported, the monks deserted their
abodes, and fled, if possible, leaving their wealth to the invaders,
and anxious only to rescue the relics of their patron saints.'^ The
misery caused by these ravages was extreme. From dread of
them, husbandry was neglected, and frequent famines ensued ; '
even wolves were allowed, to prey and to multiply without any
check.'^ The condition to which Aquitaine was reduced may be
inferred from the fact, that a bishop was translated from Bordeaux
to Bourges, on the ground that his former diocese was rendered
utterly desert by the pagans."^^ Many monks who had been
driven from their cells threw off the religious habit, and betook
themselves to a vagabond life." And a striking proof of the terror
inspired by the invaders is found in the insertion of a petition in
the Galilean liturgies for deliverance " From the fury of the
Northmen." "
However divided by dissensions among themselves, the Northmen
always acted in concert as to the course which their expeditions
should take. They kept a watch on the movements of the
Carolingian princes, and were ready to take advantage in every
quarter of their discords and of their weakness.^' Sometimes, it
would seem, they were not only attracted by the hope of booty,
« Adam. Bremens. i. 40. *> Sismondi, iii. 79.
' Sismondi, iii. 120; Phillips, i. 20. * Ibid. 119.
« Thus, one of the Hastingses (for of "^ Palgrave, i. 432.
that name there were three famous sea- »' Joh. VIII. Epp. 1, 4, 5, 12, ap.
kings) is said to have been a native of Hard. vi.
the diocese of Troyes, of servile birth. " Cone. Duziac. a.d. 860, c. 5.
Radulph. Glaber, i. 5, ap. Bouquet, x. ° Palgrave, i. 460.
9. Cf. Depping, i. 121-3; Palgrave, i. p Luden, vi. 14; Palgrave, i. 320,
490. 425-8.
CHAP. II. A.D. 840-887. NORTHMEN AND SARACENS. 295
but were bribed by one of Charlemagne's descendants to attack
the territories of another.''
The martial spirit of the Franks had been exhausted by the
slaughter of Fontenailles." Many of the free landholders — the
body on which the old Frankish system mainly relied for national
defence— sought a refuge from the miseries of the time by be-
coming serfs to abbots or nobles who were strong enough to protect
them ; and thus their military service was lost."* The Franks
were distracted by faction, and, instead of combining to resist the
common enemy, each party and each class was intent on securing
its own selfish interests. The nobles in general stood aloof, and
looked on without dissatisfaction while the Northmen pillaged towns
or estates which belonged to the crown or to the church.' In a
few cases, the invaders met with a vigorous resistance — as from
Robert " the Strong," the ancestor of the Capetian line," and from
his son Odo or Eudes, who, with the bishop, Gauzelin, valiantly
defended Paris in SS5.^ But a more usual course was that of
paying them a large sum as an inducement to depart for a time —
an expedient which pressed heavily on the people, who were taxed
for the payment, while it ensured the return of the enemy after a
short respite. A better, although not uniform, success attended
the attempt to appease the northern chiefs with grants of land.
They settled on these estates ; they and their followers were bap-
tised, and took wives of the country, by means of whom the northern
language was soon extinguished among their offspring ; they became
accustomed to their new homes, and gradually laid aside their
barbarian ferocity.^
To the east, the Slave populations pressed on the German
portions of the empire, and engaged its sovereigns in frequent
wars ; ^ and on the south of France, as well as in Italy, the Saracens
were a foe not less terrible than the Northmen on the other coasts
1 Luden, vi. 171. This is much in- Gemet. i. 1 (Patrol, cxlix.) ; Sismondi,
sisted on by Gfrorer (e. g. Karol. i. 20, iii. 865.
13.5, 158, 411), and perhaps Dean Mil- '^ Sismondi, iii. 1G8; Hallam, M. A.
man may have gone too far in alto- i. 16. The change took place cliiefly
gether setting aside his views on the between 830 and 860. Gfrorer, i. 390 ;
subject (ii. 3.56), although Dr. Gfrorer's comp. Leo, Gesch. v. Italien, i. 216.
constant straining after originality, and ' Luden, vi. 182 ; Gfrorer, i. 274,
parade of a paradoxical acuteness, in- 281-2. " Palgrave, i. 486.
terfere very seriously with the respect ^ Annal. Vedast. (Pertz, i. 522-3) ;
which his knowledge and abilities might Abbo de Bello Parisiaco (ib. ii.) j Dep-
claim ; while his frequent changes of ping, ii. 2, seqq. ; Palgrave, i. 685,
opinion — beginning in Rationalism, and seqq.
resulting for the present in Romanism y Sismondi, iii. 114, 184-5; Palgrave,
— destroy all confidence in his judg- i. 503; Michelet, ii. 134-7.
inent. ^ Luden, vi. 35 ; Palgrave, i. 410,
' Regino, a.d. 842 (Pertz, i.) ; Guil. seqq.
296
THE SARACENS. Book IV.
of the empire. An expedition from Spain had made them masters
of Crete in 823. Four years later they landed in Sicily, and, by
degrees, they got possession of the whole island, although it was
not until after half a century (a.d. 876) that Syracuse fell into
their hands.^ They seized on Cyprus and Corsica, devastated the
Mediterranean coast of France,^ sailed up the Tiber, carried off
the altar which covered the remains of St. Peter, and committed
atrocious acts of rapine, lust, and cruelty .'= The terror inspired
by these adventurers— the offscourings of their race, which in Spain
and in the East had become more civilised, and had begun to
cultivate science and literature"^ — drove the inhabitants of the
defenceless towns to seek a refuge in forests and among mountains.''
Some of the popes showed much energy in providing the means of
protection against them. Gregory IV. rebuilt and fortified Ostia,
to which he gave the name of bregoriopolis.*^ Leo IV., who was
hastily raised to the papal chair on an emergency when the Saracens
threatened Rome, took very vigorous measures. He fortified
Portus, in which he planted a colony of Corsican refugees ; drew
a chain across the mouth of the Tiber, and repaired the walls of
Rome. With the approbation of the emperor Lothair, who contri-
buted largely to the expense, he enclosed within a wall
the Transtiberine district which contained the church of
St. Peter and the English Burg ; ^ and to this new quarter he gave
the name of the " Leonine City." '^ Nicolas I. also contributed to
the defence of Rome by strengthening the fortifications and the
garrison of Ostia.' But in the south of Italy the Saracens were
triumphant. They established a sultan at Bari,"^ although after a
time that city was recovered from them by the united
forces of the emperors Louis II. and Basil the Mace-
donian.™ Naples, Amalfi, Salerno, and other cities, finding
resistance impossible, entered into alliance with them, and joined
them in plundering. But for dissensions among themselves, the
Moslems would probably have become masters of the whole
peninsula."
* Const. Porphyrog. ii. 21-7 ; Cedren. « Anastas. 244.
508, 512 ; Gibbon, v. 2U0-9 ; Famin, ' In- f lb. 226. s See p. 236.
vasions des Sarrazins en Italic,' i. 140, ^ Anastas. 240-3 ; Gibbon, v. 209-
146, 347, 395 (Paris, 1843). 210.
•' Marseilles, which had suffered from ' Anastas. 260.
them in 838, was again plundered by ^ Chron. Casin. 8.
Greek pirates ten years later. Sismondi, ™ Const. Porphyrog. v. 55; Famin,
iii. 92. i. 298. Muratori, however, denies that
•= A.D. 846. Chron. Casin. ap. Pertz, the Greeks shared in the capture (Annali,
iii. 225-230, or Patrol, clxxiii. ; Sis- V. ii. 115).
mondi, iii. 89. " Erchempert. a.d. 876 (Pertz, iii.) ;
■i Sismondi, Rep. Ital. i. 27. Gibbon, v. 209.
Chap. 11. a.d. 840-887. STATE OF FRANCE. 297
The royal power in France was greatly impaired by the changes
of this period. Among the earlier Franks, there had been no class
of nobility, properly so called, but consideration had depended on
wealth and power alone ; ° nor had the counts originally been land-
holders, but officers of the sovereign, invested with a dignity which
was only personal and temporary. But from the time of the civil
wars between Louis the Pious and his sons, the Frankish princes
found themselves obliged to pay those on whom they depended for
support by a diminution of their own prerogatives and property.^
The system was continued ; at the diet of Qulercy, in 877, Charles
the Bald, with a view of securing the consent of his chiefs to his
projected expedition into Italy, granted that their lands should
descend by inheritance, and only reserved to the sovereign the
choice of a successor in cases where the tenant should die without
male issue ;'^ nay, as we shall see hereafter, in his eagerness to
gain aid towards the extension of his dominions, he even consented
that his crown should be regarded as elective. "■ The nobles, thus
erected into a hereditary order, became more independent ; they
took advantage of the weakness of the sovereign ; and, by the end
of the century, the dismemberment of the empire had been so
much imitated on a smaller scale that France was broken up into
no fewer than twenty-nine indepfindent states.®
The Frankish clergy suffered severely in their property during
the troubles of the time. Not only did Louis and his sons habi-
tually employ the old resource of rewarding partisans with gifts
of ecclesiastical benefices, but they even carried it further than
before, by extending it to religious houses which had hitherto
been regarded as exempt from this kind of danger. The abbey
of St. Martin's itself — the most revered, as well as the richest, of
all the sanctuaries of Gaul — was granted by Charles in benefice
to Robert the Strong.' Almost every council has its piteous com-
plaint that the property of the church is invaded in a manner
more fitting for pagan enemies than for her own sons ; that the
poor, the strangers, the pilgrims, the captives are deprived of the'
endowments founded for their relief; that hospitals, especially
those of the Scots,'' are diverted from their object, so that not only
0 Perry, 416. although in words it was granted to such
p Planck, iii. 18; Sismondi,iii. 221-2 ; only as should take part in the Italian
Funck, 184. expedition.
1 Pertz, Leges, i. 539, c. 9. See ■■ Sismondi, iii. 223; Gfrorer, u. 280.
Ducange, s. v. Comes, p. 451 ; Sis- ^ Guizot, ii. 280.
mondi, iii. 218 ; Stephen, i. 126 ; and ' Palgrave, i. 466, 468.
Gfrurer, ii. 149, who shows that the " Walafi'id Strabo says of the Scots
eftcct of this concession was general, (Irish), " Quibus consuetude peregri-
298 THE FRENCH HIERARCHY. Book IV.
are guests not entertained, but those who had dwelt in them from
infancy are turned out to beg from door to door ; that some lands
are alienated in such a way as to cut off all hope of recovery ; that
the sovereigns grossly abuse their patronage by bestowing spiritual
offices on laymen.'^ The only weapon which the church could
wield against the rapacious laity was excommunication ; but neither
spiritual terrors nor tales of frequent judicial miracles were suffi-
cient to check the evil/ Another frequent complaint relates to
the decay of letters among the Franks/' Charles the Bald was a
patron of learned men, and took pleasure in their society ;* but,
while literature enjoyed this courtly and superficial encouragement,
the institutions by which Charlemagne had endeavoured to provide
for the general instruction of his subjects were allowed to fall into
neglect.^
But in other respects the clergy gained greatly. The sixth
council of Paris, in 829, had asserted for them a right to judge
kings.'' This power had been exercised against Louis by the
rebellious bishops at Compiegne, and his restoration had not been
accomplished without a formal act of the church."^ Charles the
Bald admitted it, as against himself, at the council of Savon-
nieres, in 859 ; ® and in all the disagreements of the Carolingians,
each prince carried his grievances to the pope — thus constituting
the Roman see a • general court of appeal, and weakening the
rights of all sovereigns by such submission. Ecclesiastical judg-
ments were popularly regarded as the judgments of God.^ Bishops
asserted for themselves an exclusive right to judge all matters
relating to the clergyj^? and, by the superintendence which they
exercised over morals, they were able to turn every scandal of the
nandi jam pene in naturam conversa speaks of Greece as deserted by her
est." Vita S. Galli, ii. 47 (Patrol, scholars that they might flock to the
cxiv."). Prankish court, and describes Ii'eland
^ Cone. Aquisgr. a.d. 836, iii. 19; as " pene totaui ctim grege philosophoriim
Cone. Theod-vill. A.D. 844, c. 3 (Pertz, ad littora nostra migrantem." Patrol.
Leges, i. 381); Cone. Vern. II. a.d. cxxiv. 1133.
844, cc. 12, &c. (ib. 383-5) ; Cone. ^ Gfrorer, Karol. ii. 16G-7. Many
Sparnac. a.d. 846 (ib. 389-90); Cone, cathedral and monastic schools, however,
Meld. A.D. 845, cc. 40, 41, 75, &c. ; continued to flourish. See Hist. Litt. iv.
Cone. Carisiac. a.d. 858, Ep. ad Ludov. 224, seqq. ; Biihr, 39-45.
(Hard. v. 466, seqq.) ; Cone. Sparnac. *= Lib. iii. 8, citing a speech ascribed
A.D. 859, c. 14 ; Cone. Duziac. II. a.d. by Rufinus to Constantine (Hist. Eccl.
874 (Hard. vi. 148-9) ; Cone. Trecass. i. 2). The substance of this council is
II. A.D. 878, c. 3, &c. identical with a treatise ' De Institutione
y Sismondi, iii. 126, 150. Eegia,' by Jonas, bishop of Orleans
' E. g. Cone. Valent. IV. a.d. 855, c. (Patrol, cvi. 279, seqq.).
18 ; Cone. TuU. ad Saponarias, a.d. 859, ** See p.
vi. 10 (Hard. v. 499). ■= C. 3 (Pertz, Leges, i. 462). Guizot,
=* Heric of Auxerre. in his dedication ii. 326.
of the Life of St. German to Charles, ' Planck, iii. 23. « Ib. 22.
Chap. II. a.d. 8i0-887.
HINCMAR. 299
royal house to the advantage of the church.*^ They became more
and more active in politics ; ' they claimed the power of bestowing
the crown, and Charles appears to have acknowledged the claim>
Yet, although they endeavoured to gain for themselves an exemp-
tion from all secular control, that prince still kept a hold on them
by means of his missi.'^
The most prominent among the French ecclesiastics was
Hincmar, a man of strong, lofty, and resolute character, of a
mind at once subtle and eminently practical, of learning which,
although uncritical and indifferently digested, raised him above
almost all his contemporaries, and of great political talent."
Hincmar was born in 806, of a noble family in Neustria, and at
an early age entered the monastery of St. Denys, where he became
a monk under Hilduin." He took an active part in restoring the
discipline of the house, and to the end of his days he observed the
monastic severity of life.P His attachment to his abbot was shown
by becoming the companion of his exile in 830;*^ but notwith-
standing this, and although his own feelings were no doubt in favour
of the unity of the empire, he withstood all Hilduin's attempts to
draw him into rebellion, and to the last preserved the favour of
Louis, by means of which he was able to effect his superior's
recall.'" In 845 he was promoted to the archbishoprick of Rheims,
which had not been regularly filled since the deposition of Ebbo,
ten years before. He accepted the dignity on condition that the
property which had been alienated from it to laymen during the
vacancy should be restored," and he held it for thirty-nine years.
His province, and even his diocese, were partly in Neustria and
partly in Lotharingia' — a circumstance which brought him into
connexion with the sovereigns of both countries. To him, as the
successor of St. Remigius, it belonged to crown kings, and to take
the chief part in state solemnities ; " and he gave full effect to his
position. His political influence was immense ; he steadily upheld
the cause of the church against both the king and the nobles, and
in its behalf often opposed the princes to whose interests in other
respects he was zealously devoted.^ But most especially he was
^ Schrockh, xxii. 44.3 ; Sismomli, iii. ° Opera, ii. 304.
143. P Flodoard, iii. 1 (ratrol. cxxxv.).
' Sisni. iii. 133. 'i lb. ; Prichard's Life of Hincmar,
k Michelet, ii. 126-7. 97 (Littlemore, 1849).
" E. g. Convent. Sparnac. a.d. 846 ■■ Flodoard, 1. c.
(Pertz, Leges, i. 389); Capit. Mersen. >* Flodoard, iii. 4; Prichard, 96-9.
A.D. 847 (lb. 394), c. 3 ; Convent. Silvan. ' Opera, ii. 310, 694.
A.D. 853 (ib. 423-6). " Hist. Litt. v. .546 ; Guizot, ii. 352.
n Hist. Litt. V. 587, 590 ; Planck, iii. " Hist. Litt. v. 588 ; Guizot, ii. 354-5.
103 ; Sismondi, iii. 147-8.
300 THE PAPACY. Book IV.
the champion of the national church and of the rights of his
sovereign against the growing claims of the papacy J
The popes endeavoured to take advantage of the weakness of
Charlemagne's descendants in order to shake off the golden chains
with which the great emperor had bound them, and in this endea-
vour they were greatly aided by the effect of the partition of the
empire ; inasmuch as they were thenceforth in no way subject to
any prince except the one who held the imperial title and the
kingdom of Italy, while they were yet brought into relation with
all the Carolingian sovereigns, and became general arbiters between
them.''
On the death of Gregory IV. in 844, Sergius II., after some
tumultuary opposition from a rival named John,^ was consecrated
without waiting for the imperial confirmation. Lothair, indignant
at the slight thus shown to his authority, sent his son Louis to call
the new pope to account. The prince was accompanied by Drogo,
bishop of Metz, with a numerous train of prelates and counts, and
was at the head of a large army, which is said, in its advance
towards Rome, to have committed much wanton slaughter and devas-
tation, and to have lost many of its soldiers, who, in punishment of
their misdeeds, were slain by lightning. Sergius received Louis
with the usual honours, but would not permit his troops to enter
the city ; nor would he allow the doors of St. Peter's to be opened
to him, until, in answer to a solemn adjuration, the prince had
professed that he came without any evil intention, for the good
of Rome and of the church. The pope crowned him as king of
the Lombards, but resisted a proposal that the Romans should be
required to swear allegiance to him, on the ground that such oaths
were due to the emperor alone. He consented, however, that a
fresh oath should be taken to the emperor.^ Drogo returned to
y Sismondi says that in his contests authors of the 'Histoire Litteraire' are
with Nicolas I. Hincmar seemed to be also unfavourable to him, chiefly on
restrained by the feeling that his ap- account of his behaviour to Gottschalk,
pointment was open to question (iii. whose cause they, as Augustinians, es-
148). But it teas investigated, and it pouse.
would appear that he had really nothing ^ Planck, iii. 26-8, 31.
to fear in this respect, so that we must " Anastas. 227.
rather suppose him to have been re- •> lb. 227-9. Schrockh questions this
strained by political considerations. M. writer's account of the affair as too
Guizot well describes him as a mix- favourable to the pope (xxii. 68).
ture of the logician with the man of Luden thinks that Sergius outwitted
business, the practical part of his cha- Louis (vi. 9). Muratori takes occasion
racter controlling the other ; and points to observe that the practice of con-
to Bossuet as a parallel (ii. 358-9). M. ferring the kingdom of Italy by the
Ampere, whose estimate of Hincmar is iron crown at Monza, Milan, or Pavia,
unfavourable, says that in his character was not yet introduced. Annali, V.
"il y a de I'eveque de Meaux et un pen i. 20.
de I'eveque d'Autun" (iii. 168). The
Chap. II. a.d. 840-855. THE PAPACY.
801
France with a commission'' appointing him primate and papal
vicar, and conferring on him in that character large privileges and
jurisdiction ; but, on finding that some question was raised as to
the reception of this instrument by a synod to which he exhibited
it, he refrained from urging his pretensions.*^
Sergius died after a pontificate of three years, and Leo IV. was
chosen by general acclamation. The Romans were in
, "I'll, A.D, O-il,
great perplexity ; the immment danger m which they
were from the Saracens required them to proceed to an immediate
consecration, while they were afraid to repeat their late offence
against the Frank empire. They therefore fell on the expedient
of consecrating Leo with an express reservation of the imperial
rights, and it would seem that this course was allowed to pass
without objection.*' Towards the end of Leo's pontificate, Lothair,
having been informed that a high Roman officer had expressed
himself against the Frankish connexion, and had proposed a revolt to
the Greek empire, went to Rome, and held an inquiry into the case.
The librarian Anastasius tells us that the charge was proved to be
imaginary, and that the accuser was given up to the accused, from
whom the emperor begged him.^ But the pope was required,
probably in consequence of this affair, to promise obedience to the
emperor and his commissioners.^ A remarkable innovation was in-
troduced by Leo in his correspondence with sovereigns, by setting his
own name before that of the prince to whom he wrote, and omitting
the word Domino in the address — a change which intimated that
St. Peter's successors no longer owned any earthly master.'^
Benedict III. was elected as the successor of Leo ; but he met
with a very serious opposition from Anastasius,— probably the same
<= Hard. iv. 14G3-6. that the Byzautine church " euBu-
d Cone. Vern. II. c. 11 (Pertz, Leges, chos passim promoveiido foeminam in
i. 385) ; Hincmar, ii. 737 ; De Marca, sede pontificum suorum sublimasset ali-
VI. xxix. 3. quando." (Hard. vi. 940.) The first
e Anastas. 231 ; Murat. Annali, V. i. writers, unsuspected of forgery or iu-
31. The misstatements of Baronius as terpolation, in whom it is found, are
to this are exposed bv Pagi, xiv. 348, Stephen de Borbone and Mart. Polonus
ggqq ' — both of the thirteenth century. Its
f Anast. 246. Gfrorer thinks that origin is still matter of question, but is
Anastasius does not tell the truth, and most commonly referred to the degrada-
that there was a real conspiracy (i. tiou of the papacy under female m-
287). fluence, which followed soon after this
s Giesel. II. i. 49. time. See Baron. 853. 56-69 ; Ciacon.
b lb. 48 ; see Gamier, in Patrol, cv. i. 62G-640 ; Pagi, xiv. 424 ; Schrockh,
119-130. The fabulous female pope, xxii. 75-110; Bayle, art. Papesse and
Joan, is inserted between Leo and Polonus; Gibbon, iv. 512-3; Giesel. II.
Benedict. Had such a story been known i. 29-32; Guericke, ii. 113. Luden
at Rome in the middle of the eleventh is inclined to favour the tale (vi. 513-
century, Leo IX. would not have ven- 7). Gfrorer very confidently proposes
tured, in writing to the patriarch of some wild conjectures on the subject, i.
Constantinople, to mention a rumour 289.
302 NICOLAS I. BwKlV.
with a cardinal of that name who under the last pontificate had
been deposed, chiefly for his attachment to the Prankish
interest.' Anastasius got possession of St. Peter's and of
St. John Lateran, and (perhaps in the hope of recommending
himself to the Franks, whom he may have possibly supposed to be
iconoclasts) he is said to have broken and burnt the images which
adorned the churches."*^ He was aided by Prankish soldiers, and
gained over the envoys who were sent to ask the imperial con-
firmation of his rival's election ; he stripped Benedict of his robes,
insulted him, and beat him. But the clergy and people of Rome
adhered to Benedict, and their demonstrations prevailed on the
emperor's commissioners to sanction his consecration.™
Benedict was succeeded by Nicolas I., who, according to a
contemporary annalist, owed his elevation rather to the presence
and favour of Louis II., Lothair's successor in the empire, than to
the choice of the Roman clergy." At his consecration
was introduced the new ceremony of coronation — a cere-
mony which probably had its origin in the fable that a golden crown
had been bestowed on Sylvester by Constantine,° and which was
intended to assert for the pope the majesty of an earthly sovereign,
in addition to that higher and more venerable dignity which
claimed not only precedence but control over all earthly power.P
And when, soon after, Nicolas visited the camp of Louis, the
emperor, after the pretended example of the first Christian emperor,
did him reverence by holding his bridle, and by walking at his
side as he rode.*i Nicolas was one of those popes who stand forth
in history as having most signally contributed to the advancement
of their see. The idea entertained of him shortly after his death
is remarkably expressed by Regino, of Priim, who speaks of him
as surpassing all his predecessors since the great Gregory ; as
giving commands to kings and tyrants, and ruling over them as if
lord of the whole world ; as full of meekness and gentleness in his
dealings with bishops and clergy who were worthy of their calling,
but terrible and austere towards the careless and the refractory ;
as another Elias "in spirit and in power.""" He was learned,
skilful in the management of affairs, sincerely zealous for the
i Leo IV. Epp. 7, 13 (Patrol, cxv.); " See p. 187.
Anast. 224 ; Baron. 853. 3-5 ; Gfrorer, p Anastas. 253 ; Schrockh, xxii. 112.
i. 288. "• Anast. 253. In the ' Donation '
^ Anast. 247-8; Gfroi-er, i. 293-4. Constantine is made to say, " Tenentes
■" Anast. 249; Milman, ii. 275. frsenum ipsius [Sylvestri] pro reverentia
" Annales Bertiniani (in this part B. Petri stratoris officium illi exhibui-
writtenbyPrudentius, bishop of Troyes), mus." Patrol, clxxxvii. 464.
Pertz, i. 452. ■" Regino, a.d. 868 (Pertz, i. 579).
Chap H. a.d. S55-867. EUCHARISTIC CONTROVERSY. 303
enforcement of discipline in the church, filled with a sense of the
importance of his position, ambitious, active, and resolute in main-
taining and advancing it. He took advantage of the faults or
vices of the Frank princes — their ambition, their lust, or their
hatred — to interpose in their affairs, and with great ability he
played them against each other. His interposition was usually in
the interest of justice, or in the defence of weakness ; it was
backed by the approbation of the great body of the people, who
learnt to see in him the representative of heaven, ready everywhere
to assert the right, and able to restrain the wicked who were
above the reach of earthly law ; ^ and doubtless he was able to
conceal from himself all but what was good in his motives. But
those of his acts which in 'themselves were praiseworthy, were yet
parts of a system which in other cases appeared without any such
creditable veil — a scheme of vast ambition for rendering all secular
power subject to the church, and all national churches subject to
Rome.'
Of the controversies or disputes of this time — which must be
treated severally, since it is a less evil to sacrifice the display of
their correspondent progress than for its sake to throw the narra-
tive into hopeless confusion — two related to important points of
doctrine — the Eucharistic Presence, and Predestination.
I. We have already seen that, with respect to the Eucharist,
there had been a gradual increase of mystical language ; and that
expressions were at first used rhetorically and in a figurative sense,
which, if literally construed, would have given an incorrect idea of
the current doctrine.*^ In the west the authority of St. Augustine
had generally acted as a safeguard against materialising views of
the Eucharistic presence ;^ but an important step toward the esta-
» Giesel. II. i. 196 ; Gfrcirer, i. 297-8. tas. 254-6 ; Baron. 861. 57-64 ; Milman,
' One of this pope's smaller triumphs ii. 289-90.
may be mentioned in a note. John, " i. 569 ; ii. 226.
archbishop of Ravenna — a see which " Ebrard, i. 309, seqq. ; Giesel. I. ii.
had often before given trouble to the 117. Villiers, the editor of Fiilbert's
popes — set up high pretensions to inde- works, finding in them a quotation
pendence. But he was disappointed in where it is said that our Lord's words
his hopes of support from Louis II., and, as to eating His body are a figure,
being excommunicated by Nicolas, he inserted " dicet hsereticus ; " but, being
was reduced to a very abject state. In informed that the quotation was from
order to obtain absolution, he bound St. Augustine, he coolly put his own
himself to repair to Rome once a-year, interpolation into the table of errata,
and submitted to a limitation of his with the note, " Interpretatio est mys-
power over his own suffragans, whom tica." (Patrol, clxi. 333 ; Schrockh,
he was not to consecrate without the xxiii. 506.) For Fulbert see below, Book
pope's permission (a.d. 861-2). Anas- V. c. iii.
304 PASCHASIUS RADBERT. Book IV.
blishment of such views was now made by Paschasius Radbert,
abbot of Corbie. Paschasius had been brought up in that monas-
tery under Adelhard and Wala, whose biographer he afterwards
became. He had been master of the monastic school, and had
laboured as a commentator on the Scriptures. In 844, he was
elected abbot ; but the disquietudes which were brought on him
by that dignity induced him to resign it in 851, and he lived as a
private monk until his death in 865.^
In 831, Paschasius, at the request of his old pupil Warin, who
had become abbot of the daughter monastery of New Corbey," in
Saxony, drew up a treatise on the Eucharist for the instruction of
the younger monks of that society.* Soon after his appointment
to the abbacy of his own house, in 844, he presented an improved
edition of the work to Charles the Bald, who had requested a cgpy
of it. In this treatise^ the rhetoric of earlier writers is turned into
unequivocally material definitions. Paschasius lays it down, that,
although, after the consecration, the appearance of bread and wine
remain, yet we must not believe anything else to be really present
than the body and blood of the Saviour — the same flesh which was
born of the Blessed Virgin — the same in which He suffered on the
cross and rose from the grave." This doctrine is rested on the
almighty power of God ; the miracles of Scripture are said to have
been wrought in order to prepare the way for it and to confirm it ;
that the elements remain unchanged in appearance and in taste,
is intended, according to Paschasius, as an exercise of our faith.*^
The miraculous production of the Saviour's body is paralleled
with his conception as man,^ Tales are adduced of miracles by
which the reality hidden under the appearance of the elements
was visibly revealed.^ The doctrine afterwards known as Transub-
stantiation appears to be broadly expressed ; but, contrary to the
later practice of Rome, Paschasius insists on the necessity of
receiving the cup as well as the eucharistic bread.^
y Hist. Litt. V. 289 ; Pagi, xiv. 390. ancient authority for it (VI. Prrof. xxiv.-
^ See Patrol, civ. 1128-31. xxxii.).
= Pagi, xiv. 173; Mabill. VI. viii.-x. '• C. 1. ^ C. 4. f C. 14.
i* ' De Corp. et Sanguine Domini ' (in e C. 19. On the slight differences
Bibl. Patr. Lugd. xiv. or Patrol, cxx.). between the doctrine of Paschasius and
<= Cc. 1, 10. It seems to be chiefly in that afterwards sanctioned, see Basnage,
thus maintaining the identity of the body, 910. Bishop Cosiu, after having, in the
that Paschasius goes beyond John of draft of his work on Transubstantiation,
Damascus. See p. 226 ; Joh. Dam. de given the usual view of Paschasius's
Fid. Orthod. iv. 13 (t. i. 169); Dupin, opinions, maintained in the treatise,
vii. 65. Mabillon attempts to show when published, that he did not teach
that it was only at the expression of transubstantiation (Works, ed. Aug.
this idea that the contemporaries of Cath. Lib. iv. 79-81) ; and in our own
Paschasius were offended, and argues day Ebravd has argued that he taught
very unsuccessfully that there was only a spiritml presence, by power or
Chap. II. a.d. 844-8^3. RATRAMN. 305
Paschasius had professed to lay down his doctrine as being that
which was established in the church ; but protests were imme-
diately raised against it.'* Raban Maur,' Walafrid Strabo,'^
Florus,"" and Christian Druthmar," all of them among the most
learned men of the age, objected to the idea of any other than a
spiritual change in the Eucharist, and denounced it as a novelty.
Even among his own community, the views of Paschasius excited
alarm and opposition. One of his monks named Frudegard
expressed uneasiness on account of the abbot's apparent contra-
diction to St, Augustine, so that Paschasius found it necessary to
defend himself by the authority of earlier writers, among whom he
especially relied on St. Ambrose." And the chief opponent of the
doctrine was another monk of Corbie, Ratramn, who examined the
abbot's book at the request of Charles the Bald,^ and answered it,,
although, in consideration of his relation to Paschasius, he did not
name the author. Ratramn divides the question into two heads :
(1) Whether the body and blood of Christ be present in figure or
in truth ; (2) Whether it be the same body which was born of the
Virgin, suffered, rose again, and ascended. He defines figure to
mean that the reality is veiled under something else, as where our
Lord styles himself a vine ; and truth to mean, that the reality is
openly displayed. Although, he says, the elements remain out-
wardly the same as before consecration, the body and blood of
virtual effect (i. 410-412\ But the very • De Institutione Clericorum, i. 31 ;
chapter in which the word potentialiter iii. 13 (Patrol, cvii.); Posnitentiale, 83
occurs (c. 4) fioes on to language and (ib. ex.) ; compare Ep. 3 (ib. cxii.)— a
illustrations which seem clearly to show piece which Mabillou found with the
that the representation usually given title ' Dicta cujusdara sapientis,' and
of the writer, both by friends and by identified with a letter which Raban
opponents, is correct. To the same speaks of himself as having written to
purpose are the stories of miracles (c. Eigil on the doctrine- of Paschasius
14), which Bishop Cosiu is obliged to (Poenit. I, c). Mabillou s conjecture,
dispose of by supposing them inter- however, has been questioned. See
polated (p. 81). The utmost that Pro- Gieseler, II. i. 120.
fessor Ebrard appears to establish is an ^ De Kebus Eccles. 16-17 (ib. cxiv.).
inconsistency in the doctrine of Pascha- '" Adv. Amalar. 9 (ib. cxix.).
sius (411-416). " In Matth. xxvi. 26 (ib. cvi. 1476).
[Since this volume was first published, Druthmar was distinguished as a corn-
Mr. Freeman has also denied that Pas- mentator, who, contrary to the usual
chasius taught the doctrine which is com- practice of his time, followed the literal
monly ascribed to him (Principles of and historical explanation of Scripture
Divine Service, ii. 3.5-40). But see the (Schrockh, xxiii. 269 ; Hist. Litt. v.).
masterly reply in Bishop Thirlwall's For the history of the manner in which
Charge for 1857, Appendix B, where Romish writers have dealt with this
cc. 12, 13, 16, are especially brought writer's testimony, see Maitland, Catal,
forward in evidence.] of Early Printed Books in Lambeth
•' This fact is enough to disprove the Library, 368-372.
argument of Mabillou (VI. xv.) and of " Ad Frudeg., Bibl. Patrum, xiv. 754,
Pagi (xiv. 173), that so learned a man seqq.
could not have mistaken the Church's p Ratramn. de Corp. et Sang. Domini,
doctrine. Oxon. 1838, or Patrol, cxxi., c. 1.
306 RATRAMN. Book IV.
Christ are presented in them, not to the bodily senses, but to the
ftiithful soul.'^ And this must be in a figurative way ; for other-
wise there would be nothing for faith, " the evidence of things not
seen," to work on ; the sacrament would not be a mystery, since
in order to a mystery there must be something beyond what is
seen/ The change is not material, but spiritual;^ the elements,
while in one respect they continue bread and wine, are in another
respect, by spirit and potency, the body and blood of Christ,' even
as the element of water is endued with a spiritual power in order
to the sacrament of baptism." That which is visible and corruptible
in them feeds the body ; that which is matter of belief is itself
immortal, sanctifies the soul, and feeds it unto everlasting life.^
The body of Christ must be incorruptible ; therefore that which
is corruptible in the sacrament is but the figure of the reality/
Ratramn clears the interpretation of the passages which had been
quoted from St. Ambrose in favour of the opposite view.^ He
cites St. Augustine and St. Isidore of Seville as agreeing in his
own doctrine ; "• and argues from the Liturgy, that the Saviour's
presence must be spiritual and figurative, since the sacrament is
there spoken of as a pledge, an image, and a likeness.^
John Scotus, who will be more particularly mentioned hereafter,
is said to have also written on the question, at the desire of Charles
the Bald ; but if so, his book is lost." His other works contain
sense (xii. 85-7). See Mosheim, ii. 233 ;
SchriJckh, xxiii. 479. Amid these con-
flicting views, the English chui-ch may
fairly claim Katramn as an ally, since
» Cc. 33-C, 41-5, 77-8, 93-G. Bishop Ridley was converted by this
*> Cc. 84-6. Ratramn's book was book from a belief in transubstantiation,
first published in 1532, and in that and and it served as a model for the doc-
other editions he is called Bertram, trine of our Reformation. Ridley, ed.
Some Romanists declared it to be a Park. Soc. 159.
forgery of the Reformers, and it was "^ It appears that the early quotations
classed by tlie Council of Trent among which profess to be from Scotus on the
forbidden books. An attempt was after- Eucharist are really from Ratramn's
wards made by some divines of Louvain book, and that mediajval writers who
and Douay to show that it was toler- speak of a book by the one do not name
able ; but the use made of it by the the other ; and to tiiis Gieseler would
reformed stood in the way of this trace the notion of Scotus having written
opinion. It is excluded from the Lyons on the subject (II. i. 123-4). But, as
Bibliotheca (t. xv.), where other works Neander observes (vi. 217-8), the con-
of Ratramn are given, under the pretext fusion between the books is hardly
that it had been corrupted by heretics, enough to warrant us in supposing that
Mabillon (VI. 1. seqq.), Boileau (Patrol. Scotus did not write at all. De Marca
cxxi.), the authors of the ' Hist. Litte'- (ap. D'Acher. Spicil. iii. 852) had sup-
raire ' (iv. 260 ; v. 397), and others, posed Ratramn's book to be really the
have, however, attempted to show that work of Scotus, but was confuted by
the treatise is identical in docti'ine with Mabillon, VI. xliv.-vii. See Dupin, vii.
that of Paschasius — an opinion which 67-8 ; Biihr, 474. Gieseler's opinion
the Abbe Rohrbacher maintains with has been supported by Laufs ; against
his usual amount of modesty and good it see Gfrorer, Kirchengesch. iii. 921-2.
1 Cc. 9-10.
'C. 11.
• C. 12.
« Cc. 13-16.
" Cc. 17-18.
^ Cc. 19, 49.
y Cc. 86-7.
^ Cc. 51-69.
CH.4P. II. PREDESTINATION. 807
grounds for thinking that he regarded the Eucharist as a merely
commemorative rite, and that on this, as on other points, he was
regarded as heterodox."* While the most learned divines of the
age in general opposed Paschasius, his doctrine appears to have
been supported by the important authority of Hincmar/ although
it is doubtful whether the archbishop really meant to assert it in
its full extent, or is to be understood as speaking rhetorically ; and
Haymo, bishop of Halberstadt, a commentator of great reputation,
lays it down as strongly as the abbot of Corbie himself^ The
controversy lasted for some time ; but the doctrine of Paschasius,
which was recommended by its appearance of piety, and by its
agreement with the prevailing love of the miraculous, gained the
ascendancy within the following century.^
II. Throughout the west St. Augustine was revered as the
greatest of all the ancient fathers, and the chief teacher of ortho-
doxy ; yet his system was not in general thoroughly held. The
councils which had been assembled on account of the Pelagian
doctrines had occupied themselves with the subject of Grace, and
had not given any judgment as to Predestination ; and the followers
of Augustine had endeavoured to mitigate the asperities of his
tenets on this question. The prevailing doctrine was of a milder
tone; in many cases it was not far from Semipelagianism,** and
Dr. Floss thinks that Scotus did not wi-ite sages in his -work ' De Divisione Na-
a special treatise on the Eucharist, but turte,' it would seem that his \iew of
that his opinions on that subject were the sacrament was connected with a
contained in his commentary on St. belief that the Saviour's body was
John (Patrol, cxxii. Prtef. xxi.). Dr. changed after the resurrection into a
Christlieb supposes that Scotus may have " reasonable soul " which is everywhere
been asked by Charles the Bald to give present (In Evang. Job. Fragm. i., Pa-
au opinion on the question ; that he trol. cxxii. 312 ; De Div. Nat. v. 20, ib.
wrote a short letter on it, in opposition 894 ; 38, ib. 992 ; Floss, Praf. ix.).
to the views of Paschasius, and that " Spiritualiter euffl immolamus, et intel-
hence Ratramn's book, which at first lectualiter, mente non dente, comedi-
appeared anonymously, may have been mus " (col. 311 b). The commentary
ascribed to Scotus. Leben und Lehre unfortunately breaks oft' before enter-
des Joh. Scotus Erigena (^Gotha, 1860), ing on the critical part of chapter vi.,
pp. 70, 78-9. perhaps, as Dr. Floss supposes (p. x.),
■* Mabill. vi, Praf. Ixiv. ; Schrockh, because the transcriber was unwilling
xxiv. 482 ; Neand. vi. 217-8. Hincniar to reproduce the suspected doctrines of
says of Prudentius and Scotus that, Scotus on the Euchai-ist In his 'Ex-
among other errors, they held " quod positions on Dionysius the Areopagite '
sacramenta altaris non verura corpus et (ib. 140), Scotus, although decidedly
verus sanguis siut Domini, sed tantum against Paschasius, speaks also against
memoria veri corporis et sanguinis ejus " those who hold " visibilem eucharis-
(De Prffidest. 31, t. i. p. 232). A little tiam nil aliud significare pra;ter se
additional light has been thrown on ipsam." See Floss, note ib., 141.
John's eucharistic doctrine by an impel"- "^ Hincm. ii. 99-100,
feet commentary on St. John, which ' De Corp. et Sang. Dom., Patrol,
was first published by M. Ravaisson in cxviii. 815-8.
1849, and appears to be truly ascribed « Schrockh, xxiii. 487-8; Giesel. II.
to him. From this, as from some pas- i. 126-7. '' See vol. i. p. 537.
X 2
308 GOTTSCHALK. Book IV.
even where it could not be so described, it fell so far short of the
rigid Augustinianism that a theologian who strictly adhered to this
might have fairly charged his brethren with unfaithfulness to the
teaching of the great African doctor.'
Gottschalk,'^ the son of a Saxon count, was in boyhood placed
by his father in the monastery of Fulda. On attaining to man's
estate, however, he felt a strong distaste for the life of a monk,
and in 829 he applied for a release from his vows to a synod held
at Mentz under Archbishop Otgar. His petition was granted, on
the ground that he had been devoted to the monastic profession
before he could exercise any will of his own. But the abbot of
Fulda, Raban Maur, the pupil of Alcuin, and himself the greatest
teacher of his time,'" appealed to Louis the Pious, arguing that
persons offered by their parents, although without their own choice,
were bound by the monastic obligations ; and the emperor over-
ruled the synod's decision."
Although compelled to remain a monk, Gottschalk was allowed
to remove from Fulda, where his relation to Raban would have
been inconvenient, to Orbais, in the diocese of Soissons. Here he
gave himself up to the study of Augustine and his followers ; he
embraced their peculiarities with enthusiasm, and such was his
especial love for the works of Fulgentius that his friends usually
called him by the name of that writer." It is a characteristic
circumstance that one of the most eminent among these friends,
Servatus Lupus, abbot of Ferri^res, in a letter of this period,
charges him with an immoderate fondness for speculation, and
' Schrockh, xxiv. 119-121; Neand. by the Council of Mentz, in 813 (c. 23),
vi. 178 ; Giesel. 11. i. 128. ■which is against compelling persons to
^ Schalk, in old German, signified a be monks or clergy ; but Mabillon ar-
sermnt, although its meaning has under- gues (VI. cvi.) that it did not intend to
gone the same change as that of our forbid the oblation of boys. The capi-
own word knave. Gottschalk, therefore, tulary for monks enacted at Aix-la-
= servant of God. The Epistle to Titus Chapelle in 817 (see p. 253) orders that
begins in the Gothic version " Paulus, boys offered by their parents shall con-
skalks Guths." Patrol, xviii. 857. firm Ihe obligation " tempore intelli-
™ Neand. vi. 156. He was, perhaps, gibili " (c. 36); but it is not said that
born in 786, and he died in 856 (Kunst- they may decline the monastic life. The
manu, ' Hrabauus Magnentius Maurus,' rule of Cluny afterwards ordered that
14, 159, Mainz, 1844). The name of the benediction of boys should not take
Maurus was given to him by Alcuin in place under the age of fifteen ; and in
remembrance of St. Maur, the disciple this, other orders, popes, and at length the
of St. Benedict. lb. 37 ; Mabill. vi. 20. Council of Trent, agreed. Mabill. VI.,
" Schrockh, xxiv. 5-6 ; Kunstmann, cvi.-cvii. See Petr. Venerab. Statnta, c.
70. Eaban's tract ' De Oblatione Puer- 36 (Patrol, clxxxix.) ; Hugonis Statnta,
orum, contra eos qui repugnant institu- c. G (ib. ccix.), where the age is twenty ;
tis B. Patris Benedicti' (Patrol, cvii.), Ducauge, s. v. Ohlati ; Mabill. Analecta,
really belongs to this time, although .157, seqq. ; Nat. Alex. xiii. 374.
Migne has erroneously dated it in 819. " He is so styled by Walafrid Strabo,
(Hefele, iv. 125.) Gottschalk's claim in a poem (Patrol, cxiv. 1115).
might seem to have been countenanced
CiLVP. II. AD. 82D-846.
GOTTSCHALK. 309
exhorts him to turn from it to matters of a more practical kind.^'
Hincmar, on the rejiort of the abbot of Orbais, describes him while
there as restless, changeable, bent on perversities, addicted to
argument, and apt to misrepresent what was said by others in
conversation with him ; as scorning to be a disciple of the truth,
and preferring to be a master of error ; as eager to gain an influ-
ence, by correspondence and otherwise, over persons who were
inclined to novelty and desired notoriety at any price.i With a
view, no doubt, to qualify himself for preaching his doctrines,
Gottschalk procured ordination as a priest from a chorepiscopus of
Rheims, during the vacancy of that see after the deposition of
Ebbo. This act appears to have been a token of disaifection to
the episcopal body, with which the chorepiscopi were then on very
unfriendly terms ;" it was censured as irregular, inasmuch as
Gottschalk belonged to the diocese of Soissons, and as the cho-
repiscopus had no authority from any superior to confer the priestly
ordination at all/
The doctrine on which Gottschalk especially took his stand was
that of Predestination. The usual language in the church had
been, that the righteous are predestinate, and that the wicked are
fore'knoiv7i, while the rigid Augustinianism spoke of the wicked as
reprobate;^ but Gottschalk applied the term predestinate to both
classes." There is, he said, a tivofold predestination — a term for
which he cited the authority of Isidore of Seville.'' In both cases
predestination is to good ; but good is twofold, including not only
the benefits of grace but the judgments of justice. As life is
predestined to the good, and they to it, so evil is predestined lo
the wicked, and they to it.^ His opponents usually charged him
with maintaining that the wicked were irresistibly and- irrevocably
doomed to sin, as well as to its consequences. But it would seem,
even by Hincraar's own avowal,^ that Gottschalk did not admit
this representation of his opinions ; he maintained only that, as the
perseverance in evil of the devil, his angels, and wicked men was
foreknown, they were predestinated to righteous punishment.'' He
p Serv. Lup. Ep. xxx. (Patrol, cxix.). "" Conf. brevior, ap. Usser. 212 (Isid.
q Hincm. De PriEdest. c. 2 (Opera, i. Sentent. ii. 6, Patrol. Ixxxiii.) ; Cf.
20) ; Ep. ad Nicol. Pap. t. ii. 262 ; ii. Hincm. de Prsed. c. 9, p. 33.
Q(j4 295 '' Couf. prolix. 214.
" ^ See p. 195, aud below, Ch. VIII. i. 2. ^ De Prscd. c. 15, p. 63, where he treats
B Hiacm. i. 21 ; ii. 262. Gottschalk's distiDCtion as only nominal,
' Neand. -vi. 180-2. "cum non nisi per peccatum perveiiiri
" Coiifessio prolixior, ap. Usser. valeat ad interitom." See Kunstm.
'Hist. Gotteschalci/ Dubl. 1631, pp. 135.
215-7. On the controversy raised by » Couf. brev. 211; Conf. prolix. 219,
Gottschalk, see alsoPetav. de Incarnat. 222 ; Usser. 44 ; Giesel. II. i. 12v'.
1. xiii. cc. 8, seqq.
310 SYNODS OF Book IV.
denied that Christ died for any but the elect, and explained the
texts which speak of God's willing all men to be saved as applicable
to those only who actually are saved. And, unlike Augustine, he
held that even the first human pair were subject to a predestina-
tion.^ The view which his adversaries took of his opinion may be
in some degree excused by the violence with which he insisted on
his difference from them, and by his zeal in condemning them—
circumstances which could not but lead them to suppose the differ-
ence far greater than it appears to have really been.
Gottschalk was returning from a visit to Rome, in 847, when at
the house of Eberhard, count of Friuli, a son-in-law of Louis the
Pious,= he met Notting, who had been lately nominated to the see
of Verona. He propounded his doctrine of twofold predestination,
at which Notting was greatly startled. The bishop soon after
mentioned it to Raban Maur, whom he found at the court of Louis
of Germany ; and Raban, who had lately become archbishop of
Mentz, wrote both to Notting and to Eberhard, in strong condem-
nation of Gottschalk's opinion, which he declared to be no doctrine
of St. Augustine. Predestination, he said, could only be a prepa-
ration for grace; God foreknows evil, but does not predestinate
to it ; all who yield their corrupt will to the guidance of Divine
grace may be saved.'^ Count Eberhard, on receiving the arch-
bishops letter, dismissed his dangerous visitor, who then travelled
slowly homeward through Southern Germany ;® and it would seem
to have been on account of his proceedings in these already Christian
lands that Hincmar speaks of him as having visited barbarous and
pagan nations for the purpose of infecting them with his errors.^ In
848 Gottschalk appeared before a synod held by Raban at Mentz in
the presence of King Louis. His attendance was probably volun-
tary,^ and, as if prepared for a disputation, he carried with him
an answer to Raban's objections, in which he charged the arch-
bishop with following the heresy of Gennadius and Cassian, and
reasserted the doctrine of a double predestination.^' His opinions,
•> Gottesch. ap. Hiucm. dePrsedest. cc. e Schrockh, xxiv. 13-13 ; Gfrorer, i.
25, 27, 29 (t. i. 147, 211, 226) ; Neand. 214-5. From the words in the Annales
vi. 181. Bertiniaui (a.d. 849) — "episcnpali con-
<= Eberhard was father of Berengar, ciVio JetecfjK atque convictus" — Kunst-
who was crowned as emperor in 916. mann (wronglv, as it appears to me)
Murat. Anuali, V. i. 35. infers that he was dragged from a
d IJab. Epp. 5, 6 (Patrol, cxii.) ; hiding-place. [In this I find myself
Kunstiu. 120, seqq. agreeing with ilt^fele, iv. 131.]
•= Annal. Bertiu. a.d. 849 ; Kunstm. •> Fragments of this are preserved
127. in 'De I'rgedestinatione.' See Patrol.
f Hincm. ii. 262 ; Remig. in Patrol, cxxi. 365.
cxxi. 987.
Cavp. II. A.D. 847-849. MENTZ AND QUIERCY. 311
as might have been expected, were condemned by the synod ; he
was obhged to swear that he would never again enter the dominions
of Louis;' and he was sent to his own metropohtan, Hincmar,
with a letter in which Raban styled him a vagabond,"^ and recom-
mended that, as being incorrigible, he should be confined.™
In the following year, Hincmar brought Gottschalk before a
synod at Quiercy " on the Oise, where, according to the
archbishop, he behaved like a possessed person, and,
instead of answering the questions which were put to him, broke
out into violent personal attacks. He was flogged severely, in the
presence of King Charles, — a punishment for which the rule of
St. Benedict and the canons of Agde were quoted as a warrant,
not without some straining of their application." When exhausted
with this cruel usage, he was required to throw his book into
the fire, and had hardly strength enough to do so.^ Hincmar
long after told Pope Nicolas that he had been obliged to take the
matter into his own hands because the bishop of Soissons, Rothad,
was himself infected with novelties ; *^ and for the same reason
Gottschalk, who was condemned by the synod to perpetual silence,
was removed to the monastery of Hautvilliers, witliin the diocese
of Rheims."^
His zeal was rather quickened than daunted by his imprison-
ment. He refused to subscribe a declaration sent to him by
Hincmar, which would have had the effect of releasing him on
condition of his admitting that there might be divine foresight
without predestination.^ He denounced the opposite party under
the name of Rabanists ;^ and, in one of two confessions which he
sent forth, he speaks of them as heretics whom it was his bounden
duty to avoid."^ In these confessions he lays down his doctrine of
a twofold predestination — predestination of good angels and men,
freely, to bliss; of the evil to punishment, justly, on foreknowledge
of their guilt. In the longer of the two, which (probably in imita-
tion of St. Augustine) is composed in the form of an address to God,
he breaks out into a prayer that an opportunity might be granted
him of testifying the truth of his opinions, in the presence of the
' Anual. Fuld. 848 (Pertz, i. 365). p Remigius de Tribus Epistolis, 25
'' " Gyrovagus." He -would seem to (Pati'ol. cxxi.).
have left Orbais without leave from the i Hincm. ii. 262.
abbot. Kunstm. 120, 1.32. ' Hard. v. 20.
■" Rab. Ep. 8 (Patrol, cxii.). Hefele « Flodoard, iii. 28 (Patrol, cxxxv.
questious the genuineness of these acts. 259). Corap. Schrockh, xxiv. 43.
iv. 138. Comp. Schrockh, xxiv. 15-19. ' " Rhabaoicos. " Amulo ad Gottesch
" Hard. v. 17. Patrol, cxvi. 95.
o Hiucm. de Prsedest. 2. t. i. 21, 443. " Couf. prolix, ap. Usser. 232.
See Schrockh, xxiv. 40.
312 . GOTTSCHALK'S CONFESSIONS. Book IV.
king, of bishops, clergy, monks, and laity, by plunging successively
into four casks of boiling water, oil, fat,^ and pitch ; and lastly
by walking through a blazing pile. This wish has been variously
traced to humility and to hypocrisy^ — qualities which seem to have
been alike foreign to Gottschalk's character. It would accord
better with the rest of his history, if we were to seek the motive
in a proud and self-important but sincere fanaticism.
The doctrines for which Gottschalk was suffering now found
champions of name and influence, although these varied somewhat
among themselves, while all (like Gottschalk himself) disavowed
the opinion of an irresistible predestination to sin. Among them
were — Prudentius, a Spaniard by birth, bishop of Troyes;^ Ser-
vatus Lupus, abbot of Ferrieres, an old pupil of Raban, who had
great weight in the French church, and was highly esteemed by
Charles the Bald ;^ and Ratramn, who in this controversy, as in
that on the Eucharistic Presence, wrote at the king's request and
for his information.^ Hincmar found it necessary to seek for
assistance against these writers. Raban, to whom he applied,
excused himself, chiefly on the plea of age and infirmity, and
added that in many points he agreed with Gottschalk, although
he thought him mistaken as to the predestination of the wicked.*^
But Hincmar found allies in Amalarius, an ecclesiastic of Metz,
who was distinguished as a ritualist,'' and in Amnio, archbishop of
Lyons, the pupil and successor of Agobard.^.
The most remarkable work in opposition to Gottschalk's views,
however, was that of John Scotus, whose name has already been
mentioned in connexion with the eucharistic question. The cir-
cumstances of this celebrated man's life are enveloped in great
obscurity. The name Scotus, like that of Erigena, which was
given to him at a later time, indicates that he was a native of
^ " Oleo, pingui " (ib. 233). These i* Eatr. de Prsedest. Dei, Patrol, cxxi,
words are usually printed without a 13.
comma between them, as if viingui were *" Raban. ad Hincm., Patrol, cxii.
an epithet. But it must be taken as a Ep. 4; Kunstm. 138. Compare a later
substantive, in order to make up the letter of Kaban in Kunstm. Append, v.
number of barrels. Gfrbrer (altogether improbably and un-
y See Schroekh, xxiv. 48. justly, as it seems to me) supposes that
^ Prudentius (whose works are in the Eaban lent himself to Louis of Ger-
' Patrologia,' "V'ol. cxv.) wrote part of the many's dislike of Hincmar, by first
' Anuales Bertiuiani,' which were con- drawing him into controversy and then
tinned by Hincmar. Hincmar, in the deserting him ! (i. 262-3.)
opening of his part, says that his prede- ^ Some, however, have supposed this
cessor, after having opposed Gottschalk, Amalarius to have been a different per-
took up his cause out of private enmity son from the ritualist. See Hist. Litt.
to some bishops. Pertz, i. 465. iv. .535.
^ Patrol, cxix. ; Hist. Litt. v. 256-7 ; « Amnio is in the Patrol, t. cxvi.
Schroekh, xxiv. 56, seqq.
CUAP. II. A.D. 849-85'i.
JOHN SCOTUS ERIGENA.
313
Ireland, a country which furnished many others of ttie learned
men who enjoyed the patronage of Charles the Bald/ From his
knowlcdg-e of Greek (in which language he even wrote verses,
although with an utter disdain of prosody =) it has been supposed
that he had travelled in the east ; but the supposition is needless,
as Greek was then an ordinary branch of education in his native
country and in Britain/' That he was acquainted with Hebrew
has often been said, but without sufficient proof.' Like the
scholars of his time in general, John appears to have been a priest,
or, at least, to have belonged to some order of the clergy/ He
had for some years found a home in the court of Charles,™ and had
restored the reputation of the Palatine School," which had sunk
during the distractions of the preceding reign ; " while, among
other literary labours, he had executed a translation of the works
ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, which had been sent as a
present by the Greek emperor Michael to Louis the Pious.P
Scotus was better versed in Greek than in Latin theology, so that
even as to the question of the Holy Spirit's procession he inclined
to the oriental side.'^ But, in truth, he had a far greater affinity
f See above, p. 298. Prudentius says
that Ireland sent John to Gaul, and
speaks of his " Celtic eloquence." (De
Pi-ffidest. U, Patrol, cxv. 1194.) In-
stead of Eri'jena, the word in the oldest
MSS. is lerugena, which Dr. Floss be-
lieves to be formed after a supposed ana-
logy with Grajugena and to be com-
pounded of lepoii (sc. vr](Tov) and gena
(Patrol. cxxii., Prsef. xix). Although
the false concord would not perhaps
have shocked the middle ages, I can-
not follow this derivation so unre-
servedly as Dr. ChrJstlieb, who has cer-
tainly not strengthened his case by
ascribing to John the formation of Gra-
jic/ena as well as oi Icrugavi. (Joh. Scot.
Erig. lG-7). For other views as to
John's country, see Patrol, cxxii. 6, 95.
K See ib. 1237.
^ Christlieb, 22.
' liitter, vii. 206-7. See an anony-
mous Life, published at Bonn in 1835,
and reprinted in the ' Patrologia,' cxxii.
10 ; also Christlieb, 59.
^ This has been denied, as in the
Bonn Life (col. 44) ; but Staudeumaier,
Kitter (vii. 207), and Christlieb (54-5),
maintain it. The argument on the other
side seems chiefly to rust on the fact
that he is not distinguished by any
clerical title.
"' Christlieb dates his appearance there
between 840 and S4i). p. 24.
° See p. 143. » Guizot, ii. 371.
p It was not, as has been commonly
said, the embassy on the question of
images (see p.^273) but a later one, in
827, that conveyed this present (Pagi,
xiv. 134). Louis, after his reconcilia-
tion with the church at St. Denys, in
836, desired Hilduin to collect materials
for the Life of the Areopagite, who from
that time was identified with the patron
of the monastery and of France, al-
though it appears that some persons still
denied the identity. (See the letters
prefixed to the Life, Patrol, cvi. ; Hinc-
mar, ib. cxxvi. 154; Innoc. III. a.i>.
1215, ib.ccxvii. 241 ; Ba'ron, 824. 30; 834.
4, seqq. ; Fleury, xlvii. 50 ; Sohrockh,
xxiii. 113-7.) Hilduin is not, however,
to be regarded as the author of this opi-
nion, but only as having given it estab-
lishment and popularity, for traces of it
are found earlier (e. g. Veuant. For-
tuuat. in Patrol. Ixxxviii. 580), and it
is indeed implied in the selection of the
abbot of St. Denys as the biographer of
the Areopagite. (See Hist. Litt. iv.
Gll-2; Giesel. II. i. 162-4.) The most
celebrated passage of Hilduin's work is
in c. 32—" Se cadaver erexit, sanctaque
manu caput . . . coepit vectitare." Comp.
the Lessons in the lloman Breviary for
Oct. 9.
1 See Floss, xxii. ; Christl. 179. He
seems to have extended his Greek sym-
314 PREDESTINARIAN CONTROVERSY. Book IV.
with the ancient philosophers — especially the Neoplatonists — than
with the theologians of his own age. His bold and rationalising
mind plunged into questionable, or evidently heretical, specula-
tions ; he startled his contemporaries by denying the literal sense
of some parts of the Scripture narrative,'" and there are passages in
his works which indicate an almost undisguised pantheism.^ Of
his latter years nothing is known, except that Pope Nicolas, on
the ground that his orthodoxy was suspected, requested Charles
to send him to Rome, or, at least, to prevent his longer residence at
Paris, where his teaching might do mischief.'' It would seem that,
notwithstanding this denunciation, Charles continued to protect
Scotus, and that the philosopher ended his days in France ; although
many writers have supposed that, after the death of his patron, he
removed into England, and aided the great Alfred in his labours
for the education of his people."
The controversy thus far had differed from those of the earlier
ages in appealing exclusively to authority. Augustine and the
other fathers had exercised their original thought in the definition
of doctrine ; but hitherto the question as to predestination did not
relate to the truth of Christian doctrine, but to the manner in
which that doctrine had been determined by St. Augustine.''
Scotus, however, took a diff'erent course from the theologians who
had preceded him on either side.^' Like them, indeed, he professed
to appeal to Scripture and the fathers — especially to the great teacher
on whom the opposite party chiefly relied ; '^ but both Scripture and
pathies so far as to prefer Constant!- Litt. v. 419 ; Lingard, A. S. C. ii. 246;
nople to Rome. See the verses at the Murdock, n. on Mosheim, ii. 213; Hal-
end of his translation of Diouysius, col. lam, Suppl. Notes, 391; Lauigan, iii.
1194; Christl. 27-8. 301 ; Hardy, n. on W. Malmesb. 188;
■^ See Christl. 299-30.5, 346. Gfrorer, iii. 938 ; Floss, xxiv. Biihr
s See Guizot, ii. 383-7; Neand. vi. (485j,andChristlieb(43), wliilethey dis-
163-9; Ritter, vii. 23.5; Ampfere, iii. tinguisli between the tvyo Johns, think
137-146; Christl. 129-132, 199. John's it likely that Scotus, finding his posi-
work ' De Dlvisioue Naturaj ' was con- tion uneasy, may have left France and
demned to the flames by Houorius III., have repaired to Alfred's court. Mr.
in 1225 (Patrol, cxxii. 439), and, on its Soames, in that anti-historical spirit
publication by Gale (Oxford, ICSl), was against which I have often felt it neces-
put into the Roman Index of forbid- sary to protest, denounces the distinction
den books. (lb. Praif. i.) between the Johns as an attempt in the
' lb. 1025 ; the date is uncertain. Roman interest to clear Alfred from the
" The idea of his removal into Eng- charge of having patronised an oppo-
laud has chiefly arisen out of a confu- nent of Transubstantiation ! N. in Mos-
sion between Scotus and another John, heim, loc. cit.
a learned monk of Old Saxony. They '^ Guizot, ii. 361, 3G9.
are identified by Baronius (878. 62); y ' De Diviua Prsedestinatione Liber.'
Fuller (i. 180-2) ; Spelman and his editor (Opera, 355-440.)
Hearne (Life of Alfred, 133-5); Ware ^ E. g. C. xi. 2, 4. Many of his quo-
(Writers of Ireland, 61) ; Collier (i. tations are taken from the treatise _' De
388). Against the identity, see Pagi, libero Arbitrio,' an early work written
XV. 337 ; Harris, n. on Ware, 1. c. ; Hist, by Augustine against the Manichaans,
Cbap.II. A.D. 851. SCOTUS ON PREDESTINATION. 815
fathers (he said) had condescended to the weakness of their readers,
and much of their lang'uao;e was to be figuratively understood. Thus
a principle was laid down by which their most positive expressions
mig'ht be set aside, and anything which seemed to disagree with the
philosopher's own speculations might be explained away.^
Scotus wrote at the request of Hincmar, and inscribed his book
to him and to his associate in the cause, Pardulus, bishop of
Laon.^ He sets out with a parade of philosophical method, and
declares that true philosophy and true theology are identical.*^ He
treats Gottschalk as a heretic — a tool of the " old enemy " — and
traces his errors to a want of liberal culture, especially to igno-
rance of the Greek language and theology.*^ It is, he says, an
impropriety to speak of jyredestination or /oreknowledge in God,
since to Him all time is present ; but, admitting the use of such
words, he holds that predestination is eternal, and is as much a
part of God Himself as any other of his attributes.® It can,
therefore, only be one ; we can no more suppose two predestina-
tions in God than two wisdoms or two knowledges.*^ He disallows
Gottschalk's distinction of one twofold predestination ; the Divine
predestination must be truly one, and must be to good only ; and
such (he maintains) is the use of the term, not only in Scripture,
but in Augustine's own writings, if rightly understood.^ Yet the
number both of those who shall be delivered by Christ and of
those who are to be left to their wickedness is known, and may be
said to be predestined ; God has circumscribed the wicked by his
law, which brings out their wickedness, while it acts in an opposite
manner on the good.'^ Scotus strongly asserts the freedom of the
will to choose not only evil (to which Lupus had limited it),' but
good ; free-will (he says) is a gift with which our nature is endowed
by God — a good gift, although it may be employed for evil;""
whereas Gottschalk, by referring all virtue and vice to predestina-
tion, denies both the freedom of the will and the assistance of grace,
and thus falls at once into the errors of the Pelagians and of their
extreme opponents."^ Predestination and foreknowledge in God
at a time when his opinions on Predes- "^ Cc. i. 2-4; xviii. 1-4. •
tination had not been developed by the ^ C. ix. 1, 5-7; xv. 5 ; xvii. 2.
. Pelagian controversy. Scotus also re- ' C. ii. 6.
lies in part on a spui'ious work, the s C. xviii. 8; Epilog. 2.
' Hypognosticon ' or ' Hypomnesticon,' •» Cc. iii.-iv. ; xi. 3-7 ; xii. 4-5 ; xiii.-
which is printed in the Appendix to vol. xiv.
x. of Augustine (xiv. 4). ' Lup. Ep. 128 (Bibl. Patr. xv. 42, c) ;
» Cc. ix. ; xi. 6 ; Hist. Litt. v. 420-1 ; De Tribus Qusestionibus, ib. 45, f.
Ritter, vii. 212-5. ^ Cc. iv. 4 ; v. ; vi. 1 ; vii. 1-2 ; viii.
b De Div. Prjed. Prsef. 7-9.
<: C. 1 ; Hitter, vii. 211. " C. iv. 1-4.
316 SCOTUS ON PREDESTINATION. Book IV.
are one, and relate only to good ; for God can only foresee that
which has a being, whereas sin and punishment are not." Sin is,
as Augustine had taught, only the defect of righteousness ; punish-
ment is but. the defect of bliss." If the soul has the capacity for
blessedness, the longing for bliss without the power of attaining it
is the keenest possible torment ; thus the true punishment is that
which sin inflicts on itself, secretly in the present life, and openly
in that which is to come, when those things which now appear to be
the pleasures of sin will become the instruments of torment. That
which is punished is not our nature (which is God's work), but the
corruption of our nature ;P nor- is God properly the author of
punishments ; He is only so spoken of inasmuch as He is the
creator of the universe in which they are ; '^ the wicked will be
tormented by their own envy ; the righteous will be crowned by
their own love.'" The fire (" whether it be corporeal, as Augustine
thinks, or incorporeal, according to Gregory ") is not needed for
the punishment of the wicked — even of the evil, whose pride would
suffice for its own chastisement ; it is one of the four elements
which form the balance and completeness of the universe. It is
in itself good ; the blessed will dwell in it as well as the wicked,
and it will affect each kind according to their capacities, even as
light produces different effects on sound and on ailing eyes.*^ " For-
asmuch as there is no bliss but eternal life, and life eternal is the
knowledge of the truth, therefore there is no other bliss than the
knowledge of the truth. ... So, if there be no misery but eternal
death, and eternal death is the ignorance of the truth, there is
consequently no misery except ignorance of the truth." '
If Hincmar, in inviting Scotus to take part in the controversy,
aimed at counteracting the influence of Lupus and Ratramn over
Charles the Bald, he was in so far successful ; for from that time
the king was steadily on his side." But in other respects he found
the philosopher a very dangerous and embarrassing ally, so that
he even felt himself obliged to disavow him.^
The excitement raised by the novelties of Scotus was very great.
Wenilo, archbishop of Sens, whom Hincmar had studiously, and
hitherto successfully, endeavoured to conciliate,^ now sent a
" Cc. X. 3 ; xi.-xii. ; xv. 3-5. hoc dicimus quasi nulla poena sit seterna,
° C. X. 4-5 (Aug. De Civ. Dei, xii. 7). dum unusquisque sua conscientia sive
p C. xvi. <i C. XYii. 1. beatilicabitur sive damnabitur in seter-
■■ C. xviii. fin. ' num, sed solummodo aginius quod nulla
^ C. xvii. 8-9 ; xix. natura in ullo punietur."
' C. xvii. 9. Compare a passage in " Guizot, ii. 376 ; Gfrorer, i. 321.
the Commentary on Dion, de Hierar- "^ Hiiicm. de Prsed. c, 31, p. 232.
chia Ccelesti, col. 205. " Non autem y Gfrorer, i. 217, 232.
Chap. II. aj). 851 3. PREDESTINARIAN CONTROVERSY. 317
number of propositions, extracted from the book, to Prudentius,
with a request that he would examine, and, if necessary, refute
them/' The bishop of Troyes thereupon wrote against Scotus
with great asperity, and he was followed by Florus, a deacon and
master of the cathedral school at Lyons.'' These writers charge
Scotus with Pelagianism, to v/hich Prudentius adds accusations of
Origcnism and Collyridianism." They complain of him for
imputing imaginary errors to his opponents ; they censure him
for substituting philosophy for theology, and sophistical subtleties
for arguments from Scripture and ancient authorities. Hincmar
and Pardulus entreated Amulo of Lyons again to assist them ; but
he died in 852, and his 'successor, Remigius, answered the appli-
cation by writing, in the name of his church, a book on the
opposite side — taking up the case of Gottschalk more expressly
than those who had preceded him, censuring the cruelty with
which he had been treated,*" and defending the impugned opinions,
with the exception of that which limited the exercise of free will
since the Fall to the choice of evil.*^
Finding that the literary contest was turning against him, Hinc-
mar resolved to fortify himself with the authority of a council, and
at Quiercy, in 853, four decrees on the subject of the controversy
were passed.'' It is laid down that man fell by the abuse of his
free will ; that God, by his foreknowledge, chose some whom by
his grace He predestinated to life, and life to them : but as for
those whomx He, by righteous judgment, left in their lost estate,
He did not predestine them to perish, but predestined punishment
to their sin. " And hereby," it is said, " we speak of only one
predestination of God, which relates either to the gift of grace or
to the retribution of justice." ' It is defined that our free will was
lost by the Fall, but was recovered through Christ ; that we have a
free will to good, prevented and aided by grace, as well as a free
will to evil, deserted by grace ;^ that God would have all men to
be saved, and that Christ suffered for all ; that the ruin of those
who perish is to be ascribed to their own desert.^
Prudentius, who was present when these decrees were passed,
subscribed them, but afterwards put forth four propositions against
^ Usser. 115-125. held this. lb. 21.
" Hist. Litt. V. 214. ■= Sirmond, followed by Archbp.
•> Prud, de Prsedest. Prtcf. (Patrol. Ussher (c. vi.) and others, wrongly re-
cxv. 1011); Florus adv. Scotum, 4, 8 fers these to the council of the same
(ib. cxix. 132, 152). See Pagi, xiv. 400. place in 849. Giesel. II. i. 134.
e De Tribus Epistolis, 25 (Patrol. ^ Cone. Carisiac. II. a.d. 853; c. 1.
cxxi.). e C. 2.
•^ He questioned whether Gottschalk '' Cc 3-4.
318 COUNCILS. Book ^^■
them ; ' and Remigius, who,- as a subject of Lothair, felt himself
independent of the influence of Charles the Bald, wrote, in the
name of his Church, a book against the articles of Quiercy.'' Of
Scotus the archbishop says that he is ignorant of the very words
of Scripture, and that, instead of 'being consulted on points of
faith, he ought either to be pitied as a man out of his right mind,
or to be anathematised as a heretic.™ Remigius, hov/ever, main-
tains the necessity of free will, in order to responsibility." Against
the authority of the council of Quiercy was set one which met under
the presidency of Remigius in 855 at Valence, in Lotharingia."
This assembly condemned nineteen propositions extracted from
Scotus, which, by a phrase borrowed from St. Jerome's attack on
Coelcstius, it characterised as " porridge of the Scots." ^ It laid
down moderate definitions as to free will and the extent of the
benefits of the Redeemer's death.^ But it censured the four
articles of Quiercy as useless, or even noxious and erroneous ; and
it forbade, in the name of the Holy Spirit, any teaching contrary to
its own,^ The decrees of Valence were confirmed by a council held
near Langres in 859,^ although, at the instoince of Remigius, the
ofi^ensive expressions against the articles of Quiercy were omitted. '^
A greater council, to which that of Langres was preliminary, met
a fortnight later at Savonnieres, a suburb of Toul. Here again
the subject was entertained ; Remigius acted in a spirit of con-
ciliation, and the decision was adjourned to a future synod."
In the mean time Gottschalk was not inactive in his seclusion.
Hincmar had altered an ancient hymn of unknown authorship,'' in
which the application of the word trine to the Godhead seemed
to suggest a threefold difierence in the nature of the Divine
Persons.^ But Ratramn defended the term, and Gottschalk — eager,
it would seem, to provoke his powerful enemy in all ways — put forth
5 Prud. Ep. ad Guenilon. (Patrol. 184. i Cc. 2-4.
cxv. 1365-8) ; Gfrorer, i. 241-4 ; Hefele, "■ Hincmar complains of this (i. 65),
iv. 180-1. and in cc. 16, seqq., of his treatise on
^ ' De tenenda Scripturae veritate.' Predestination, defends the articles of
The authorship has been questioned, but Quiercy by quotations from the fathers,
without reason. See Schrockh, xxiv. « Hard. v. 498.
98-9, who, however, is wrong in apply- * Giesel. II. i. 137.
ing to Hincmar some expressions (c. 2) ^ Cone. Tull. I. apud Saponarias, a.d.
which clearly relate to Gottschalk. 859, c. 10 of Introduction ; also pt. vi.
™ Eccl. Lugd. ap. Usser. 185. cc. 1-6 ; Hincm. i. 2.
" C. 10; Schrockh, xxiv. 100-2. '^ Opera, i. 413, 438.
° Hard. v. 87, seqq. y "Te, trinaDeitasunaque, poscimus."
p C. 6. See vol. i. p. 412. The ar- Hincmar argued that Deltas meant the
tides of Valence are supposed to have nature of God, and altered trina into
been drawn up by Ebbo, bishop of Gre- summa. — ' De una et non trina Deitate,'
noble, nephew of the deprived archbishop Opera, i. 413-555 ; Giesel. II. i. 137.
of Kheims. Ussher, 185 ; Hefele, iv.
ClIAP, II. A.D. 853-859.
"TRINA DEITAS." 319
in its behalf a tract in which he charged Hincmar with Sabel-
lianism.^ The archbishop rephed in a work of which the substance
was shown to Gottschalk, in the hope of converting him, although
it was not completed until after his death.'' He meets the charge
of Sabellianism with one of Arianism ; ^ he exhorts monks to keep
clear of novelties in a style which seems to intimate that his
opponent had many adherents among that class ; and he gives
very significant hints of the bodily and spiritual punishments to
which an imitation of Gottschalk would render them liable."
Hincmar was not further molested about this affair ; but the word
to which he had objected, although Jiis objection was supported by
the authority of Raban,'^ kept its place in the Galilean service.
In 859, a monk of Hautvilliers named Guntbert, whom Gott-
schalk had gained, privately left the monastery, and carried an
appeal from the prisoner to Rome.*^ It appeared as if the new
pope, Nicolas, were disposed to take up the matter.^ Hincmar
wrote to him, professing his willingness to act as he should direct —
to release Gottschalk, to transfer him to other custody, or even to
send him to Rome (although he spoke of the two synods which
had condemned the prisoner as a bar to this course) ; but he
refused to appear with him before the pope's legates at Metz in
863, on an occasion which will be related hereafter.^ From a
letter written by Hincmar to Egilo, archbishop of Sens, who was
about to set out for Rome, we learn some details as to Gottschalk's
condition. It is said that in respect of food, drink, and fuel, he
was as well treated as any of the monks among whom he lived ;
that clothes were supplied, if he would receive them ; but that,
ever since he was placed at Hautvilliers, he had refused to wash
not only his body, but even his face and hands.'^ From another
writing of Hincmar, it appears that the unfortunate man had
become subject to strange delusions, and had visions in which the
imagery of the Apocalypse was applied to foreshow the ruin of his
chief enemy. His long confinement and sufferings, acting on his
^ Schedula Gotteschalci, ap. Hincm. a " Catholic" decision on the points in
i. 415-7. question — i.e. a decision agreeable to
* Hincm. i. 552. the writer's own views. But Hincmar,
•> P. 418. referring to this, says that he had never
^ Pp. 436-444. heard or read the statement elsewhere ;
^ Rab. ap. Kunstm. Append, vi. and he commissions Egilo, archbishop
« Hincmar describes Guntbert as hav- of Sens, when going to Rome, to beg
ing often before incurred punishment for that the pope would discountenance
faults, and charges him with having such misrepresentations, (ii. 292.) See
stolen horses, books, and vestments Hefele, iv. 199.
when he left the Abbey, ii. 290. e See below, p. 324 ; Hincm. ii. 2G4 ;
f Prudentius says, in Annal. Bertin. Usser. 202; Schrcickh, xxiv. 117.
A.B. 859 (Pertz, i. 464), that Nicolas gave ^ Hincm. ii. 292.
320 DEATH OF GOTTSCHALK. Book IV.
vain, obstinate, and enthusiastic temper, had partially overthrown
his reason,'
The synodal discussion of the predestinarian controversy, to
which the council of Savonnieres had looked forward, was never
held. But a council at Toucy, near Toul, in October 860, which
was attended by Charles the Bald, Lothair II., and Charles of Pro-
vence, by twelve metropolitans, and by bishops from fourteen
provinces, adopted a letter drawn up by Hincmar, which is in part
a general statement of doctrine, and in part is directed against
the invasion of ecclesiastical property. In this letter the freedom
of man's will, the will of God that all men should be saved, the
necessity of grace in order to salvation, the Divine mercy in
choosing and calling men from out of the " mass of perdition,"
and the death of Christ " for all who were debtors unto death,"
are distinctly stated, but in such a manner as rather to conciliate
than to repel those who in some respects had been the archbishop's
opponents.'^ Hincmar, at the desire of Charles the Bald,™ employed
himself at intervals, from 859 to 863, in composing a work of
great length on predestination and the kindred subjects," chiefly
in defence of the articles of Quiercy, which he had before main-
tained in a book of which the preface only is extant." He. labours to
bring the theology of Augustine, Fulgentius, and others into accord-
ance with his own opinions, which are rather those of the time
before the Pelagian controversy arose. He quotes very profusely ;
but most of the passages which he relies on as St. Augustine's are
from a work falsely ascribed to that father, which had already been
employed by Scotus, and declared by Remigius to be spurious.^
He admits the expression of one tivofold predestination,'! but differs
from Gottschalk in saying that, while the righteous are predestined
to life, and it to them, punishment is predestined to the reprobate,
but they are not predestined to it ; that God did not predestinate
them, but forsook them.'' With this work the controversy ceased.
Gottschalk remained in captivity twenty years. In 869, the
monks of Hautvilliers perceived that his end was approaching,
and sent Hincmar notice of the fact, with an inquiry whether
they should allow him to receive the last sacraments. It was
replied that they might do so, if he would sign a confession
' De ima et non ti-ina Deit. (Opera, i. ° a.d. 857 ; Fleury, xlix. 33.
550) ; Giesel. II. i. 137. p See above, p. 314, n. ^ ; Eemig. de
i* Hincm. Ep. 21 (Patrol, cxxvi.). See III. Epistolis, 35; de teneuda Script.
Ilefele, iv. 206-9. Verit. 9.
■" Ep. ad Regem, Opera, i. 1. i C. 19, p. 110.
n It fills 410 folio pages. " Epilog. 3, p. 373.
Cmap. II. A.D. 855-r. DEATH OF LOTHAIR I. 321
embodying the archbishop's views as to Predestination and the
Trinity.^ But Gottschalk was still unbending, and refused with
much vehemence of behaviour and language. In consequence of
this refusal, he died without the sacraments and under the ban of
the church ; he was buried in unhallowed earth, and was excluded
from prayers for the repose of his soul.'
On the question of Gottschalk's orthodoxy or heterodoxy, very
opposite opinions have been pronounced — a result rather of the
opposite positions of those who have judged him than of any
differences between them as to the facts of the case." As to these
facts, however, there is room for an important question — whether
his two confessions embody the whole of his doctrine on the subject
of predestination, or whether he also held that opinion of an irre-
sistible doom to sin, as well as to punishment, which his adversaries
usually imputed to him. A moral judgment of the case is easier.
Gottschalk's sincerity and resolute boldness were marred by his
thoroughly sectarian spirit ; but the harshness with which he was
treated has left on the memory of Hincmar a stain which is not
to be effaced by any allowances for the character of the age, since
even among his own contemporaries it drew forth warm and
indignant remonstrances.
From controversies of doctrine we proceed to some remarkable
cases in which questions of other kinds brought the popes into
correspondence with the Frankish church.
I. In 855 the emperor Lothair resigned his crown, and entered
the monastery of Priim, where he died six days after his arrival. "^
While his eldest son, Louis XL, succeeded him in the imperial
title and in the kingdom of Italy, the small kingdom of Aries or
Provence fell to his youngest son, Charles, and the other territory
north of the Alps, to which the name of Lotharingia was now
limited, became the portion of his second son, Lothair II.
. Lothair II. in 856 married Theutberga, daughter of the duke or
viceroy of Burgundy, and sister of Humbert or Hucbert, abbot of St.
Maurice. He separated from his wife in the following year, but
* This answer was in accordance with tinian Romanists (as the authors of tlie
Raban's opinion. See Kunstmann, Ay- Hist. Litt. iv. 2C2), with Protestant
pend. p. 218. writers in general, are favourable to his
' Hincni. De una et non trin. Deit. (i. orthodoxy, and suppose that his opinions
.552-5); ad monach. Altavill. (ii. 314); were misunderstood. Giesel. II. i. 138.
Flodoard, iii. 28 (Patrol, cxxxv. 259). '^ Annal. Fuld. (Pertz, i. 369); Luden,
" The Jesuits are strong in condenina- vi. 44.
tion of hira ; the Jansenists and Angus-
322 MARRIAGES OF LOTH AIR 11. Book IV.
Humbert, who was more a soldier than a monk, compelled him by
a threat of war to take her back. In 859 Theutberga was sum-
moned before a secular tribunal, on a charge of worse than in-
cestuous connexion with her brother before her marriage ; and the
abbot's profession was not enough ta disprove this charge, as the
laxity of his morals was notorious.''
It now appeared that, in desiring to get rid of his wife, Lothair
was influenced by love for a lady named Waldrada, with whom
he had formerly been intimate.^ Two archbishops — Gunther, of
Cologne, archchaplain of the court, and Theutgaud, of Treves, a
man who is described as too simple and too ignorant to understand
the case" — had been gained to the king's side,^ and insisted that
Theutberga should purge herself by the ordeal of boiling water ;
but, when she had successfully undergone this trial by proxy,
Lothair declared it to be worthless. In the following year the
subject came before two synods at Aix-la-Chapelle,'^ in which
Wenilo, archbishop of Sens,*^ and another Neustrian prelate were
associated with the Lotharingian bishops. Theutberga — no doubt
influenced by ill usage, although she professed that she
acted without compulsion — acknowledged the truth of
the charges against her, while she declared that she had not con-
sented to the sin ; whereupon the bishops gave judgment for a
divorce, and, in compliance with the unhappy queen's own petition,
sentenced her to lifelong penance in a nunnery.*^ A third synod,
held at Aix in April 862, after hearing Lothair's representation of
his case — that he had been contracted to Waldrada, that his father
had compelled him to marry Theutberga, and that his youth and
passions rendered a single life insupportable to him — gave its
sanction to his marrying again ;^ and, on the strength of this per-
mission, his nuptials with Waldmda were celebrated, and were
followed by her coronation.^ Gunther's services were rewarded
by the nomination of his brother Hilduin to the see of Cambray ;
V Prudent. Aunal. 8G0 (Pertz, i. 454) ; fereiit person from Waldrada.
Hincm. i. 575. Hincmar notes under = Hincm. ap. Pertz, i. 465.
the year 864 that '■Hugbertus, clericus <* It has been supposed, more or less
conjugatus," was killed by Louis II.'s confidently, that from the conduct of
soldiers. this prelate came the name Ganelon (the
^ Regino, a.d. 864 (Pertz, i. 571). same with Wenilo or Gncnilo), given to
" Ibid. the traitor of Carolingian romance. See
*> I agree with Dean Milman (ii. 364) Baron. 859. 30 ; Ducange, s. v. Gmielon;
in doubting the story that they were British Magazine, xxiii. 260 ; Palgrave,
nearly related to Waldrada. Regino Norm, and Eng. i. 166.
(in Pertz, i. 571-2) says that Gunther " Pertz, Leges, i. 467 ; Hincmar, i.
was won to take part against Theutberga 569, 574-7 ; Pagi, xiv. 564.
by a promise that his niece should be ^ Hard. v. 539, seqq.
queen ; but this niece was clearly a dif- » Hincm. Annal. 862 (Pertz, i. 453).
Chap. II. a.d. S57-363. WITH THEUTBERGA AND WALDRADA. 323
but Hincraar refused to consecrate the new bishop, and pope Nicolas
eventually declared the appointment to be null and void>
The partisans of Lothair had represented Hincmar as favourable
to the divorce ; but in reality he had steadfastly resisted all their
solicitations/ A body of clergy and laity now proposed to him a
number of questions on the subject,"^ and in answer he gave his
judgment very fully.™ There were, he said, only two valid grounds
for the dissolution of a marriage — where either both parties desire
to embrace a monastic life, or one of them can be proved guilty of
adultery ; but in the second case, the innocent party may not enter
into another marriage during the lifetime of the culprit." Among
other matters, he discusses the efficacy of the ordeal, which some
of Theutberga's enemies had ridiculed as worthless, while others
explained the fact that her proxy had escaped unhurt," by supposing
either that she had made a secret confession, or that, in declaring
herself clear of any guilt with her brother, she had mentally
intended another brother instead of the abbot of St. Maurice.^
Hincmar defends the system of such trials, and says that the
artifice imputed to her, far from aiding her to escape, would have
increased her guilt, and so would have ensured her ruin.*^ With
respect to a popular opinion that Lothair was bewitched by
Waldrada, the archbishop avows his belief in the power of charms
to produce the extremes of love or hatred between man and wife,
and otherwise to interfere with their relations to each other f and
he gives instances of magical practices as having occurred within
his own knowledge. He strongly denies the doctrine which some
had propounded, that Lothair, as a king, was exempt from all
human judgment ;^ for, he said, the ecclesiastical power is higher
than the secular, and when a king fails to rule himself and his
dominions according to the law of God, he forfeits his immunity
from earthly law.* He says that the question of the marriage, as
it is one of universal concern, cannot be settled within Lothair's
dominions ; and, as it was objected that no one but the pope was
^ Nic. Epp. G3-8 ; Gfrcirer, i. 353. been carried still further by a synod
' Hincm. i. 568, 583; Gfrorer, i. 350i held at Constantinople in the reign of
^ Hincm. i. 565, 683. Nicephorus, which, with reference to
™ ' De Divortio Lotharii et Tet- the divorce and second marriage of Con-
bergse.' Opera, i. 561-705. stantine VI., declared that the Emperor
" Pp. 580, 588, 670, GBl. was above law, and was not bound by
" " Incoctus." p P. 499. rules which bound other men. Theod.
1 P. 613. There is also a letter on Stud. Ep. i. 33 (p. 239 D); cf. Ep. i.
the Ordeal, ii. 676. 36.
■^ Pp. 653, seqq. ' " Hex a regendo dicitur," &c. (674-
5 This was a pretension derived from 6), a favourite sentence in councils, &c.,
Justinian. (Gfrorer, i. 396.) It had of the time.
Y 2
324 COUNCIL OF METZ. ' Book IV.
of higher authority than those who had already given judgment on
it, he proposes a general synod, to be assembled from all the
Frankish kingdoms, as the fittest tribunal for deciding it."
Theutberga had escaped from the place of her confinement, and
had found a refuge with Charles the Bald, who, in espousing her
cause, would seem to have been guided less by any regard for its
justice than by the hope of turning his nephew's misconduct to his
own advantage.'' She now appealed to the pope, whose intervention
was also solicited by others, and at last by Lothair himself, in his
annoyance at the opposition of Hincmar and the Neustrian bishops/
f n answer to these applications, Nicolas declared that, even if the
stories against Theutberga were true, her immoralities would not
warrant the second marriage of her husband ; he ordered that a
synod should be assembled, not only from such parts of the
Frankish dominions as Lothair might hope to influence, but from
all ; and he sent two legates to assist at it,'' with a charge to excom-
municate the king, if he should refuse to appear or to obey them.
The synod was held at Metz, in 863, but no bishops except
those of Lotharingia attended.'^ The legates had been bribed by
Lothair ; one of them, Rodoald, bishop of Portus, had already dis-
played his corruptness in negotiations with the Byzantine church.''
Without any citation of Theutberga, or any fresh investigation of
the case, the acts of the synod of Aix were confirmed, Nicolas
represents the tone of the bishops as very violent against himself,
and says that when one bishop, in signing the acts, had made a
reservation of the papal judgment, Gunther and Theutgaud erased
all but his name." These two prelates set oflF to report the decision
to the pope — believing probably, from what they had seen of Rodoald,
that at Rome money would effect all that they or their sovereign
might desire.^ But in this they found themselves greatly mistaken.
Nicolas, in a synod which appears to have been held in the ordinary
course,^ annulled the decision of Metz, classing the council with
the notorious Latrocinium of Ephesus,*^ and ordering that, on
account of the favour which it had shown to adulterers, it sliould
" Pp. 683-7. liim with the intention of turning his
== Gfrorer, i. 352-3. notorious venality to account. Hefele
>' Planck, iii. 41. says with greater probability that the
^ Nic. Epp. 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, In- pope was not fully informed of Rodoald's
structions to the legates, Hard. v. 319-20. misconduct until later, iv. 251.
a Gfrorer thinks that Louis of Ger- •= Hard. v. 292.
many persuaded Charles the Bald and ^ Hincm. Annal. 803 (Pertz, i. 460) ;
Charles of Provence not to send their Planck, iii. 51-2; Gfrorer, i. 361-3.
bishops, i. 360. ^ Cone. Rom. a.d. 863 ; Planck, iii.
'' See the next chapter. Gfrorer (i. 55.
363) thinks that Nicolas made use of ' See vol. i. pp. 4S3-5.
Chap. II. a.d. 862-4. ^ LOUIS II. AT ROME. 325
not be called a synod but a brothel.* He deposed Gunther and
Theutgaud, and declared that, if they should attempt to perform
any episcopal act, they must not hope for restoration.'^ He
threatened the other Lotharingian bishops with a like sentence in
case of their making any resistance ; ' and he announced his judg-
ment to the Frankish sovereigns and archbishops in letters which
strongly denounced the conduct of King Lothair — if (it was said)
he may be properly styled a king who gives himself up to the
government of his passions."^ Rodoald w^as about to be brought to
trial for his corruption, when he escaped from Rome by night.™ It
was evident from the manner of the pope's proceedings that the
indignation which he sincerely felt on account of Theutberga's
wrongs was not the only motive which animated him ; that he w as
bent on taking advantage of the case to establish his power over
kings and foreign churches.''
Gunther and Theutgaud, in extreme surprise and anger, repaired
to the emperor Louis II., who was then at Beneventum, and repre-
sented to him that the treatment which they had received was an
insult not only to their master, but 'to the whole Frankish church,
and to all princes — especially to himself, under whose safe-conduct
they had come to Rome." On this Louis immediately advanced
against Rome, and, without attempting any previous nego-
tiation with the pope, entered the city. Nicolas set on
foot solemn prayers, with fasting, for the change of the emperor's
heart. Penitents moved about the streets in solemn procession, and
offered up their supplications in the churches ; but as one of these
penitential trains was about to ascend the steps of St. Peter's, it
was violently assaulted by some of the imperial soldiers. Crosses
and banners were broken in the fray ; one large cross of especial
sanctity, which was believed to be the gift of the empress Helena
to St. Peter's see, and to contain a piece of the wood on which the
Redeemer suffered, was thrown dow^n and trodden in the mire,
from which the fragments were picked up by some English pilgrims.
Nicolas, in fear lest he should be seized, left the Lateran palace,
crossed the river in a boat, and took refuge in St. Peter's, where
for two days and nights he remained without food.i' But in the
mean while signs which seemed to declare the wrath of heaven
s " Prostibulum." Hard. v. 573, c. '" Hiucm. Annal. ap. Pertz, i. 460.
1 ; Pei-tz, i. 375-6; Anastas. 257-8. » Planck, iii. 57-60.
*> C. 2. ' C. 3. " Hincm. a.d. 8G4, ap. Pertz, i. 462 ,
•< Kp. ad Archiep. Germ. (Pertz, i. Regino, a.d. 865, ib. 573.
375) ; Hincm. Annal. (ib. 460) ; Nic, Ep. p Hincm. ap. Portz, i. 463. See Murat.
ad Carol, et Liidov. (Hard. v. 244). Annali, V. i. 84-6.
326 GUNTHER AND THEUTGAUD. «ook IV.
began to appear. The soldier who had broken the precious cross
died. Louis himself was seized with a fever, and in alarm sent
his empress to mediate with the pope. A reconciliation was thus
effected, and, after having committed many acts of violence, the
troops withdrew from E-ome.^^ The emperor ordered Gunther and
Theutgaud to leave his camp and to return home, and it .would seem
that Nicolas had stipulated for freedom of action in his proceedings
as to the case of Lothair,""
Gunther had drawn up, in his own name and in that of his
brother archbishop, a protest against their deposition, conceived in
terms which Hincmar describes as diabolical and altogether unpre-
cedented.^ In this document Nicolas is charged with madness
and tyrannic fury, with extravagant pride and assumption, with
fraud and cunning, with outrageous violation of all the forms of
justice and ecclesiastical laws ; the arciibishops declare that they
spurn and defy his accursed sentence — that they are resolved not
to admit him into their communion, " being content with the com-
munion and brotherly society of the whole church;" and they
conclude by asserting that Waldrada was not a concubine but a
wife, inasmuch as she had been contracted to Lothair before his
union with Theutberga.* With this paper Gunther now sent his
brother Hilduin to the pope, charging him, if it were refused, to
lay it on the high altar of St. Peter's. Hilduin executed the com-
mission, forcing, his way into St. Peter's with a party of Gunther's
adherents, who beat the guardians of the church and killed one of
them who resisted.^ Gunther also circulated the protest among
the German bishops, and sent a copy of it to Photius, of Constan-
tinople, with whom Nicolas was by this time seriously embroiled.'^'
The other Lotharingian bishops, however, were terrified by the
pope's threats, or were gained by his promises, and made sub-
mission to him in very abject terms.^
Gunther had hurried from Rome to Cologne ; in defiance of the
pope's sentence he had performed episcopal functions ; and he had
made a compact with his canons, by which, at a great sacrifice both
of power and of revenue, he drew them into concurrence in his
proceedings.^ The pusillanimous Lothair — partly influenced by
the demonstrations of his uncles against him — now abandoned
1 Hincm. ap. Pertz, 463-4. * -without the preface.
"■ Planck, iii. 70. " Hincm. ap. Pertz, i. 464.
^ Hiucmar's expressions, however, ^ Planck, iii. 74-5.
are nothing to those of Baronius, 8G3. v See the letters of Adveutius of
31. Metz, and others relating to him, in
' The protest is given by Hincm. An- Hard. v. 321-5.
nal. 8G4; also in the Ann. Fuldens. but ' Hincm. ap. Pertz, i. 465.
Chap. II. a.d. 861-5. MISSION OF ARSENIUS. 327
the cause of the deposed metropolitans. He gave up Gunther
altogether, and expressed horror at his acts, while he entreated
that Theutgaud, in consideration of his simple character, and of his
obedience to the pope's judgment, might be more leniently dealt
with. As for himself, he professed himself willing to go to Rome,
and to obey the pope " like one of the meanest of men."^ Gunther,
indignant at finding himself thus sacrificed, declared an intention
of exposing all the king's proceedings, and set out for Rome,
carrying v/ith him as much of the treasures of his see as he could
lay hands on, in the hope that by such means he might be able to
propitiate the pope. But he was again disappointed ; Nicolas in a
synod renewed the condemnation which had been passed both on
him and on Theutgaud.^ In the mean time Lothair bestowed the
archbishoprick of Cologne on Hugh abbot of St. Bertin's, whom
Hincmar describes as a subdeacon, but of habits which would have
been discreditable to a layman. The preferment was probably a
reward for the exertion of the abbot's influence with Charles the
Bald, to whom he was maternally related.*^
The meanness of Lothair's behaviour served only to increase the
contempt and dissiust with which Nicolas had before
regarded him. The pope wrote to the other irankish
princes, desiring them not to interfere in the matter, as it was for his
own judgment alone ; and it is remarked by Hincmar that in these
letters he made no use of such terms of courtesy as had been usual
in the letters of Roman bishops to sovereigns.*^ He sent Arsenius,
bishop of Orba, as his legate, with orders to visit Louis of Germany
and Charles ; but it was declared that, unless Lothair would give
up Waldrada, the legate must hold no communication with him,
nor would the king be admitted to an audience if he should
repair to Rome. Arsenius received Theutberga from the hands of
Charles, and delivered her to Lothair, who, in terror at the pope's
threats of excommunication, swore on the Gospels and Aug. 13,
a fragment of the true cross, that he would always treat ^''^•
her with the honour due to a queen, imprecating on himself the
most fearful judgments, both in this world and in the next, if he
should fail. Twelve of his nobles joined in the oath, and the
reunion of the royal pair was sealed by a new coronation."
Waldrada was committed to the care of the legate ; but in the
» Ep. ad Nicol. ap. Hard. v. 336, <= Hincm. 1. c. ; Gfnlrer, i. 369, 370.
Letters of Nicolas as to the two arch- <* Ap. Pertz, i, 468. See Planck, iii.
bishops, Nos. 56, 58, in Hard. 84 ; Hefele, iv. 293,
•» Hincm, ap, Pertz, i. 465 ; Gfrorer, ' Hincm, a,d, 8G5, pp, 468-9.
i. 397.
328 DEATH OF NICOLAS. I^""ii 1^'-
course of his return to Rome both she and another royal lady of
light character, Ingeltrude/ wife of count Boso, contrived to make
their escape from him, and Waldrada rejoined Lothair, by whom
her escape had been planned/ The king had cast aside ail regard
for his oath almost immediately after having sworn it. His sub-
missiveness towards the pope was forgotten. He ejected Hugh
from Cologne, confirmed Gunther's arrangement with the canons,
and put Hilduin into the see as nominal archbishop, while both the
power and the revenues were really in the hands of Gunther.''
Theutberga now again escaped from her husband, and, worn
out by the miseries to which she had been subjected, petitioned the
pope for a dissolution of the marriage. She went so far as even
to own Waldrada to be the rightful wife of Lothair, and she
requested leave to repair to Rome and tell all her story. But
Nicolas was firm in asserting the rights which the unhappy queen
had been wrought on to abandon. He solemnly excommunicated
Waldrada, and charged the Frankish bishops to hold Lothair
separate from the church until he should repent of his misdeeds.
He told Theutberga that he could not comply with a request
which was evidently made under constraint ; that, if Lothair's
marriage were to be dissolved, the precedent would enable any
man to get rid of his wife by ill usage ; that she must consider
herself as under the protection of the Apostolic see ; that, instead
of travelling to Rome, she should persuade Lothair to send Wal-
drada thither for trial : and in all his letters he insisted on celibacy
on Lothair's part as a necessary condition of any separation.'
Lothair again attempted to pacify the pope by flattery ; he assured
him that he had not cohabited with Waldrada, or even seen her,
since her return from Italy ; ^ but Nicolas was unmoved, and
appeared to be on the point of pronouncing a sentence of excom-
munication against the king, when he was arrested by death in
May, 867.'"
The increase of the papal power under this pontiff* was immense.
He had gained such a control over princes as was before unknown.
He Imd taken the unexampled steps of deposing foreign metropo-
litans, and of annulling the decisions of a Frankish national council
by the vote of a Roman synod. He had neglected all the old
canonical formalities which stood in the way of his exercising an
' See Baron. 8G2. 3.3 ; 865. C3. i. .'574-5 ; Nic. Epp. 48-51.
B Aniial. Fuld. 867 (Pertz, t. i.) ; Re- ^ Patrol, cxxi. 374.
giiio, ib. p. 574; Hard. v. 270, 274,279. "' Planck, iii. 90-2; Gfrilrer, i. 425-
>' Hincm. Annal. 866, p. 471. See Hefele, iv. 294-5.
• Annal. Fuld. 867 ; Regino. ap. Pertz,
Chap. II. ah 865 1.
ADRIAN II. 329
immediate jurisdiction throughout the western church. And in all
thfs he had been supported by the public feeling of indignation
against Lothair and his subservient clergy, which caused men to
overlook the novelty and the usurping character of the pope's
measures. The other Frank princes had encouraged him in his
proceedings against Lothair. The great prelates of Lotharingia,
strong in position and in family interest, had rendered themselves
powerless before the bishop of Rome by espousing a discreditable
and unpopular cause." The pope appeai-ed not as an invader of
the rights of sovereigns and of churches, but as the champion of
justice and innocence against the oppressors of the earth.
Adrian II., the successor of Nicolas, had already twice declined
the papacy, and was seventy-five years of age at the time of his
election. The partisans of the late pope apprehended a change
of policy, by which the recent acquisitions might be lost." But in
this they were mistaken. Adrian appears to have been urged on
by a feeling that he was expected to show want of energy, and by
a wish to falsify the expectation. He soon cast aside the air of
humility and of deference towards the emperor which he had at
first displayed. The losses which the papacy suffered under him
arose, not from a reversal of his predecessor's policy, but from the
attempt to carry it on in an exaggerated form, without the skill of
Nicolas, without understanding the change of circumstances, or
the manner of adapting his measures to it.^
The beginning of Adrian's pontificate was marked by a tragedy
among his own nearest connexions. The pope, himself the son of
a bishop,^ had been married — a circumstance which contributed to
the alarm felt at his election, as Nicolas, like other chief agents in
the exaltation of the papacy, had been strenuous for the celibacy
of the clergy.'' Adrian's wife and a daughter, the offspring of
their marriage, were still alive ; but, within a few days after his
election, the daughter, who had been betrothed to a nobleman,
was carried off by Eleutherius, a son of Arsenius of Orba, who, on
being pursued, killed both her and her mother, but was himself
taken prisoner. Arsenius, with whose intrigues this affair was
connected, did not lonir survive. It is said that on his deathbed
" Planck, iii. 94; GfrGrer, i. 365; i Vita, 261.
Milman, ii. 293. •• This appears from the letter of
" Anast. Bibl. Ep. ad Adon. Viennens. Aiiastasius to Ado, where it is said that
ap. Hard. v. 390; Vita Adriaui, an- • all whom Nicolas had rebuked " pro di-
nexed to Anastasius, ap. Murator. iii. verso acldterii genere," or for other
263. causes, were bent ou overthrowing his
p Planck, iii. 149 ; Giesel. II. i. 198 ; work. See above, note ".
Gfrorer, ii. 3.
330 LOTHAIR II. IN ITALY. Book IV.
he was heard to discourse with fiends, and that he departed with-
out receiving the Eucharist. At the instance of Adrian, the
emperor appointed commissioners for the trial of Eleutherius, who
was put to death by their sentence.'
Lothair conceived fresh hopes from the change of popes, and
wrote to Adrian in terms expressive of high regard for his prede-
cessor, while he complained that Nicolas had wronged him by
listening to idle rumours.* At his request, Adrian released Wal-
drada from her excommunication, and the king himself was invited
to Rome. " Rome," the pope wrote, " is never unjust, and is always
willing to receive the penitent. If you are conscious of innocence,
come for a blessing ; if guilty, come for the remedy of a suitable
repentance."" Theutberga was persuaded by Lothair to renew
her application for a divorce. She went to Rome in person, and,
in addition to tlie old grounds, alleged that she had ailments
which rendered it impossible for her to perform the duties of a
wife. But Adrian, like Nicolas, refused her request, on the ground
that she was acting under constraint, and desired her to return
home.^
The absolution of Waldrada had included the condition that
she should not keep company with Lothair.^ By artfully affecting
to obey this order, she goaded his passion to madness, so that he
resolved at all risks^even leaving his territories open to the rest-
less ambition of his uncle Charles — to sue in person to the pope
for a dissolution of his union with Theutberga. He was
^■°' ^ ■ made to pay heavily for the means of approach to the
pontiff, who, by the intervention of Ingilberga, wife of the emperor
Louis, was prevailed on to meet him at Monte Cassino, where it
was supposed that Adrian might be more tractable than when
surrounded by the partisans of Nicolas at Rome. Adrian refused
to dissolve the marriage, but, in consideration of a large sum of
money, agreed to administer the Eucharist to the king — a favour
which Lothair desired in order to dissipate the, popular opinion,
which regarded him as virtually excommunicate. "If," said the
pope at the solemnity, " thou hast observed the charge of Nicolas,
and art firmly resolved never to have intercourse with Waldrada,
draw near, and receive unto salvation ; but if thy conscience accuse
thee, or if thou purpose to return to wallow in thine uncleamiess,
^ Hincm. Annal. 8G8 ; Murat, Anual. ^ Hincm. Aunal. 867, p. 476 ; Schrukh,
V. i. 101. xxii. 1G3.
' The letter is in Regino, Auaal. 868 y Hincm. Annal. p. 477 ; Hard v.
(Pertz, i. 579). 704-5.
" Kegiao, ib.
Chap. II. a.d. 86-79. DEATH OF LOTHAIU II. -331
refrain, lest that which is ordained as a remedy for the faithfu
should turn to thy damage/' Lothair, in surprise and agitation,
received the consecrated symbols. His nobles, after being adjured
as to their consent or privity to any breach of his oath, communi-
cated after him ; and Gunther, the survivor of the deposed arch-
bishops, who had once more repaired to Italy in the hope of
obtaining a release,^ was admitted to communicate as a layman, on
presenting a written profession of submission, and swearing never
again to exercise any spiritual office unless the pope should be
pleased to relieve him from his disability.*
The king follovved Adrian to Rome, but a change had come
over the pope's disposition towards him. Instead of being received
with the honours usually paid to sovereigns, he found no one of the
clergy to meet him when he presented himself at St. Peter's, and
he was obliged to approach the Apostle's tomb unattended. On
retiring to his lodging in the papal palace, he found it unfurnished,
and even unswept; and when, on the following day, which was
Sunday, he again repaired to the church, no priest appeared to say
mass for him. Next day, however, by sending presents to the
pope, he obtained an invitation to dinner ; Adrian presented him
with gifts in return, and they parted on friendly terms.*^
The pope resolved to examine the case of the divorce in a
council which was to be held at Rome in the following year. With
a view to this investigation, he summoned the bishops of the three
Prankish kingdoms to send representatives to the council ; and he
was about to send commissioners across the Alps for the purpose
of inquiry, when he received tidings of Lothair's death.° The
king had left Rome in the middle of July. At Lucca a fatal
sickness btoke out among his attendants. He himself died at
Piacenza, on the 8th of August ; and it is said that before the end
of the year all who had partaken of the communion at Monte
Cassino were dead, while the few who had abstained from it. sur-
vived.*^ Theutberga entered a monastery, and bestowed large
^ Hincm. Annal. 867. Theutgaud, ** Hincrn. Annal. p. 482.
on acknowledgiug the consecration of "^ Ibid.; Gfriirer, ii. 18,
Adrian, had been admitted to commu- '' Hincm. Ann. p. 482 ; Regino, p.
nion. Baron. 867. 147. 581 ; Sigeb. Gembl. ap. IJouquet, vii.
'^ Hincm. Annal. 869, p. 481 ; Regino, 251. Perhaps the circumstances of the
pp. 581-3. Hincmar (1. c), Gfrorer (ii. mortality may have been accommodated
18), Jaffe (257), and Hefele (iv. 299), by popular belief to the expectation of
place this scene at Monte Cassino ; a judgment on perjury. But there seems
Fleury (li. 23), Pagi (xt. 1 54), Schrockh to be no ground whatever for the sus-
(xxii. 167), and Sismondi (iii. 155-8), picion of Sismoudi, who says that the
after the pope's return to Rome. Re- clergy, regarding the communion as an
gino says nothing of the visit to Monte ordeal, and expecting a miracle, did nut
Cassino. care what they gave the king. iii. 156.
332 AFFAIR OK Book IV.
sums for the soul of" the husband who had so cruelly injured her.
Waldrada also took refuge in a cloister.*^
11. In the question of Lothair's divorce, Nicolas and Hincmar
were led by the common interests of justice and morality to act in
harmony with each other. But in other cases, where the claims of
Rome conflicted with the archbishop's attachment either to his
sovereign or to the national church of France, the popes found in
him a decided and formidable opponent.
One of these cases arose out of the conduct of Ebbo, who, as we
have seen,^' had been deprived of the see of Rheims for his acts of
rebellion against Louis the Pious. During the contests between
that emperor's sons, Rheims for a time fell into the possession of
the emperor Lothair, with whom Ebbo had ingratiated
himself. The archbishop returned to his see, carrying
with him, in addition to the imperial mandate for his restoration,
the favourable judgment of a synod held at Ingelheim,"' under
Lothair's influence, and under the presidency of Drogo of Metz,
who had also presided at his deposition. His penitential profes-
sions at Thionville'* were now explained away, by the assertion that,
in declaring himself umvorthy of his see, he had meant nothing
more than what was signified by the same word in the ordinary
style of bishops ;' he had humbled himself (he said), and therefore
had now risen in greater strength than before.'^
After the battle of Fontenailles, Ebbo fled from Rheims in fear
of Charles the Bald. He in vain attempted to obtain restitution by
means of Sergius II. ; but the pope, overruling the ancient canons
against the translation of bishops, sanctioned his appointment to
Hildesheim, on the nomination of Louis the German, in 844.™
Hincmar, soon after his promotion to the archbishoprick of
Rheims, in 845, found that some clerks, of whom one Wulfad was
the most prominent, had been ordained by Ebbo during his second
occupation of the see."^ He denied the validity of orders conferred
by one whom he regarded as an intruder, and, on the application
of the clerks to a synod held at Soissons, in 853, the case v.'as
investigated by a commission of bishops, who declared Ebbo's
restoration to have been uncanonical, and the orders which he had
"^ Muratori, Annali, V. ii. 107. episcopus."
f P. 263. "^ Hard. iv. 1447-1552.
e June, 840; Pertz, Leges, i. 374. "' Flodoaid, ii, 20; Annal. Hildesh.
•• See p. 263. in Patrol, cxli. 1241 ; Hard. v. 49 ;
' Documents not uucomraouly began Hiuciu. ii. .305.
or were subscribed " Ego N. indignus " Hincm. ii. 306.
CaAP. II. A.D 841-866. ERBO'S ORDINATIONS. 333
given to be void. Wulfad and his brethren would have been
excluded even from lay communion, on the ground that, by
charging some members of the synod with having received their
consecration from Ebbo, they had incurred the sentence denounced
by the council of Elvira against those who should slander bishops ; °
but at the request of Charles the Bald they were released from
this penalty.'^ Hincmar, as being a party in the case, and as the
regularity of his own appointment had been impugned, desired
that the synod's judgment might be fortified by the highest
authority, and requested Leo IV. to confirm it. The pope refused,
on the ground (among other things) that the clerks had appealed
to Rome ; but Lothair, hitherto the archbishop's enemy, interceded
for him, and Leo sent him the pall by which he was constituted
primate of Neustria."' Benedict IIL, on Hincmar's appli-
• „ , , . ., II. 1 } • A.D. 855.
cation, confirmed the privileges thus bestowed on nira,
and declared that there should be no appeal from his judgment,
saving the rights of the apostolic see ; he also confirmed the
deposition of Wulfad and his companions, provided (as he ex-
pressly said) that the facts of the case were as they had been
represented to him.'" And Nicolas, in 863, renewed both the
grant to Llincmar and the judgment as to the clerks, with the
same condition which had been stated by his predecessor.^
But three years later this pope professed to have discovered
great unfairness in the statements on which the applica-
tions to Benedict and to himself had been grounded, and
ordered that Hincmar should either restore the clerks, or should
submit the matter to a council, with leave for them, if its judgment
should be unfavourable, to appeal to the apostolic see."^ A second
synod was accordingly held at Soissons. Hincmar handed in four
tracts," in justification ofEbbo's deposition, of his own appointment,
and of the proceedings against the clerks — to whose restoration,
however, he professed himself willing to consent, provided that it
could be granted without prejudice to the laws of the church. The
council decided that the deposition had been right in point of
justice, but that it might be reversed by the higher law of mercy,
according to the precedent of the Nicene judgment as to the
Novationists," and to the provisions of the African church. for the
o Cone. Illiber. a.d. 305? c. 75. ^ Ep. 1 (Patrol, cxv.) ; Hincm. ii.
p Pertz, Leges, i. 416 ; Hard. v. 48-52. 310, 855.
q Leo, Ep. 22 (Patrol, cxv.) ; Flo- ^ Hard. v. 32G.
doard, iii. 2 (ib. cxxxv.). Gfrorer, i. » Nic. ad. Hincm. ap. Hard. v. 601-2.
238-240, who, of course, has his theory " Opera, ii. 265, seqq.
as to the reason of Lothair's conduct. * See vol. i. p. 121.
334 QUESTION OF Book IV.
reconciliation of the" Donatists/ ' But Nicolas, instead of con-
firming the acts, strongly censured the council for having omitted
to cancel the judgment of that which had been held in 853 ; he
blamed it for having sanctioned the promotion of Wulfad by
Charles the Bald to the see of Bourges," without requesting the
papal consent ; he told the bishops that they ought to have sent
him all the documents relating to Ebbo, and that they must now
do so ; and, in letters to them, to Charles, and to Hincmar, he
charged the archbishop with falsehood, fraud, cunning, and in-
justice.'' At the same time he wrote to Wulfad and his brethren,
exhorting them to pay due reverence to Hincmar.^
The deposition of Ebbo and the appointment of his successor
again came into question before a council assembled from six
provinces at Troyes in October 867.'' The decision was in favour
of Hincmar ; but the council did an important service to the papal,
interest by requesting Nicolas to decree that no archbishop or
bishop should be deposed without the consent of the apostolic see.'^
Hincmar and Nicolas were at last brought nearer to each other on
this question by their respective dangers from other quarters. The
archbishop was afraid of the influence which Wulfad had acquired
over Charles the Bald, while the pope, who was now engaged in a
formidable struggle with the patriarch Photius and the eastern
church, was unwilling to tempt the Franks to side with his oppo-
nents. On receiving the envoys whom Hincmar had sent to Rome
after the synod of Troyes, Nicolas expressed approbation of his
proceedings, and wrote to request that he and other learned men
of France would assist in the controversy with the Greeks.® With
this request the archbishop comphed ; and Nicolas was soon after
succeeded by Adrian, who confirmed Wulfad in the see of Bourges
and bestowed the pall on him, but at the same time behaved with
great respect to Hincmar.^
Thus the dispute ended peacefully. But in the course of it nmch
had been done to infringe on the independence of tiie Frankish
y Vol. i. p. 406 ; Hard. v. 626 ; Hincm. had granted him permission to use the
iial. 8G6, p. 472. pall daily, professing that he never had
■^ See Hincm. Annal, p. 472. given, or would give, the like privilege
" Nic. Ep. ad Synod, ap. Hard. v. to any other person, iii. 10.
633-40 ; ad Hincm. ib. 640; ad Carol. ^ Hard. v. 649.
ib. 648; GtVorer, i. 495-6. He also re- <= Ib. 679, seqq. ; Hincm. Annal. p.
proached him for using the pall at other 475.
than the times allowed by the Apostolic '' Hard. v. 675, 681,
see ; to which the archbishop replied that ^ Nic. Ep. 70, ap. Hard. v. 307, seqq. ;
he hardly used it at all, except at Christ- Hincm. Annal. 867, pp. 475-6 ; Schrockh,
mas and Easter, and speaks of it with xxii. 142.
something like indifference. (Hard. ' Hard. v. 691 ; Gfrorer, i. 493-502 ;
V. 647, 667.) Flodoard says that Leo ii. 1-3.
Chap. II. a.d. see-T. EBBO'S ORDINATIONS.
335
church. Nicolas claimed that the Frankish synods should be
called by order of the pope ; that the parties in a cause might
appeal from such synods to Rome either before or after judgment ;
that the synods should report to the pope before pronouncing their
sentence ; that the bishops who acted as judges should be com-
pelled to go to Rome for the purpose of justifying their decision ;
that the pope should have the power of annulling all their acts, so
that it should be necessary to begin the process anew.^ Hincmar
and his party, while they had the ancient laws of the church in
their favour, felt themselves unable to struggle against the compli-
cation of political interests ; the archbishop found himself obliged
to concede the principle of an appeal to Rome, according to the
canon of Sardica, although Charlemagne had excluded that canon
from his collection, and it owed its insertion among the Frank
capitularies to the forger Benedict the Levite.*' And the petition
of the council of Troyes— suggested, no doubt, by the punishments
to which Ebbo and others had been subjected on account of their
acts ao^ainst Louis the Pious— shows how, under the idea of
securing themselves against other powers, the Frankish prelates
contributed to aggrandise Rome by investing it with universal
control in the character of general protector of the church.'
III. At the same time with the affair as to Ebbo's ordinations
another controversy was going on between Nicolas and Hincmar,
which exhibited in a yet more striking manner the nature of the
new claims set up in behalf of the papacy.
Rothad, bishop of Soissons, in the province of Rheims, had
occupied his see thirty years, and had long been on unfriendly
terms with the archbishop.'^ The accounts which we have of the
differences between the bishop and his metropolitan must be
received with caution, as they come for the most part from Rothad,
or from the Lotharingian bishops, who were hostile to Hincmar on
account of his proceedings in the case of Theutberga ; while they
are in part directly contradicted by Hincmar himself.™
Rothad, according to his own report, with the consent of thirty-
three bishops, deposed a presbyter who had been caught in the act
of unchastity. The man carried his complaint to Hincmar, v.^ho,
after having imposed on him a penance of three years, restored
g Schrockh, xxii. 143. ■ Planck, iii. 143-7 ; Giesel. II. i. 197.
h Bened. Capitul. ii. G4 ; iii. 133, 412 ^ Schrockh, xxii. 135.
(Patrol, xcvii.) ; Giesel. II. i. 63. See "' lb. 145.
above, pp. 149, 286,
33G gasp: of eothad, bookiv.
him to his benefice, excommunicated and imprisoned the clerk
whom Rothad had put into it, and persecuted the bishop himself
for his share in the affair." Even by this account, it would seem
that Rothad had ventured to Invade the rights of his metropolitan
by holding a synod independently of him.° But in addition to
this, Hincmar, while disclaiming all personal malice against the
bishop of Soissons, charges him with long insubordination, with
notorious laxity of life, and with dilapidating, selling, or pledging
the property of his see.^ However their disagreement may have
arisen, Hincmar in 861 suspended Rothad from his office until he
should become obedient, and threatened him with deposition ;
whereupon the bishop appealed to Rome.'^
In the following year, Rothad appeared at a synod held at
Pistres,^" as if no censure had been passed against him.
His presence was objected to, on which he again ap-
pealed to the pope, and asked leave to go to Rome, which Charles
the Bald at first granted. But the case was afterwards, with the
concurrence of Charles, examined by a synod at Soissons, in the
end of the same year, when Rothad, who had been imprisoned for
his contumacy in refusing to appear, was sentenced to deposition,
M'hile an abbey was assigned to him for his maintenance, and
another person was appointed to his see.^ According to Hincmar,
he was content with this arrangement, until some Lotharingian
bishops, wishing to use him as>a tool against the great opponent of
their sovereign's divorce, persuaded him to resume his appeal to
the pope.' , Rothad's own statement is, that Hincmar, having got
possession of a letter in which he requested a continuance of
support from some bishops who had befriended him at Pistres,
wrongly represented this as an abandonment of his appeal, and a
reference of his cause to those Frankish bishops.'^
Hincmar ai;d the prelates who had met at Soissons, by way of
obviating the pope's objections to their proceedings, requested
Nicolas to confirm their acts, while, in excuse for their disregard
of Rothad's appeal, they alleged that the old imperial laws forbade
such cases to be carried out of the kingdom. But Nicolas had
" Rothad. ap. Hard. v. 581 ; Nic. Ep. pose the sentence to have been passed
29, ib. 249. by a synod at Senlis, in 863 ; but this
° Gfrorer, i. 464. arises from a mistake of Silvanectensis
P Opera, ii. 248, 251-3. for Sncssioniensis in the heading of Nic.
1 Schrockh, xxij. 144; Planck, iii. Ep. 32. Hefele, iv. 247.
103. ' Opera, ii. 249.
Near Pont de I'Arche, on the Seine. " Kothad. Libellus, ap. Hard. v. 5S0.
■ Hincm. Anual. 862-3, Opera, ii. See Planck, iii. 104.
249. Gfrorer (ii. 465) and others sup-
CifAP. II. A.D. 861-4. BISHOP OF SOISSONS. 33?
received representations of the affair from the bishops of Lotha-
ringia, and replied by censuring the synod very strongly for the
insult which it had offered to St. Peter by presuming to judge a
matter in which an appeal had been made to Rome.'' In conse-
quence of that appeal, he declared its judgment to be null.
Temporal laws, he said, are good against heretics and tyrants, but
are of no force when they clash with the rights of the church.^
He tells the members of the assembly that they must either restore
Rothad to his see, or within thirty days send deputies to assert
their cause against him before the apostolical tribunal.^ With his
usual skill, he assumes the character of a general guardian of the
church by remarking that the same evil which had happened to
Rothad might befall any one of themselves, and he points out the
chair of St. Peter as the refuge for bishops oppressed by their metro-
politans.* At the same time Nicolas wrote to Hincmar in terms
of severe censure.'' He tells him that, if Rothad had not appealed,
he must himself have inquired into the matter — a claim of right to
interfere which had not before been advanced by Rome.*^ He asked
with what consistency Hincmar could apply for a confirmation of
his privileges as metropolitan to the Roman see, or how he could
attach any value to privileges derived from Rome, while he did
all that he could to lessen its authority ; and, as the first letter
received no answer, the pope wrote again, telling the archbishop
that within thirty days he must either reinstate Rothad or send him
and some representatives of his accusers to Rome, on pain of being
interdicted from the celebration of the Eucharist until he should
comply."* He also wrote to Rothad, encouraging him to persevere
in his appeal unless he were conscious of having a bad cause ; ®
and, notwithstanding the importunities of Charles and his queen,
who entreated him to let the matter rest, he desired the kinof to
send Rothad to Rome.^ The second letter to Hincmar, and two
which followed it, remained unanswered ; and Nicolas then wrote
a fifth, but in a milder tone, as he was afraid to drive the arch-
bishop to extremities, lest he should join the party of Gunther.^
In the beginning of 864, Rothad obtained permission to go to
Rome. Hincmar also sent two envoys — not, he said, as accusers, but
in order to justify his own proceedings.'^ They carried with them a
'' Ep. 32, ap. Hard. v. 254, seqq. <■ Planck, iii. 114-7.
y lb. 256, a. <• Ep. 29.
'• lb. 257-8. f Epp. 33-4.
" Compare the letters to Charles and f Epp. 30, 35.
Hincmar, Hard, v, 248, 257. ^ Gfrorer, i. 471.
'' Ep. 28. *> Opera, ii. 247.
338 CASE OF ROTHAD, Book IV.
letter of great length,' in which, with profuse expressions of humility
and reverence towards the apostolic see, he admits the right of
appeal as sanctioned by the Sardican canon, but says that, accord-
ino- to the African canons and to Gregory the Great, Rothad, by
referring the case to judges of his own choosing, had foregone the
right of carrying it to any other tribunal^ He tells the pope that
Rothad had for many years been unruly and had treated all re-
monstrances with contempt, so that he himself had incurred much
obloquy for allowing a man so notoriously unfit and incorrigible to
retain the episcopal office."" He dwells much on the necessity that
bishops should obey their metropolitans, and endeavours very
earnestly to obtain the pope's confirmation of his past proceedings,
assuring him that Rothad shall be well provided for."
Hincmar's envoys were detained on the way by the emperor
Louis, but the letter was sent onwards and reached the pope."
Rothad was allowed to proceed to Rome, and, six months after his
arrival, presented a statement of his case.^ On Christmas-eve,
three months later, Nicolas ascended the pulpit of St. Mary Major,
and made a speech on the subject. Even if Hincmar's story were
true, he said, it was no longer in the power of Rothad, after he
had appealed to the apostolic see, to transfer his cause to an
inferior tribunal ; since Rothad professed himself willing to meet
all charges, and since no accuser had appeared against him, the
Jan. 21, pope declared him to be worthy of restoration ; "^ and,
8^^- after having waited until the feast of St. Agnes, he
publicly invested the bishop with pontifical robes, and desired him
to officiate at mass before him.''
As Rothad maintained that he had never abandoned his appeal,
and as his accusers had suffered judgment to go by default, the
proceedings of Nicolas thus far might have been justified by the
Sardican canon, which suspended the execution of sentence against
a bishop until the pope should have submitted the cause to a Iresh
examination ; and Hincmar had failed in the observance of that
canon by appointing another bishop to Soissons.^ But, in letters
which he wrote on the occasion, the pope gave vent to some start-
ling novelties — that the decretals of his predecessors had been
■' Opera, ii. 244, seqq. Hincmar says ° Hincm. Annal. 864, ap. Pertz. i.
that the pope appears to be troubled by 465.
his ninMoqniiim ; but he goes on to al- v Hard. v. 579.
lege St. Augustine on behalf of it (247), i lb. 583-4.
and he certainly does not correct it. ' Anastas. 322.
"< lb. 248, 251. ' Planck, iii. 122-5 ; Gieseler, II. i.
"< lb. 248. 196.
" lb. 258-9; Planck, iii. 117-120.
Chap. II. a.d. 864-5. BISHOP OF SOISSONS. 339
violated ; that the deposition of Rothad was invalid, because the
council which had pronounced it was held without the apostolic
permission, and, further, because the deposition of a bishop was one
of those " greater judgments" which belong to the apostolic chair
alone.* He required Hincmar, on pain of perpetual deposition,
either at once to restore Rothad unconditionally, or to reinstate
him for the time, and to appear at Rome for the further trial of
the question.'^
Nicolas had originally stood on the Sardican canon, but he now
took very different ground ; and the change was the more striking,
because the new principles which he advanced were really unne-
cessary to his cause." These principles were derived from the pre-
tended decretals of Isidore, which are for the first time mentioned
as being known at Rome in the letter of Nicolas to the French
bishops.^ In 860, Lupus of Ferrieres, at the instigation of Wenilo,
archbishop of Sens,^ had written a letter in which he hinted a re-
ference to them by saying that pope Melchiades, the contemporary
of Constantine, was reported to have laid down that no bishop could
be deposed without the pope's consent ; and the abbot had requested
that Nicolas would send a copy of the decretal as preserved at
Rome.^ From the pope's silence as to this point in his answer,^ it
is inferred that he then knew nothing of the forged collection ; and
the same was the case in 863, when he spoke of the decretals of
Siricius as the oldest that were known .** But now — only one year
later — he is found citing those of the Isidorian collection : and when
some of the French bishops expressed a doubt respecting them, on
the ground that they were not in the code of Dionysius Exiguus, he
answered that on the same ground they might suspect the decretals
of Gregory and other popes later than Dionysius, and even the
canonical Scriptures ; that there were genuine decretals preserved
elsewhere ; that, as Innocent had ordered all the canonical books
to be received, so had Leo ordered the reception of all papal
decretals ; that they themselves were in the habit of using these
epistles when favourable to their own interest, and questioned
them only when the object was to injure the rights of the apos-
* Ad Cler. et Pleb. Eccl. Rom. ap. reason, contends that the decretals on
Hard. v. 5S4 ; ad Carol. Calv. ib. 585 ; •which Nicolas relied were not the forged
ad Hincmar. ib. 588 ; ad Universes but the genuine ones. See Pagi in loc,
Episcopos Gallise, ib. 590, 593 ; Planck, and Planck, iii. 135-7.
iii. 127-8. " See p. 286.
" Hard. v. 588-590. " Ep. 130 (Patrol, cxix.). Mansi dates
'^ Planck, iii. 130, the letter in 858.
y Schrockh, xxii. 152-4; Gfrorer, i. *• Ep. 1, Patrol, cxix.
478-9. Baronius (865. 7), against all " Ep. 32, ib. ; Gfrorer, i. 462-3.
z 2
340 NICOLAS ON THE FALSE DECRETALS. Book IV.
tolical sec.'^ It would seem, therefore, that Nicolas had been
made acquainted with the forged decretals during Rothad's stay
at Rome— most probably by Rothad himself. That the bishop of
Soissons was privy to the forgery, appears likely from the facts
that he was already a bishop when it was executed, and that he
was connected with the party from which it emanated.^ But we
need not suppose that Nicolas knowingly adopted an imposture.
The principles of the decretals had been floating in the mind of
the ao-e ; on receiving the forgeries, the pope recognised in them
his own ideal of ecclesiastical polity, and he welcomed them as
affording a historical foundation for it. We may therefore, in
charity, at least, acquit him of conscious fraud in this matter,
although something of criminality will still attach to the care with
which he seems to have avoided all examination of their genuine-
ness,^ and to the eagerness with which he welcomed these pretended
antiquities, coming from a foreign country, in disregard of the
obvious consideration that, if genuine, they must have all along
been known in his own city.
Ilincmar made no further active opposition, but acquiesced in
the restitution of Rothad, although in his chronicle of the time he
speaks of it as effected by might in defiance of rule,^ and argues
that it was inconsistent with the Sardican canon. The act was
performed by Arsenius, during the mission which has been men-
tioned in connexion with the history of Lothair's marriages,^> and
Rothad appears to have died soon after, in the beginning of Adrian's
pontificate.'
IV. If even Nicolas had found Hincmar a dangerous antagonist,
Adrian was altogether unequal to contend with him.
On the death of Lothair in 869, Charles the Bald immediately
seized his dominions. Adrian felt that, after the part which his
predecessor and he himself had taken to make the world regard
the papal see as the general vindicator of justice, he was bound to
interfere in behalf of the nearer heirs— the emperor Louis, and
his uncle the king of Germany.'' He therefore wrote in terms
d Hard. v. 592-3 ; Planck, iii. 132-4 ; by French bishops, or even that he never
Gfrorer i. 479-480. of himself referred to them ; and Den-
« Gfrorer i 483-5. zinger's attempt to vindicate the pope
f See Planck, iii. 135-7 ; Giesel. II. i. (Patrol, cxxx., Praef. xii.) seems also a
185 ; Gfrorer, i. 483-4 ; and Dean Mil- failure. ..,..,,
man, ii. 308, who seems to think the « " Non regulanter sed potentialiter.
pope's share in the matter even worse Hiucm. Annal. 865, p. 468.
than that of the forger. I do not see ^ P. 327.
that Walter (187) improves the case by ■ Auast. 259; Gfrorer, i. 485.
saying that Nicolas knew the decretals ^ Schrockh, xxii. 169 ; Planck, in.
only through extracts presented to him 155.
Chap. II. a.d. 869. CHARLES IN LOTHARINGIA. 341
of strong remonstrance to Charles, to the nobles of Lotharingia,
and to the Neustrian bishops ;°> he sent envoys who, during the
performance of Divine service at St. Denys, threatened the wrath
of St. Peter against the king ; he wrote to Hincmar, blaming him
for his supineness, desiring him to oppose his sovereign's ambitious
projects, and charging him, if Charles should persist in them, to
avoid his communion ;" and, as his letters received no answer, he
wrote again, threatening, apparently in imitation of Gregory IV.,
to go into France in person for the redress of the wrong which had
been attempted."
In the mean time Hincmar had placed the crown of Lotharingia
on the head of Charles,^ who by the partition of Mersen sept. 9,
had made an accommodation with Louis of Germany, and ^''^•
consequently felt himself independent of the pope. The archbishop
took no notice of Adrian's first communication ; but he returned a
remarkable answer to the second.'^ He disclaimed all judgment
of the political question as to inheritance ; his king, he says, had
required his obedience, and he had felt himself bound to obey.
He complains of it as a novel hardship that he should be required
to avoid the communion of Charles : for the Lotharingian bishops
had not been obliged to break off communion with their late
sovereign, although he lived in adultery ; the popes themselves
had not broken off communion with princes who were guilty of
crimes, or even of heresy ; and Charles had not been convicted of
any breach of faith which could warrant his bishops in refusing to
communicate with him."^
But the most striking part of the letter was where Hincmar
professed to report the language held by the nobles of Lotharingia
— a significant hint of his own opinion, and of the reception which
the pope might expect if he were to carry out the line of conduct
which he had commenced. He tells Adrian that they contrast
his tone towards Charles with the submissiveness of former popes
towards Pipin and Charlemagne ; they recall to mind the
indignities which Gregory IV. had brought on himself by his
Interference in Prankish afltilrs ; they loudly blame the pope for
meddling with politics, and pretending to Impose a sovereign on
them ; they w^Ish him to keep to his own affairs as his predecessors
■" Hard. v. 707, seqq. the chrism sent from heaven for the
» Hadr.Ep. 21; Hiucm. Opera, ii. 690. baptism of Clovis, as used in the unc-
° Kp. 22 ad Proceres Regui ; Gfrorer, tion of Frank sovereigns. See vol. i.
ii. 30, .35. p. 497.
p See Hiucm. Annal. 869, pp. 483-5 ; i Opera, ii. 689, seqq. See Baron
and Pertz, Leges, i. 512-5. It is on this 870. 21, seqq.
occasion tliat the first mention occurs of ' Pp. 691, 694.
342 HINCMAR AND ADRIAN II. Book IV.
had done, and to defend them by his prayers and by the prayers of
the clergy from the Normans and their other enemies ; they declare
that a bishop who utters unjust excommunications, instead of
excluding the objects of them from eternal life, only forfeits his
own power of binding.^
The pope was greatly incensed.. He countenanced a rebellion
raised against Charles by one of his sons, Carloman, who had been
ordained a deacon ; he forbade the French bishops to excommu-
nicate the rebel prince when their sovereign required them to do
so.* But Hincmar and his brethren, in despite of this, pronounced
sentence of degradation and excommunication against Carloman,"
who, on being taken, was condemned to death, but escaped with
the loss of his eyes, and received the abbey of Epternach from
the charity of Louis the German." And Adrian, after having
committed himself by threats and denunciations in a style ex-
aggerated from that of Nicolas, found himself obliged to let these
acts of defiance pass without taking any further measures against
those who were concerned in them.
V. A yet more remarkable collision arose out of the conduct of
Hincmar, bishop of Laon. The archbishop of Rheims had in 858
obtained the see of Laon for his nephew and namesake, who js
described as entirely dependent on him for the means of sub-
sistence;^ but he soon found reason to repent of this step, which
appears, from the younger Hincmar's character, to have been
prompted by family or political considerations rather than by a
regard for the benefit of the church.^ The bishop of Laon received
from Charles the Bald a distant abbey and an office at court.
For these preferments he neglected his diocese ; he made himself
odious both to clergy and to laity by his exactions ; and he treated
his uncle's authority as metropolitan with contempt.'' In conse-
quence of a disagreement with the king, he was tried before a
secular court in 868 ; he was deprived of his civil office, and the
income of his see was confiscated." On this occasion, the elder
Hincmar, considering that the cause of the church was involved,
forgot his private grounds for dissatisfaction with his kinsman's
' Pp. 694-6. the canonical age (Hist. Litt. v. 522).
* Hadr. Epp. 25-7 ; Planck, iii. 170. Hincmar attempts to clear himself from
" Hincm. ii. 353-4 ; Flodoard, iii, 18. a charge of nepotism (Opera, ii. 538).
^ Regino, Ann. 870 (Pertz, i. 583); Baronius, in his dislike of the uncle,
Planck, iii, 173. even ventures to justify the nephew,
y Pagi, xiv. 210; Hard. v. 1306; 871. 90-1 ; 878. 29.
Hist. Litt. V. 542, " Hincm. ii. 393-5, 584, 597-8.
" The nephew was probably under *> Hincm. Annal. 868, p, 480.
Chap. II. a.u. S58-869. HINCMAR OF LAON. 343
conduct, and came to the bishop's support. In a letter to Charles"
(in which, among other authorities, he cites some of the forged
decretals),"^ he declared that bishops were amenable to no other
judgment than that of their own order ; that the trial of a bishop
by a secular tribunal was contrary to the ancient laws of the church,
to those of the Roman emperors, and to the example of the king's
predecessors ; that it was a sign that the end of the world was at
hand ; that royalty is dependent on the episcopal unction, and is
forfeited by violation of the engagements contracted at receiving
it.*^ At the diet of Pistres, in 868, the archbishop maintained his
nephew's interest, and the younger Hincmar, on entreating the
king's forgiveness, recovered the revenues of his see.*
But fresh disagreements very soon broke out between the kins-
men,^ and the bishop of Laon involved himself in further troubles
by the violence which he used in ejecting a nobleman who was one
of the tenants of his church.^^ The king, after citing him to
appear, and receiving a refusal, ordered him to be arrested,
whereupon he took refuge in a church and placed himself beside
the altar.* In April 869 he appeared before a synod at Verberie ;
but he declined its judgment, appealed to the pope, and desired
leave to proceed to Rome for the prosecution of his appeal. The
permission was refused, and he was committed to prison. Before
setting out for Verberie, he had charged his clergy, in case of his
detention, to suspend the performance of all divine offices, including
even baptism, penance, the viaticum of the dying, and the rites of
burial, until he should return, or the pope should release them
from the injunction.'' The clergy, in great perplexity and distress,
now applied to the archbishop of Rheims for direction in the
matter. Hincmar by letter desired his nephew to recall the
interdict; on his refusal, he cancelled it by his own authority
as metropolitan, and produced ancient authorities to assure the
clergy that, as their bishop's "excommunication" was irregular
and groundless, they were not bound to obey it.""
About the time of Charles's coronation in Lotharingia, the bishop
of Laon was set at liberty, his case being referred to a future
synod. He forthwith renewed his assaults on his uncle, whom he
denounced as the author of his late imprisonment;" he espoused
<= Opera, ii. 216-233. ^ lb. 601-3.
d p_ 227. ' Hincm. Ann. 869, p. 480.
e Pp. 221-3. '' Hincm. ii. 510-4.
f Hincm. Aunal. 868 ; Gfr6rer,Karol. "> lb. 501, 507, 599; Hard. v. 1361,
ii. 67. seqq., 1377.
e Hincm. ii. 334. " Gfrorer, ii. 71.
3-14: HINCMAR OF LAON. Book IV.
the cause of the rebel Carloman ; and he sent forth a letter in
which he asserted for all bishops a right of appealing to Rome —
not against a sentence of their brethren (which was the only kind
of appeal hitherto claimed), but in bar of the jurisdiction of local
synods." For this claim he alleged the authority of the forged
decretals. The archbishop replied, not by denying the genuine-
ness of these documents — which, however he may have suspected
it,i' he was not, after his own use of them, at liberty to impugn —
but by maintaining that, as they had been issued on particular
occasions, their application was limited to the circumstances which
called them forth ; that they were only valid in so far as they
were agreeable to the ecclesiastical canons, and that some of them
had been superseded by the determinations of councils later than
their professed date."^ Such a view of the decretals was evidently
even more prejudicial to the new Roman claims than an assertion
of their spuriousness would have been.
While Charles was engrossed by the affairs of Lotharingia, the
case of the younger Hincmar was postponed. But he was brought
before synods at Gondreville and Attigny in 870, and pamphlets
were exchanged between him and his uncle — one, by the archbishop,
extending to great length, and divided into fifty-five chapters.""
At Attigny the bishop of Laon submitted to swear obedience to
the authority of his sovereign and of his metropolitan ; and, after
having in vain renewed his request for leave to go to Rome, he
asked for a trial by secular judges, who pronounced a decision in
his favour.^ The elder Hincmar was indignant, both because his
nephew had abandoned the clerical privileges, in submitting to a
lay tribunal, and on account of the result of the trial.
The bishop was again brought before a synod which met at
Doucy, near Mousson, on the Maas,*^ in August 871, when fresh
misdemeanours were laid to his charge — that he had made away
with the property of his see, that he had sided with Carloman, had
refused to sign the excommunication uttered against the rebel, and
had slandered Charles to the pope. It was not until after the third
summons that the accused condescended to appear." He charged
the king with having invaded his dignity ; the archbishop of
Rheims with having caused his imprisonment : and on these grounds
he refused to be judged by them. Charles repelled the charges
° The letter is in Hiucm. ii. 604. p. 487. On these matters, see De Marca,
p That he did so is clear from ii. 477. VII. 22, seqq.
1 Opera, ii. 419, 451-2, 482 ; Giesel. ' A differeut place from Toucy, men-
II. i. 186-8. ■• Opera, ii. 383-59.5. tioned at p. 320. See Hefele, iv. 477.
' Opera, ii. 410 ; Hincm. Annal. 870, » Hard. v. 1301.
Chap. II. a.u. 869-871. COUNCIL OF DOUCY. 345
against himself, and joined with the nobles who were present in
swearing that the imputation against the archbishop was false."" In
reply to his claim of a right to appeal to Rome, the bishop was
reminded of the canons which ordered that every cause should be
terminated in the country where it arose, and was told that he
could not appeal until after a trial by the bishops of his own
province. Notwithstanding his persistence in refusing to answer,
the synod proceeded to examine the matter ; and the elder Hinc-
mar, after collecting the opinions of the members, pronounced
sentence of deposition against his nephew, reserving only such a
power of appeal as was sanctioned by the council of Sardica.^' The
synod then wrote to the pope, stating the grounds of their judgment,
and expressing a hope that, in consideration of the bishop's in-
corrigible misconduct, he would confirm the sentence. They limit
the right of appealing agreeably to the Sardican canon, and desire
that, if the pope should entertain the appeal which had been made
to him, he would commit the further trial of the cause to bishops
of their own neighbourhood, or would send envoys to sit with the
local bishops for the purpose ; and they beg that in any case he
would not restore Hincmar to his see without a provincial inquiry,
but would proceed according to the canons.^
Adrian replied in a very lofty tone. He censured the synod for
having ventured to depose the accused without regard to his appeal,
and ordered them to send him to Rome, with some of their own
number, in order to a fresh inquu-y.'' The answer of the Frankish
bishops was firm and decided. They professed that they could only
account for Adrian's letter by supposing that, in the multiplicity of his
engagements, he had been unable to read the whole of the docu-
ments which they had sent to him ; they justified their proceedings,
and declared that, if the pope should persist in the course which he
had indicated, they were resolved to stand on the rights of their
national church.^
Adrian's letter to the synod had been accompanied by one in a
like strain addressed to Charles, who was greatly provoked by it,
and employed the elder Hincmar to reply. The archbishop executed
his task with hearty zeal.<= Charles, in whose name the letter was
written, is made to tell the pope that the language which he had
held was improper to be used towards a king, and unbecoming the
modesty of a bishop, and desires him to content himself with writing
» Hard. v. 1308. " Ep. 28.
7 Hard. V. 1311-7. For the Sardican i" Hard. v. 1218-20; Gfrorer, KaroL
canon, see vol. i. p. 304i ii. 85.
^ Hard. v. 1318-1323. '^ Hincm. ii. 701, seqq.
346 CORRESPONDENCE AS TO HINCMAR OF LAON. Book IV.
as his predecessors had written to former sovereigns of France.'^
For a pope to speak of " ordering " a king is said to be a new and
unexampled audacity.® It is denied that Adrian was entitled to evoke
the case of the younger Hincmar to Rome for trial. The privi-
leges of St. Peter depend on the exercise of justice ; the king will
not violate the principles of Scripture and of the church by inter-
posing to defeat justice in a case where the offences of the accused
are so many and so clear.^ He declines with indignation the
office which the pope would impose on him by desiring him to
guard the property of the see of Laon ; the kings of the Franks
had hitherto been reckoned lords of the earth — not deputies^ or
bailiffs of bishops. He threatens, if the matter cannot be ended at
home, to go to Rome and maintain the rightfulness of his proceed-
ings.'' The pope had spoken of decrees ; but any decree which
would affect to bind a sovereign must have been vomited forth
from hell.' The letter concludes by declaring the king's willingness
to abide by the known rules of Scripture, tradition, and the canons,
while he is determined to reject " anything which may have been
compiled or forged to the contrary by any person " — the plainest
intimation that had as yet been given of Hincmar's opinion as to the
Isidorian decretals."^
Adrian again felt that he had committed a mistake in advancing
pretensions which were thus contested ; and a league which had
just been concluded between Louis the German and his nephew the
emperor contributed to alarm the pope as to the consequences which
might follow from a breach with the king of Neustria,"' He therefore
wrote again to Charles, exchanging his imperious tone for one of
soothing and flattery." After some slight allusions to the style of
the king's letter, he proceeds (as he says) " to pour in the oil of
consolation and the ointment of holy love." He begs that he may
not be held accountable for any expressions which might have
seemed harsh in his former letters ; ° and, knowing the intensity of
the king's desire for additional territory and power, he volunteers
an assurance that, if he should live to see a vacancy in the empire,
no Other candidate than Charles shall with his consent be raised
to it. The case of the bishop of Laon is treated as of inferior
moment ; the pope still desires that he may be sent to Rome, but
<• Pp. 702-4. Rome, but the context is against such
e Pp_ 706-7. an interpretation,
f Pp.' 709-714. ' P. 709. " P. 716.
« " Vicedomini." See p. 200. '" Gfrorer, ii. 87.
•> P. 715. Gfrorer (ii. 87) regards " Ep. 33 ; Hard. v. 726.
this as a threat of leading an army to " lb. 727.
Chap. II. a.d. 871-5. JOHN VIII. - CHARLES EMPEROR.
347
promises that he shall not be restored unless a full inquiry shall
have shown the justice of his cause, and that this inquiry shall be
held in France." Adrian did not live to receive an answer to
this letter ; and Hincmar the younger was kept in prison until,
by taking part in fresh intrigues, he exposed himself to a severer
punishment.'^
Adrian's conduct in this affair had been alike imprudent and un-
fortunate. The French bishops had set aside the false decretals ;
they had insisted on confining the papal right as to appeals within
the limits which had been defined by the council of Sardica ; they
had denied that the examination of all weightier causes belonged
to the pope alone ; they had denied that he had the right of evoking
a cause to Rome before it had been submitted to the judgment of a
national synod, and would only allow him the power of remitting
it, after such judgment, to be again examined by the bishops of the
country in which it arose ; and his lofty pretensions had ended in
a humiliating concession."" Yet the Roman see had gained some-
thing. Hincmar, in all his opposition to the Roman claims, carefully
mixes up professions of high reverence for the authority of the apos-
tolic chair ; his objections to the Isidorian principles, being addressed
to his nephew, were not likely to become much known at Rome,
while, as he had not openly questioned the genuineness of the
decretals, the popes might henceforth cite them with greater con-
fidence ; and a feeling that the power of the papacy was useful to
the church restrained him in the midst of his opposition to it.
Both bishops and princes now saw in the papacy something which
they might use to their advantage; and the real benefit of all
applications to Rome for aid was sure to redound to the Roman see
itself.'
The circumstances of John VITI.'s election as the successor of
Adrian are unknown ; but he appears to have belonged ^^ ^^^
to the Frankish party among the Roman clergy, and
there is no reason to doubt that the emperor consented to his
appointment.' In 875 the death of the emperor Louis II. without
issue opened up to Charles the Bald the great object of his ambition ;
and the time was now come for the pope to assume the power of
disposing of the empire— an assumption countenanced by the fact
that his predecessors had long acted as arbiters in the dissensions
of the Carolingian princes." Setting aside the stronger hereditary
p X5. 720, ' » Planck, iii. 199-203.
1 Gfrorer, ii. 88-9. ' Gfrorer, ii. 90.
' Planck, iii. 192-4. " Schrockh, xxn. 196-7.
348 CHARLES THE BALD EMPEROR. Book IV.
claims of Louis the German, John invited Charles to Rome, and on
Christmas-day — seventy-five years after the coronation of Charle-
magne— placed the imperial crown on his head. Although the pope
afterwards declared that this was done in obedience to a revelation
which had been made to his predecessor Nicolas,'' it would appear
that influences of a less exalted kind had also contributed to the
act. The annalist of Fulda, whose tone towards the " tyrant " of
France is generally very bitter, tells us that, in order to obtain the
empire, Charles had made a prodigal use of bribery among the
senators, " after the fashion of Jugurtha ; " ^ nor did the pope
himself fail to benefit on the occasion. A writer of later date ^
is undoubtedly wrong in saying that Charles ceded to him certain
territories which are known to have then belonged to the Greek
empire ; but there is reason to believe that he gave up the
control of elections to the papacy, released the pope from the
duty of doing homage, and withdrew his resident commissioners
from Eome, leaving the government in the hands of the pope,
while the title of Defender still served to connect the emperor with
the city, and entitled the Romans and their bishops to look to him
for aid.*^
Charles now professed that he owed the empire to John, and
during the remainder of his days he was solicitous to serve the
author of his dignity.'^ Proceeding northwards, he was crowned
as king of Italy at Pavia, in February 876, when the estates declared
that, as God, through the vicar of St. Peter and St. Paul, had called
him to be emperor, so they cliose him king.*^ The acts of Pavia were
confirmed in an assembly held some months later at Pontyon, when
the Neustrian clergy and nobles professed that they chose him for
their sovereign, as he had been chosen by the pope and by the Lom-
bards.*^ This change of title from a hereditary to an elective royalty
appeared to hold out to the pope a hope of being able to interfere
in the future disposal of the Neustrian and Italian kingdoms ; but
an attempt which was made in his behalf at Pontyon, although
» Hard. vi. 182. alienate the property of the crown be-
y AnnaL Fuld. 875, ap. Pertz, i. 389. yond their own lifetime. Pertz, Leges,
Cf. Regino, ib. .587-9. _ ii. App. 261.
' First published by Flaccius Illyri- « See the various views of De Marea,
cus, in an appendix to Eutropius. By Pagi, and Mansi in Baron, xv. 278-281 ;
some he has been placed in the tenth also Schrockh, xxii. 194; Planck, iii.
century, but the best authorities refer 218; Gfrorer, ii. 124-5.
him to the eleventh (see Schrockh, xxii. ''Schrockh, xxii. 198-201; Planck,
194, seqq. ; Planck, iii. 210). Even if iii. 218-9.
the grant were genuine, it would have "^ Pertz, Leges, i. 529.
expired with Charles, as the German '' lb. 533.
kings and emperors had no power to
Chap. II. A. d. 875-6. COUNCIL OF PONTYON. 349
zealously supported by the emperor, met with a strenuous opposi-
tion from the Frankish clergy. The papal legate, John, bishop of
Tusculum, read a letter by which Ansegis, archbishop of Sens, was
constituted vicar apostolic and primate of Gaul and Germany, with
power to assemble synods, to execute the papal orders by the
agency of bishops, and to bring all important matters to Rome for
decision." Hincmar and his brethren requested leave to examine the
document ; to which the emperor replied by asking them whether
they would obey the pope, and telling them that he, as the pope's
vicar in the council, was resolved to enforce obedience. He ordered
a chair to be set for Ansegis beside the legate ; and the archbishop
of Sens, at his invitation, walked past the metropolitans who had
held precedence of him, and took his seat in the place of dignity.
But Hincmar and the other bishops behaved with unshaken finnness.
They repeated their request that they might be allowed to see the
letter and to take a copy of it. They protested against the eleva-
tion of Ansegis as uncanonical — as infringing on the primacy granted
to the see of Rheims in the person of Remigius, and on the privileges
bestowed on Hincmar by Benedict, Nicolas, and Adrian ; nor could
they be brought to promise obedience to the pope, except such
as was agreeable to the canons, and to the example of their
predecessors. One bishop only, Frotarius, was disposed to comply,
in the hope of obtaining a translation from the diocese of Bordeaux,
which had been desolated by the Northmen, to that of Bourges ; *'
but his brethren objected to the translation as contrary to the laws
of the church,^ The emperor, provoked by Hincmar's opposition,
required him to take a new oath of fealty in the presence of the
assembly, as if his loyalty were suspected — an unworthy return
for the archbishop's long, able, and zealous exertions for the rights
of the crown and of the national church.'^ The council broke up
without coming to any satisfactory determination, and Hincmar soon
after produced a strong defence' of the rights of metropolitans
against the new principles on which the commission to Ansegis
was grounded. Charles was induced by political reasons to act
in a spirit of conciliation,^ and the pope got over the difficulty
as to Ansegis by conferring the primacy of Gaul on the see of
Aries, to which it had been attached before the Frankish conquest.
'^ Job. Ep. 134, ap. Hard. vi. 105. 499, seqq. ; Pertz, Leges, i. 5.33 ; Hard
The dignity was to be personal, not at- vi. I(i6 ; Planck, iii. 233.
tached to the see of Sens. Thomassin, '' Hincm. ii. 834 ; Hard. vi. 177.
I. i. 33-4. ' Opera, ii. 719, seqq.
f See p. 294. '' Gfrorer, ii. 130.
s Hincm. ii. 732-5 ; Annal. 876, pp.
350 TROLTBLES OF ITALY.
Book IV.
But amid the commotions of the time this arrangement had no
practical effect.™
In the mean time the pope was greatly disquieted at home by
the factions of his city, by the petty princes and nobles of the
neighbourhood, and by the Saracens, who, since the death of
Louis II., carried on their ravages without any effectual check."^
Sometimes the nobles made alliance with the enemies of Christen-
dom. Naples, Gaeta, Amalfi, and Sorrento, after having suffered
much at their hands, entered into a league with them, and united
with them in the work of devastation and plunder .° Sergius, duke
of Naples, made frequent incursions into the papal territory, and
John, after having in vain employed gentler means, uttered an
anathema against him.^ On this, the duke's brother, Athanasius,
bishop of Naples, took on himself the execution of the
Nov, 877. ^ • 1 o . 1 . ■, , .
sentence, seized feergms, put out his eyes, and sent him
to the pope, who requited the bishop with a profusion of thanks
and commendations — quoting the texts of Scripture which enjoin
a preference of the Saviour over the dearest natural affections.^
Athanasius now annexed the dukedom to his spiritual office. But
he soon discovered that he was unable to cope with the Saracens,
whereupon he allied himself with them, harassed the pope after
the same fashion as his brother, and obliged John to buy him off
with a large sum of money, in consideration of which he promised
to break off his connexion with the infidels. But the promise was
not fulfilled, and the pope with a Roman synod, in 881, uttered an
anathema against the duke-bishop.'^ Beset and continually annoyed
as he was by such enemies, John implored the emperor to come to
his assistance, and Charles was disposed to comply with the entreaty ;
but the unwillingness of the Frank chiefs to consent to such an
expedition may be inferred from the heavy price which the emperor
paid for their concurrence, by allowing the office of his counts to be
converted into an hereditary dignity at the council of Quiercy in
877.^ The pope, on being informed of his protector's
^' ' approach, set out to meet him, and on the way held a
council at Ravenna, where he passed some canons by which, in accord-
«■ Hard. vi. 30-2 ; De Marca, Vl.xxix. ■■ Joh. VIII. Epp. 101-3, 187-8, 191 ;
5 ; Planck, iii. 233-40. Erchempert ap. Pertz, iii. 254-5 ; Chron.
" Baron. 876. 33; Milman, ii. 322-6. Salern. ib. 536, seqq. ; Baron. 881. 1-4.
° Gfrorer, ii. 139. See Joh. VIII. He afterwards absolved Athanasius,
Epp. 187-8, 279 (Patrol, cxxvi.). provided that he had separated from the
p Chron. Casin. i. 40, ap. Pertz, vii. infidels, and had taken or slain their
1 Ep. 96 (Patrol, cxxvi.) ; Baron. 877. chiefs, a.d. 881-2. (Ep. 352.) Athanasius
3. The cardinal's justification of the is supposed by Muratori to have lived
pope for praising this " indecens epi- to the year 900. Annali, V. i. 325.
scopo factum" is curious. ' C. 9. See above, p. 297.
Chap. II. a.d. 876-8. DEATH OF CHARLES THE BALD. 351
ance with the pseudoisidorian principles, the power of bishops was
exalted, while that of metropolitans was depressed,' He met the
emperor at VercelH, and proceeded in his company to Tortona,
where Eichildis, the wife of Charles, was crowned as empress." But
the emperor, instead of prosecuting his expedition, retired before
the advancino- force of Carloman, the son and successor of Louis
the German ; and he died in a hut on the pass of Mont Cenis.''
The concessions which this prince had made both to Rome and to
his nobles had greatly weakened the power of the Frankish crown,
and the policy which he had lately followed in ecclesiastical affairs
was very dangerous to the rights of the national church. Yet
although, for the sake of his private objects, he had in his latter
days behaved with much obsequiousness to the pope, it is clear
that he had no intention of allowing the principles of the decretals
to be established in their fullness within his dominions north of
the Alps.y
After the death of Charles, the empire was vacant until 884.
The pope, finding himself continually annoyed by Lambert, marquis
of Spoleto, and other partisans of the German Carolingians,''
declared his intention of seeking aid in France,"" and, after some
forcible detention, which he avenged by anathemas against Lambert
and Adalbert of Tuscany,^ he embarked on board ship,
and landed at Genoa.*" The reception which he at first
met with in France was not encouraging. He had offended the
clergy by his attempts against the national church, and especially
by the commission to Ansegis ; while all classes were irritated on
account of the costly and fruitless expedition which he had induced
their late sovereign to undertake.'^ John wrote letters to all the
Frankish princes,'' urgently summoning them and their bishops to
attend a council at Troyes ; but the bishops of Gaul only appeared,
and the only sovereign present was the king of France, ^ . ..
Louis the Stammerer, who was crowned anew by the
pope, although, in consequence of an irregularity in his marriage,
he was unable to obtain that the queen should be included in the
coronation.^ At Troyes, as at Ravenna, John proposed and passed
some canons which raised the episcopal privileges to a height before
' Hard. vi. 185,seqq. '' lb. 29.
" Hincm. Ann. 877, p. 503. <= Baron. 878. 14.
^ lb. p. .504 ; Regiuo, p. 589. ■* Gfrorer, ii. 185.
y See Giesel. II. i. 207-8. "^ Hard. vi. 36, seqq.
^ Ep. ad Lud. Bav. regis filium. ' Hincm. AnnaL pp. 506-7 ; Cone.
Hard. vi. 27, Tricass. II. ap. Hard. vi. 191, seqq.
» Ad Lud. Balbum, ib. 25.
352 COUNCIL OF TROYES. Book IV.
unknown, and lie dealt about anathemas with his usual profusion.*^
The bishops joined with him in condemning Adalbert, Lambert,
and his other Italian enemies, and in return obtained from him a
sentence against the invaders of their own property.^ But they
resolutely stood out for their national rights, insisting on the
Sardican canon which limited the power of the Roman see as to
appeals, and on those ancient laws of the church which forbade
translations such as that of Frotarius.* And when the pope
produced a grant of Charles the Bald, bestowing the abbey of
St. Denys on the Roman see, they met him with a positive denial
that the king could alienate the possessions of the crown>
John was greatly provoked by Hincmar's steady resistance to
the pretensions of Rome ; and some of the archbishop's enemies
now took advantage of this feeling to annoy him by bringing for-
ward his nephew, who, after having been imprisoned and banished,
had at last been blinded by order of Charles on account of his
connexion with an invasion from the side of Germany.™ The
unfortunate man was led into the place of assembly, and petitioned
for a restoration to his see. But the pope, besides that he may
have been afraid to venture on a step so offensive to the metropolitan
of Rheims, was restrained by the circumstance that he had con-
firmed the deposition of the younger Hincmar, and had consecrated
his successor, Hildenulf" He therefore only in so far favoured
the petition as to give the deposed bishop leave to sing mass, and
to assign him a pension out of the revenues of Laon, while he refused
to accept the resignation of Hildenulf, who alleged that his health
disqualified him for the performance of his duties. The enemies
of the elder Hincmar, however, were resolved to make the most of
the matter as a triumph over him ; they arrayed the blind man in
episcopal robes, and, after having with great ceremony presented
him to the pope, led him into the cathedral, where he bestowed his
benediction on the people." It does not appear what answer the
pope obtained to his request for assistance ; but it is certain that no
assistance was sent.^
John had conceived the idea of carrying his claim to the power
of bestowing the empire yet further by choosing a person whose
elevation should be manifestly due to the papal favour alone —
Boso, viceroy of Provence, who had gained his friendship on
s See as to his fondness for this, •" Gfrorer, ii. 189.
Schmidt, i. 683-4 ; Milnian, ii. 328. " Schrockh, xxii. 190.
'' Hincm. Annal. pp. 506-7. " Hincm. Annal. p. .508.
i lb. 507. '' lb. 508. P Gfrorer, ii. 187.
CiiAp. II. A.D. 878-882. DEATHS OF JOHN VIII. AND HINCMAR. 353
occasion of his visit to France. The project, however, was found
impossible, nor was the pope more successful in an attempt to
secure the kingdom of Italy for his candidate/^ But, on the death
of Louis the Stammerer, Boso was chosen by a party of bishops and
nobles as kino^ of Provence, which was then revived as a
• , . Oct. 879.
distinct sovereignty ; and it would seem that a belief of
the pope's support contributed to his election, although John soon
after wrote to the archbishop of Vienne, reproving him for having
used the authority of Rome in behalf of Boso, whom the pope
denounces as a disturber of the kingdom.^ John died in December
882 ; it is said that some of his own relations administered poison
to him, and, finding that it did not work speedily, knocked out his
brains with a mallet.^
In the same month died the great champion of the Frankish
church. Towards the end of his life Hincmar had had a serious
dispute with Louis III. as to the appointment of a bishop to
Beauvais,*^ In answer to the king's profession of contempt for a
subject who attempted to interfere with his honour, the archbishop
used very strong language as to the relations of the episcopal and
the royal powers. He tells him that bishops may ordain kings, but
kings cannot consecrate bishops ; and that the successors of the
Apostles must not be spoken of as subjects. " As the Lord said,
' Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,' so may I say in
my degree, ' You have not chosen me to the prelacy of the church,
but I, with my colleagues and the other faithful ones of God,
have chosen you to be governor of the kingdom, under the con-
dition of duly keeping the laws.' " " Hincmar was at length com-
pelled to leave his city by the approach of a devastating force of
Northmen. He set out in a litter, carrying with him the relics
of St. Reniigius,^ and died at Epernay, on the 21st of December.
The Annals of St. Bertin, which are the most valuable record of
the period, are supposed to have been written by him from the year
861 to within a month of his death,^
The first and second successors of John in the papacy, Marinus
(a.d. 882) and Adrian III. (a.d. 884), appear to have been chosen
without the imperial licence, and by means of the German interest.^
1 Mm-at. Ann. V. i. 185-6 ; Sismondi, " Opera, ii. 198-9.
iii. 238-9. ^ Hiucm. Annal. p. 515 ; Flodoard,
"■ Joh. Ep. 306 (Patrol, cxxvi.) ; Pertz, iii. 30.
Leges, i. 547; Hefele, iv. 521. y Pertz, i. 420-1 ; Gfrorer, i. 243-4.
s Annal. Fuld. a.d. 882; Milman, ii. ^ Schrockh, xxii. 221-2; Gfrorer, ii.
333. 252. On a story that Adrian obtained
' See his excommunication of the the removal of the imperial control in
king's nominee, Opera, ii. 81 1. elections to the papacy, and an engage-
2 A
354 CHARLES THE FaT. Book IV.
On the death of Adrian, which took place as he was on his way to
Germany in 885,''' Stephen V. was consecrated without any appli-
cation for the consent of the emperor, Charles the Fat ; but Charles
expressed greafr indignation at the omission, and had already taken
measures for deposing the pope, when a Roman legate arrived at
the imperial court, and succeeded in appeasing him by exhibiting
a long list of bishops, clergy, and nobles who had taken part in the
election.'^
Charles the Fat, a younger son of Louis the German, had
received the imperial crown from John VIII. in 881," and, by the
deaths of other princes, had gradually become master of the whole
Carolingian empire. But his reign was disastrous; in 887 he
was deposed by Arnulf, an illegitimate son of his brother Carloman ;
and, after having been supported for some months by alms, he
died in the following year — whether of disease or by violence is
uncertain.** The popular feeling as to this unfortunate prince,
the last legitimate descendant of Charlemagne, may be inferred
from the tone in which he is spoken of by the annalists of the
time. They tenderly dwell on his virtues and amiable qualities ;
they express a trust that the sufferings which he patiently bore in
this world may be found to have prepared his way to a better
inheritance ; it is even said that at his death heaven was seen to
open, and to receive his soul.®
ment that no one but an Italian should Murat. Ann. V. i. 199-201.
thenceforth be king of Italy, see ■> See Annal. Vedast. 887, ap. Pertz,
Schrockh, 222; Gfrorer, ii. 271-2. i. 525; Pagi, in Baron, xv. 534 ; Mansi,
» Annal. Fuld. 885, ap. Pertz, i. 402. ib.
b Ibid. * Annal. Fuld. ap. Pertz, i. 405 ; An-
c Herm. Contract, ap. Pertz, v. 108 ; nal. Vedast. ib. 525 ; llegino, ib. 597-8.
Chap. III. a.d. 842-855. ( 355 )
CHAPTEK III.
THE GREEK CHURCH— PHOTIUS.
A.D. 842-898.
Michael III,, the son of Theophilus and Theodora, grew up
under evil influences. His maternal uncle Bardas founded schemes
of ambition on the corruption of the young prince's character. He
removed one of the male guardians by death, and another by
compelling him to retire into a monastery ; and by means of a
vi^orthless tutor, as well as by his own discourse, he instilled into
the emperor a jealous impatience of the control of his mother
and sister.* At the age of eighteen Michael threw off this yoke.
Tlieodora called together the senate, showed them the treasures
which her economy had amassed,^ in order that she might not be
afterwards suspected of having left her son without ample provi-
sion, resigned her share in the regency, and withdrew from the
palace."
Michael now gave the loose to his depraved tastes and appetites.
His chosen associates were athletes, charioteers, musicians, buffoons,
and dancing-girls. He himself entered the lists in the public
chariot races, and insisted on receiving his prizes from the hand of
a consecrated image. He joined in the feasts and drinking bouts
of his companions ; he became sponsor for their children, and on
such occasions bestowed lavish presents ; he rewarded acts of
disgusting buffoonery with costly, gifts, and even encouraged his
vile favourites to practise their gross and brutal jests on his mother.
The wealth which he had inherited was soon dissipated ; and after
having endeavoured to supply his necessities by plundering churches
of their ornaments, he was reduced to melt down his plate, and
even the golden tissues of the imperial robes.^
The most outrageous of Michael's extravagances was his profane
mimicry of religion. He organised a mock hierarchy, of which one
Theophilus, who was known by the name of Gryllus,® was the chief
^ Schlosser, 555, 568-71. 542-4.
'' Constant. Porphyrog. v. 27. Mr. <> Const. Porph. iv. 21, v. 20-27 ;
Finlay reckons them at 4,250,000?. ii. Cedren. 544, 552-4; Schlosser, 57-1-7.
203. <= TpuAAos, or ypvXos, a sucking-pig.
' Const. Porph. iv. 20 ; Cedrenus,
2 A 2
356 DIFFERENCES OF GREEKS AND LATINS.. Book IV.
Under this patriarch were twelve metropolitans, the emperor him-
self being one of the number. They went through a farcical ordi-
nation ; they were arrayed in costly robes imitated from those of .
the church ; they sang obscene songs to music composed in ridicule
of the ecclesiastical chant ; they burlesqued the trials, condemna-
tions, and depositions of bishops ; they had jewelled altar-vessels,
with which they administered an eucharist of mustard and vinegar.*
On one occasion this ribald crew encountered the venerable patri-
arch Ignatius at the head of a solemn procession, when Gryllus,
who was mounted on an ass, rudely jostled him, and the attendant
mummers twanged their harps in derision, insulted the patriarch
with fdthy language, and beat the clergy of his train.^ After the
death of their patron, some of the wretches who had shared in
these abominations were called to account before the great council
of 869, when they pleaded that they had acted through fear of the
emperor, and expressed contrition for their offences.^
During the course of ages, a change had come over the cha-
racters which had formerly distinguished the Greek and the Latin
churches respectively. Among the Greeks the fondness for specu-
lation had been succeeded by a settled formalism, while the
rigidity of the Latins had yielded to the new life infused by the
accession of the barbarian nations to the church.' But, although
different from that of earlier times, a marked distinction still existed.
The influence of Augustine, which had so largely moulded the
western mind, and had given prominence to the doctrines of grace
above all others, had not extended to the east. From the time of
the Trullan council, the churches had been divided by a difference of
usages, especially as to the marriage of the clergy ; and, although
the question as to the procession of the Holy Ghost had been laid
to rest in the days of Charlemagne, it still remained as a doctrinal
centre around which other causes of discord might array themselves.
The see of Rome had gradually risen to a height far above its
ancient rival ; and, while Constantinople could not but be dis-
satisfied with this change, there was on the Roman side a wish to
make the superiority felt. Political jealousies also contributed to
feed the smouldering ill-feeling which any accident might fan into
a flame.'^ And now a personal question produced a rupture
which tended far towards the eventual separation of the churches.
f Cone. Cpol. IV. ap. Hard. v. 893, ^ Hard. v. 893, 905-6.
906; Vita Ignatii,ib. 973; Const. Porph. ' Neand. vi. 293; Giesel. II. i. 139-
iv. 38, V. 21 ; Cedren. 553-4. 140; Dollinger, i. 380.
e Const. Porph. iv. 38, v. 22 ; Cedren. •' Schrockh, xxiv. 127 ; Neand. vi.
554. 294.
Chap. III. a.d. 846-857. IGNATIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE. 357
Nicetas, a son of Michael Rhangabe, had, on his father's depo-
sition, been thrust into a cloister at the age of fourteen."" He
assumed the name of Ignatius, became a priest, and, having acquired
a high character for piety, was, in 846, promoted by Theodora to
the see of Constantinople, on the recommendation of a famous
hermit." The late patriarch, Methodius, had been engaged in
differences with Gregory bishop of Syracuse, who usually lived at
Constantinople, and had uttered an anathema against him. In
Ignatius the feeling of religious antagonism could hardly fail to be
stimulated by the fact that Gregory was a son of Leo the Armenian,
by whom his own father, Michael, had been dethroned.'' He refused
Gregory's assistance at his consecration ; in 851 he deposed and
excommunicated him for having uncanonically ordained a person
of another diocese ; and at the patriarch's request the sentence was
confirmed by a Roman synod under Benedict III.^ The inhabitants
of the capital were divided between Ignatius and Gregory ; but,
although the opposition to the patriarch was strong, he earned high
and deserved credit by his conduct as a pastor.*
His conscientious zeal for the duties of his office induced him to
remonstrate with Bardas on the subject of a scandalous imputation
— that the minister, after having divorced his wife on some trivial
pretext, lived in an incestuous intercourse with the widow of his
son ; and finding remonstrance ineffectual, the patriarcli proceeded
so far as to refuse the holy eucharist to him at Epiphany 857.'"
Bardas, whose influence over his nephew was continually increasing,
resolved on vengeance. He persuaded Michael that, in order to
the security of his power, it would be expedient to compel Theodora
and her daughters to become nuns, and Ignatius was summoned to
officiate at their profession. The patriarch refused, on the ground
that it would be a violation of his duty towards the empress and
one of her daughters, who had been appointed regents by the will
of Theophilus. On this Bardas accused him of treason, adding a
charge of connexion with the interest of a crazy pretender to the
throne, named Gebon ; and Ignatius was banished to the island of
Terebinthus.®
>» Vita Ignatii by Nicetas David, in p Vita Ign. 961 ; Nicol. Ep. vii. col.
Hardouin, v. 945; Const. Porph. i. 10. 139; Baron. 854. 7, and the notes;
On this part of the history there is much Dowling in Brit. Mag. xvii. 604-5. See,
valuable information in some papers however, Hefele, iv. 222-4, who does
contributed to the British Magazine by not think that the pope went so far.
the Rev. J. G. Dowling, but unfortu- i Brit. Mag. xvii. 605.
nately left incomplete at his death. "■ Const. Porph. iv. 30 ; G. Hamart.
" Vita, 949-953; Cedren. 551; Pagi, Contiu. p. 735 ; Vita Ign. 955 ; Schrockh,
xiv. 357. ■ xxiv. 129.
" Finlay, ii. 208. " Ignat. Ep. ad Nicol. ap. Hard. v.
358 PHOTIUS. - Book IV.
Bardas resolved to fill the vacant throne with a man whose
brilliant reputation might overpower the murmurs excited by the
deprivation of Ignatius. Photius was a member of a distinguished
Byzantine family, a great-nephew of the patriarch Tarasius, and
connected with the imperial house by the marriage of his uncle to
a sister of Theodora, lie had lived in the enjoyment of wealth
and splendour, he had been ambassador to the caliph of Bagdad,
and was now secretary of state and captain of the guards ; and in
the midst of his occupations he had acquired an amount of learning
so far surpassing that of his contemporaries that his enemies even
referred it to unhallowed sources.* He had been accustomed to
carry on a part of his studies in company with his brother Tarasius,
and, on taking leave of him when about to set out on the embassy
to Bagdad, presented him with another companion, in the shape of
a summary of books which Photius had read by himself." This work
— the Myriohiblon or Bihliotheca — contains notices of two hundred
and eighty books in classical and ecclesiastical literature, with
abridgments, extracts, and comments ; and, in addition to its value
as a treasury of much which would otherwise have perished, it is
remarkable in the history of literature as the prototype of our
modern critical reviews.'' Among his other writings are a
Dictionary ; a book of discussions on questions from Scripture ; a
considerable number of letters ; and a collection of ecclesiastical
laws.y
With the exception of such information as may be gathered from
his own works, our knowledge of Photius comes almost exclusively
from his adversaries.^ The enmity of these in his own time was
bitter ; and his name has bince been pursued by writers in the
1013; Vita, ib. 956-7; Anastas. ad he hastily dictated the ' Bibliotheca ' to
Hadrian, ib. 770 ; Pagi, xiv. 490 ; an amanuensis amidst the bustle of pre-
Schlosser, 606. Schlosser, Neander, and paratiou for his departure — taxes our
Mr. Finlay (ii. 207) place the aifair as to belief very severely. It seems more
Theodora before the quarrel with Bar- probable that the notes were before
das ; but I have followed Mr. Dowling, made, aud only required arrangement ;
Brit. IMag. xvii. 606. (Hefele has the or perhaps the whole account of the
same order, iv. 219.) origin of the book may be merely an
' Vita Ignat. 960 ; Const. Porph. iv. example of a common literary artifice.
22 ; Sym. Magister de Michaele, 31, 34; ^ Schrockh, xxi. 196; Fabric. Bibl.
Cedren. 545. Gr. xi. 679.
» Bibliotheca, p. 1, ed. Hoeschel, y Schrockh, xxi. 196-8. The first at-
Rothomag. 1653. Mr. Dowling (Brit, tempt at a collected edition of Photius'
Mag. xvii. 267) exposes the mistake of works is that in the Patrol. Gr. ci.-civ.
Dupin (vii. 103) and Gibbon (v. 267), In this the letters are re-arranged, with
who suppose the work to have been additions to those published by Bp.
written during the embassy, and marvel Mountagu (London, 1651). But my
how Photius could, in such circura- references in general apply to the old
stances, have procured the books. But edition,
the story told by Photius himself— that ' Dowling in B. M. xvii. 9.
Chap. III. a.d. 857. PHOTIUS PATRIARCH. 359
papal interest with a rancour which can perhaps only be paralleled
by their treatment of the Protestant reformers. The biographer of
Ignatius -tells us that the intruding patriarch took part in Michael's
drinking bouts, and made no scruple of associating with Gryllus
and his gang ;'' and another Greek writer states that on one occa-
sion, when the emperor was overcome by fifty cups, Photius drank
sixty without any appearance of intoxication.** The second of these
charges, however, is accompoJiied by fables so gross as altogether
to destroy the credit of the author's evidence against Photius ;'' and
such tales are utterly inconsistent with the admission of his enemies,
that he had succeeded (although, as they think, undeservedly) in
gaining a character for sanctity.'^ Nor was his orthodoxy as yet
impeached, although he was afterwards called in question for
having taught that man has a reasonable and also a spiritual soul
— an opinion countenanced by the authority of many among the
earlier fathers.® Like Ignatius, he was a supporter of the cause of
images, for which he states that his parents had suffered in the
times of persecution.^
Attempts were made to induce Ignatius to resign his dignity ;
but, as such a step would have involved an acknowledgment of
guilt, he steadfastly withstood both entreaties and severities.^ At
length, however, he was drawn into something w^hich the court
could regard as a compliance ; and Photius, after having been
ordained by Gregory of Syracuse through all the degrees of the
ministry on six successive days, was enthroned as patriarch on
Christmas- day.'' He repeatedly declares, even in letters to Bardas
" Hard. v. 976. in ^vhich he answers an objection made
^ Sym. Magist. 19. by the iconomachists of his time— that,
•= E'. g. cc. 29, 30, 33, 34, 36. See since every nation had a different repre-
Dowling, xvii. 261. sentation of the Saviour, there could be
^ This is admitted in the encyclical no genuine one. Photius replies that it
letter of the Council which condemned might as well be argued from the variety
him (Hard. v. 1108). See Dowliug, of trauslatious that there was no origi-
xvii. 607. nal Gospel ; or from the different repre-
<= Sym. Mag. 38 ; Anast. Bibl. in sentations of the cross, that there was
Patrol, cxxix. 14; Schlosser, 608; no true cross ; or, from ritual and litur-
Neander, vi. 301. It was condemned gical varieties, an objection might be
by the Council of 869-70. Can. 10 in taken to the Eucharist altogether j or,
the Greek, or 1 1 in the Latin. Hard. v. as every nation supposed the Saviour to
903, 1101. have been incarnate in its own likeness,
f It has been said that he speaks of the story of the Incarnation might be
his parents as having been martyrs for rejected. Thus, as Neander remarks
the sake of images ; but this seems to (vi. 288), he did not believe in the ex-
have arisen from a confusion of two pas- istence of any authentic original like-
sages, in one of which he speaks of ness, but regarded the unity of ideal
their sufferings in that cause (Ep. 113), which lay under the various representa-
while in the other he says that they died tions.
early, and were adorned with "the mar- e Vita, 957; Schlosser, 594.
tyr's crown of patience" (Ep. 2-34, p. '' Vita Ign. 961 ; Dowling, xvii. 606.
349). There is a remarkable letter ((4)
360 PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS. Book IV.
himself, that the promotion was forced on him, and tells the pope
that he was imprisoned before he would accept it.' Nor need we
suppose his reluctance insincere; for even an ambitious man (as
Photius certainly was) might well have hesitated to encounter the
difficulties of a position which was to be held to the exclusion
of such a prelate as Ignatius, and by the favour of such patrons
as Bardas and Michael ; while, in mitigation of the unseemliness
of intruding into the place of a patriarch who was still alive, and
whose resignation was only constructive, it is to be considered
that Photius had belonged to the party of Gregory, and there-
fore could have had little personal scruple as to the rights of
Ignatius,'^
It is said that he was required by the metropolitans of his
patriarchate to swear that he would honour the deprived patriarch
as a father,"" and that he obtained from Bardas a promise that
Ignatius should be kindly treated.*^ But he very soon had the
mortification of finding that this promise was disregarded. Ignatius,
in the hope of forcing him to a more explicit resignation, was
exposed to cold and nakedness, was scourged, chained in a gloomy
dungeon, and deprived of the consolation which he might have
received from the visits of his friends, while many of his partisans
were beaten, imprisoned, and mutilated with the usual Byzantine
cruelty ;" and Photius had to bear the odium of outrages committed
in violation of the pledge which he had required, and in contempt
of his earnest remonstrances and entreaties.^
The adherents of Ignatius were zealous and resolute. They
• held a synod, at which Photius was excommunicated ; whereupon
the patriarch, who appears from the bitterness of his letters
'to have been a man of very irritable temper, retaliated by
assembling another synod, and uttering a like sentence against
Ignatius.*^ In order to strengthen his position, he now sent a notice
of his consecration to Rome, with a request that the pope would
depute legates to a council which was to be held at Constantinople for
the suppression of the iconoclast party, which had again attempted
to make head. His letter was accompanied by one from the emperor,
with splendid gifts to the apostolic see. The application for aid
' Epp. 3, 6, ad Bardam ; Ep. ad Nicol. " Ign. ad Nicol. ap. Hard. v. 1013-
ap. Baron. 861. 36 ( = Ep. 2, ed. Migne) ; Vita, ib. 964. '
Hard. vi. 253. See Schrockh, xxi. 194; p Phot. Epp. 3, 6, ad Bardam.
Dowling, xvii. 609. <) Vita Ign. 964. The acts are lost,
'' See Schrockh, xxiv. 132 ; Fleury, 1. but the sentence was probably rested on
3 ; Neand. vi. 302 ; Dowling xvii. 609. the ground of uncanonical election and
"' Vita Ign. 961. political offences. Schlosser, 603 ; Dow-
" Brit. Mag. xvii. 609. ling, xviii. 243-S.
Chap. III. a.d. 855-S61. CORRESPONDENCE WITH ROME. 361
against the iconoclasts appears to have been merely a pretext
—the real object being to draw the pope into the interest of
Photius. In the mean time renewed attempts were made to obtain
the resignation of Ignatius, at first by an increase of severity
against him and his party, and afterwards by allowing him to
return to Constantinople, and offering the restoration of his
property.^
Nicolas, who had just been raised to the papal chair, was no
doubt better informed as to the late events at Constantinople than
the patriarch or the emperor imagined ;* he saw in their application
to him an opportunity of extending his influence, and ^^ ^^^
affected to regard it as a reference of the case to his
decision. He wrote to the emperor in the style of an independent
sovereign, and, as a hint of the price which he set on his co-opera-
tion," he insisted on the .restoration of the provinces which had
been withdrawn from his jurisdiction, and of the patrimony of the
church in Calabria and Sicily.^ He expressed surprise that the case
of Ignatius should have been decided without the concurrence of
Eome, and on evidence of a kind which was forbidden by the laws
of the church ; ^ nor did he fail to remark on the inconsistency,
that, while Photius represented his predecessor as having resigned
from age and infirmity,^ the emperor spoke of him as having been
deposed. Two bishops, Rodoald of Portus, and Zacharias of Anagni,
were sent to Constantinople as legates, with instructions to inquire
into the matter, and not to admit Photius to communion except as
a layman.'' They were charged with a short letter to the patriarch,
in which the pope remarked on his hasty ordination, but told him
that, if the legates should make a favourable report, he would
gladly own him as a brother.'^
Michael, provoked by the tone of the pope's reply, received the
legates with dishonour. They were detained at Constantinople for
months, and were plied with threats and with bribery, which did
»• The biographer of Ignatius speaks party miglit be cleared elsewhere.
of it as such (964). Symeon Magister » Milman, ii. 280.
(45) relates that the tombs of Constan- " Bowling, xviii. 373.
tine Cepronymus and John the Gram- ^ Ep. 2, ap. Hard. v. 339.
mariau were violated, and their bodies f The pope's objections might seem to
burnt, by Michael's orders. Cf. G. be founded on the false decretals; but,
Hamart. Contin. p. 746. as we have seen, it would appear that he
*> Vita, 964 ; Schlosser, 603-4. Mr. was as yet (a.d. 860) unacquainted with
Dowling thinks that, as Ignatius was these, except by the hiut in a letter of
already deposed, the renewed severities Sei-vatus Lupus (p. 339j ; and the quo-
were not meant to extort a resignation, tatious which he makes are from Coeles-
but the withdrawal of his protest against tine and other popes later than Siricius.
Photius (Crit. Mag. xviii. 243). But it ' Vita Ign. 964.
seems more likely that the resignation " Nic. Ep. 1.
was desired in order that the opposite '' Ep. 3.
362 « FIRST AND SECOND" COUNCIL, Book IV.
not fail of their effect.*^ At length a synod, styled by the Greeks
" the First and Second," '* and consisting, like the Nicene council,
of three hundred and eighteen bishops, met in 861. By this
assembly Photius was acknowledged as patriarch. The letter
from the pope was read, but with the omission of such parts as
were likely to give offence^ — whether it were that the legates
had consented to the suppression, or that advantage was taken
of their ignorance of Greek. Ignatius was brought before the
assembly, and was required to subscribe his own condemnation.
He behaved with inflexible spirit, desired the legates to remove
the " adulterer,"*if they wished to appear as judges, and told them
to their faces that they had been bribed.^ Seventy-two witnesses
■ — a few of them senators and patricians, but for the most part
persons of low condition, farriers, ostlers, needle-makers, and the
like, while some are described as heretics^ — were brought forward
to sign a paper asserting that he had been promoted by imperial
favour, and without canonical election.'^ He was stripped of the
patriarchal robes, in which, as the matter was left to his own
judgment, he had thought it his duty to appear ;' he was beaten,
and, at last, when exhausted by ill treatment for more than a
fortnight, was made, by forcibly holding his hand, to sign with
a cross a confession that he had obtained his office irregularly
and had administered it tyrannically^ It was then announced to
him that he must read this document publicly at Whitsuntide, and
threats of losing his eyes and his hands were uttered ; but he
contrived to escape in the disguise of a slave, and found a refuge
among the monks of the islands from the search which Bardas caused
to be made for him."" An earthquake was interpreted as a witness
from heaven in his favour, while Photius, by offering another
explanation of it, drew on himself a charge of impiety." Bardas, in
deference to the general feeling, now permitted the deposed patriarch
to return to a monastery in the capital," while Michael jested on the
state of affairs by saying that Gryllus was his own patriarch,
= Nic. Ep. 10. * Anastas. ap. Hard. v. 751 ; Schlosser,
•J One explanation of the name is, 600 ; Dowliug, xviii. 374.
that, having been obliged by an out- ' Hard. v. 1016; Vita, 965.
break of the iconoclasts to break off its « Vita, 905 ; Hard. v. 891, 1096.
sessions, it afterv.ards resumed them. *> His biographer says that he had
(Zonaras, ap. Hard. v. 1196 ; Schrockh, been duly chosen by the people and the
xxiv. 13fi.) Mr. Dowling prefers the bishops, and that the charge might more
explanation proposed by Hody, that, fitly have been brought against Photius.
having been employed on two distinct 968.
subjects — the iconoclastic question, and ' Vita, 965. •' lb. 969.
that between Photius and Ignatius—its ™ lb. 672 ; Schlosser, 607.
proceedings were recorded in two sepa- " Vita, 972 ; Sym. Mag. de Mich. 35 ;
rate tomes, xviii. 376. Schlosser, 608. " Vita, 972.
CHAr. III. A.D. 861-3. PHOTIUS AND NICOLAS. 363
Ignatius the patriarch of the Christians, and Photlus the patriarch
of Bardas.P
The acts of the council were sent to Nicolas, with a request from
the emperor that he would confirm them, and at the same time
Photius addressed to the pope a letter which, by the skill displayed
in its composition, has extorted the unwilUng admiration of Baronius.'^
He professes to deplore in a pathetic strain the elevation which he
represents as having been forced on him ; the pope, he says, ought
rather to pity than to blame him for having exchanged a life of
peace, content, and general^,esteem, for a post of danger, anxiety,
unpopularity, and envy/ As for the ecclesiastical laws which
Nicolas had spoken of in his letters, they were not known at Con-
stantinople.® The rule which forbade such ordinations as his was
not binding, inasmuch as it had not been sanctioned by a general
council ; he defends his ordination by the parallel cases of his
predecessors Nicephorus and Tarasius, who had been promoted
from among the laity, and by the stronger cases of Ambrose in the
west and of Nectarius in the east, who had been chosen to the
episcopate while yet unbaptised.* He had, he says, sanctioned in
the late synod a canon against the elevation of a layman to
a bishoprick except by regular degrees ; and he expresses a wish
that the church of Constantinople had before observed the rule, as
in that case he would have escaped the troubles which had come on
him." The patriarch's tone throughout, although respectful, is that
of an equal. In conclusion he reflects with bitter irony on the morals
of the Romans, and prays that Rome may no longer continue to
be a harbour for worthless persons such as those whom it had
lately received without letters of communion — adulterers, thieves,
drunkards, oppressors, murderers, and votaries of all uncleanness,
who had run away from Constantinople in fear of the punishment for
their vices." By this description were intended the refugees of the
Ignatian party.
But the Ignatians had also conveyed to the pope their version
of the late events, and Nicolas wrote in a lofty strain both to the
emperor and to the patriarch. y The Roman church, he says, is
the head of all, and on it all depend,'' He sets aside the parallels
which Photius had alleged for his consecration, on the ground that
p Vita, 973. decretals are meant, but only that the
1 861. 33, 55. He gives it in a trans- laws in question were western.
lation, 34-54. The Greek is not in « §§ 42-47.
Mountagu'g edition, but is Ep. 2 in " §§ 48-49.
Migne's (Patrol. Gr. cii.). " § 54.
' Bar. 861. 36-9. >• Epp. 5-6.
« This need not imply that the false ' Hard. v. 133.
364 LETTERS OF MICHAEL AND NICOLAS. Book IV.
the persons in question had not intruded into the room of wrongfully
ejected orthodox bishops,"^ and tells Photius that, if he did not
know the laws of the church, it was because they made against
his cause.^ At a synod held in 863, the pope deposed and ex-
communicated Zacharias for misconduct in his legation, reserving
the case of Rodoald, who was then employed on a mission in
France ; '^ he declared Photius to be deprived of all spiritual office
and dignity, and threatened that, in case of his disobedience, he
should be excommunicated without hope of restoration until on his
deathbed ; he annulled all orders conferred by him, and threatened
his consecrators and abettors with excommunication. All pro-
ceedings against Ignatius were declared to be void, and it was
required that he should be acknowledged as patriarch. The pope
embodied the resolutions of this council in a letter to the emperor ; "^
and he desired the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem
to make it known that the Roman church in no way consented to
the usurpation of Photius."
Michael replied in violent indignation, that by his application to
the pope he had not intended to acknowledge him as a judge, or to
imply that his own clergy were not sufficient for the decision of the
case ; he scoffed at Rome as antiqua.ted, and at the Latin language
as a barbarous jargon.^ Nicolas, who was elated by his recent
triumph over Lothair, met the emperor with no less haughtiness.^
He taxes him with disrespect towards God's priests, and, as
Michael had spoken of having " ordered " him to send legates to
the council, he tells him that such language is not to be used to
the successors of St. Peter."^ To the reflections on the Latin
tongue, he answers that such words, uttered in the " excess of
madness," were injurious to Him who made all languages, and
were ridiculous as coming from one who styled himself emperor of
the Romans.' He insists at great length on the privileges of the
Roman see, derived not from councils^ but from the chief of the
Apostles."^ He utters many threats against all who shall take part
» Hard. v. 130-1, 133, 135. canon of Chalcedon, which in earlier
•* lb. 135. times had been regarded as an oiFence
'^ Ep. 7 ; ib. 137. See p. 324. against Rome, is, by an extraordinary
^ Ep. 7. interpretation, pressed into the Roman
•^ Ep. 4. interest. The canon had directed that
f Nicol. ap. Hard. v. 161. The em- a bishop or a clerk, having a complaint
peror's own letter is lost. against his metropolitan, should apply
s Epp. 8, 9 (May, 8ti5 ; Nov. 866). to the primate mapxov) of the diocese
'' Hard. v. 147-8. or to the see of Constantinople. The
' Ib. 148-9. appeal to tlie primate, says Wicolas, is
•' Ib. 162-3. In one of the letters to the rule; the recourse to Constanti-
Michael (Ep. 8, col. 159), the ninth nople is only allowed as secondary.
Chap. III. a.d. 863-6, CONVERSION OF BULGARIA. 365
against Ignatius."" He proposes that the rival patriarchs, or their
representatives, should appear at Rome for a trial of the cause."
He warns the emperor to abstain from interfering with spiritual
things," and desires him to burn his late letter, threatening that
otherwise he will himself suspend it to a stake, and, to the disgrace
of the writer, will burn it in the sight of all the nations which are
at Rome ; ^ and he invokes curses on the person who is to read his
letters to the emperor, if he should in any respect mutilate or
mistranslate them.*^ He sent the acts of the Roman
council to the clergy of Constantinople, with a long detail
of the affair ; '' and at the same time wrote to Photius, Ignatius,
Bardas, Theodora, and the empress Eudoxia.
Michael, provoked by the opposition of Nicolas, and by the
manner in which it was carried on, looked out for some means of
annoying the pope. Although Charlemagne's imperial title had
been acknowledged at Constantinople, it was as emperor of the
Franks, not of Rome ; and his successors had not obtained from
the east any higher title than that of king.* Michael now offered
to recognise Louis II. as emperor, on condition of his acknow-
ledging the council which was so offensive to the pope ; and Louis
appeared willing to accept the terms.* But events soon occurred
which rendered this negotiation abortive.
A new question arose to complicate the differences between the
Greek and the Latin churches. The Bulgarians, who are sup-
posed to have been a people of Asiatic origin, of the same stock
with the Huns, and at one time seated near the sea of Azov, had,
about the year 680, occupied a, territory in Moesia and Dardania,
where, in consequence of intermarriages with the native Slaves,
they had gradually exchanged their original language for a dialect
of the Slavonic," They had been engaged in continual hostilities
with the Byzantine empire ; Nicephorus iiad lost his life in war
with them, and they had endangered the throne of Michael Rhan-
gabe. In the early part of the ninth century, Christianity had been
introduced among them by some captives, but with little effect.
During the regency of Theodora, however, circumstances occurred
And by the primate of the diocese the ™ lb. 182-4, 192-3.
council could mean no othei' than the " lb. 168. " lb. 171.
vicar of the chief apostle : " ipse est p lb. 193.
enira primas, qui et primus habetur et i lb. 172. " Ep. 10.
summus." Gieseler, after quoting the " 'P')|j not BacriAeus. See Pagi, xiii.
passage (II. i. 371), very reasonably adds 65 ; Gibbon, iv. 510.
"(!!)." Nicolas had already turned ' Vita Ign. 981 ; Schlosser, 614-5.
this canon to use in a somewhat different " See Schroekh, xxi. 399; Gibbon, v.
way. Ep. ad Car. Calv. ap. Hard. v. 290-1 ; Gfrorer, Karol. i. 430 ; Thierry,
585. Hist. d'Attila, i. 304.
366 BULGARIA. Book IV.
which gave a new impulse to the progress of the Gospel among the
Bulgarians. A monk named Cupharas, in whom the empress took
an interest, fell into the hands of their prince Bogoris ; and the
empress proposed that he should be exchanged for a sister of
Bogoris, who was then a captive at Constantinople. The Bulgarian
princess, who had been converted to the Gospel during her captivity,
zealously attempted, after returning to her own country, to carry
on the work which Cupharas had begun. Bogoris himself held
out, until, during a famine, after having in vain addressed himself
to other deities, he had recourse to the God of the Christians ; the
success of his prayer resulted in his conversion ; and he was
baptised by the patriarch of Constantinople, changing his name
for that of the emperor Michael, who by proxy acted as his god-
father." The convert requested Michael to supply him with a
painter for the decoration of his palace ; and a monk named
Methodius (for art was then confined to the monasteries) was sent
into Bulgaria. Bogoris employed him to paint a hall with terrible
subjects, intending that these should be taken from the perils of
hunting ; whereupon the monk depicted the Last Judgment, as
being the most terrible of all scenes. The representation of hell,
which was explained as setting forth the future' lot of the heathen,
alarmed tbe prince into abandoning the idols which he had until
then retained ; and many of his subjects were moved by the sight
of the picture to seek admission into the church.'' A rebellion,
which soon after broke out in consequence of the prince's conver-
sion, was put down by him with a cruelty which accorded ill with
his new profession.^
f Photius was probably the patriarch who had gone into Bulgaria
for the baptism of Bogoris ; and he had addressed to him a long
letter, or rather treatise,* on Christian doctrine and practice, and
particularly on the duties of a sovereign. But soon after this we
find that the Bulgarian prince made an application to Nicolas,
accompanied by valuable presents, for the purpose of obtaining the
pope's counsel and assistance towards the conversion of his people.*^
It would seem that he had been perplexed between the claims of
rival forms of Christianity — Greek, Roman, and Armenian ; '^ and
^ Const. Porph. iv. 14 ; Cedrenus, empire, and, having been reduced to
539-40. The date of the baptism is straits, offered to become Christian as a
variously given — from 845 to 864 ; but condition of peace. Schlosser, 629.
the later time appears to be the more '' Const. Porph. iv. 15 ; Cedren. 540-1.
correct. Pagi (xv. 53) and Gieseler ^ Nicol. Resp. ad Consulta Bulgar. c.
(II. i. 372) place it in 861. See 17, ap. Hard. v.
Schrockh, xxi. 404. According to » Phot. Ep. 1. '> Anastas. 260.
another account, Bogoris invaded the ^ Nic. Resp. c. 106.
Chap. III. a.d 861-7. ANSWER OF NICOLAS TO THE BULGARIANS. 367
he may very naturally have wished for some instruction better
adapted to the state of his knowledge than the somewhat too refined
treatise which he had received from the patriarch of Constantinople.*^
But in addition to this, it is most likely that Bogoris was actuated
by a jealous dread of the empire which bordered so closely on him,
and by an apprehension of the consequences which might result
from a religious connexion with his ancient enemies.*' Nicolas
replied by sending into Bulgaria two bishops, Paul of Populonia,
and Formosus of Portus, with a letter in which the questions pro-
posed to him were answered under 106 heads/ This document,
while it displays the usual lofty pretensiofts of Rome, is in other
respects highly creditable to the good sense and to the Christian
feeling of the writer. He sets aside many frivolous questions, and
answers others with a wise treatment of their indifference, and with
care to abstain from laying down minutely rigid rules. He rebukes
the harshness which had been shown to a Greek who had pretended
to the character of a priest ; ^ he censures the king for the cruelty
which he had used in the suppression of the late rebelHon, but
tells him that, as he had acted in zeal for the faith, and had erred
rather from ignorance than from wickedness, he may hope for for-
giveness if he repent;^ an4 he exhorts him to refrain from the use
of force against those who continue in their idolatry — to hold no
communion with them, but to deal with them by the weapons of
reason only.* He advises that torture should no longer be used to
discover the guilt of criminals,'^ and tha;t such persons should be
treated with a gentleness becoming the faith which the Bulgarians
had adopted.™ The cross is to be substituted for the horse's tail
which had hitherto been the national standard." Idolatrous
practices, charms, and arts of divination are to be forsaken."
Those who, as heathens, had married two wives must put away the
second, and do penance — polygamy being no less contrary to the
original condition of man than to the law of Christ. " In answer to
the request that a patriarch might be appointed for the country,
the pope says that he must wait for the report of his envoys as to
the number of Christians ; in the mean time he sends a bishop,
and undertakes to send more if required ; and he promises that,
when the church is organised, one with the title of archbishop, if
^ Neand. v. 424. i Cc. 41, 102.
« Schrockh, xxiv. 149-151. ^ C. 86.
' Responsa ad Consulta Bulgarorum, ™ Cc. 19-32.
Hard. 353-386. (Aug. 866.) " C. 33.
s Cc. 14-16. ° Cc. 35, 62, 67, 77, 79.
h C. 17. y C. 37.
368 BULGARIA CLAIMED BY GREEKS AND BY LATINS. Book IV.
not of patriarch, shall be placed at its head."^ There are, he says,
properly only three patriarchal sees — those of Constantinople and
Jerusalem, although so styled, being of inferior honour, because
they were not of apostolical foundation ; "■ and he concludes by
exhorting- the Bulgarians, amidst the claims of conflicting teachers,
to cleave to the holy Roman church, which had always been without
spot or wrinkle.®
Bogoris had also applied to Louis of Germany, who sent him a
bishop ; but it is said that this bishop, on arriving in Bulgaria,
found the country sufficiently provided with clergy from Rome,
and returned home without having attempted to aid or to disturb
their labours.*
But at Constantinople the pope's intervention aroused great
indignation. Nicolas claimed Bulgaria on the ground that it had
belonged to the Roman jurisdiction while it was a province -of the
empire — that the people had voluntarily placed themselves under
him, and that he had provided them with churches and clergy ;
while Photius insisted on his own right as derived from the con-
version of the nation." The patriarch summoned a council to
meet at Constantinople, and, in a letter addressed to the patriarchs
of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem,'' denounced the invasion
of Bulgaria. Within the last two years, he says, men from the
west, the region of darkness, had intruded into this portion of his
fold, corrupting the Gospel with pernicious novelties.^ They
taught a difference of usages as to fasting ; they forbade the clergy
to marry ; they denied the right of presbyters to confirm ; and
their bishops, in opposition to apostles, fathers, and councils,
administered a second unction to persons who had already been
confirmed according to the Greek rite.^ But above all, they
adulterated the creed with spurious additions, affirming that the
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Photius reprobates this
1 C. 72. thereupon left his retreat, made war on
' C. 92. his son, blinded and imprisoned him,
' C. 106. and bestowed the crown on a younger
* Annal. Fuld. 867, ap. Pertz, i. 380. son, whom he threatened to treat in the
The western writers in general speak as same manner if he should not be faith-
if the conversion of Bulgaria had been ful to his duty. He then returned to
entirely the work of the Latin church his cloister.
(Schrockh, xxiv. 149-151). Eegino " Schrockh, xxiv. 154.
(Ann. 868, ap. Pertz, i. 580) relates that ^ Ep. 2. Baronius is very abusive in
the king, after having for a time com- his comments on this epistle, some of
bined the strictest asceticism in private which rest on the assumption that
with the outward pomp of royalty, Photius was an eunuch (e.g. 867. 67;
withdrew into a monastery ; that his 868. 45) — which Pagi (xv. 149) and Fa-
son, who succeeded to the throne, gave bricius (xi. 671-2) show to be untrue,
himself up to profligacy, and attempted y P. 49.
to restore paganism ; that the old king ^ P. 50.
Chap. III. a.d. SC2-". BASIL THE MACEDONIAN. 369
doctrine with all his force, as a denial of the unity of principle in
the Godhead, unheard of by Athanasius, Gregory, and Basil — as
a blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, or rather against the whole
Trinity, such as cannot be exceeded, and is deserving of ten
thousand anathemas.'' He denounces the Romans as apostate
and servants of Antichrist ; ^ and he invites the oriental patriarchs
to send envoys to Constantinople for the purpose of combining
with him in resistance to them.° Although Photius had great
reason to complain both of the interference with his converts, and
of the manner in which the pope had set aside all but the Roman
customs, he appears to be open to the charge of swelling his per-
sonal quarrel with Rome into a schism between the churches ; ^
and the tone in which he now enlarged on the difference of usages
was very unlike that in which he had some years before adverted
to them in his elaborate letter to Nicolas.*^ The synod summoned
by Photius was held in 867. It replied to the Roman anathemas
by pronouncing a like sentence against Nicolas himself ; and the
patriarch, in the hope of drawing the western emperor into his
interest, contrived that acclamations in honour of Louis II. and
Ingilberga should be mixed with those in honour of the Byzantine
rulers.*^
In the mean time important political changes were in progress.
Bardas had gradually acquired a more and more complete ascend-
ancy over his nephew, while the emperor sank continually deeper
into degrading pleasures.^ In 862 Bardas was advanced to the
dignity of Caesar ; and, although his rule was oppressive and
unpopular, it is acknowledged that he exhibited much talent for
government,^' and that he exerted himself for the revival of learning,
which had long been neglected at Constantinople.' But in no long
time his influence was disturbed by that of a rival, Basil the
Macedonian, Basil, although his pedigree was afterwards deduced
by flatterers from the Persian Arsacidse, from Alexander the Great,
and from Constantino,'^ was really of Slavonic race. His birth was
humble, and his first appearance at Constantinople was as a needy
adventurer, seeking shelter for a night in the porch of a monastery,
» Pp. 50, 52-3, 56-7. A treatise by ' Schrockh, xx. 153; Ilefele, iv.
Photius, ' De Spiritus Sancti Mystago- 342-3. e CedreD. 547.
gia,' -was published by Prof. Hergenru- '' Vita Ign. 955 ; Cedren. 550-1 ; Fin-
ther, of Wiirzburg (Ratisbon, 1857), and lay, ii. 336.
is reprinted in the Patrol. Gr. cii. ' Cedren. 547. See the remarkable
b p. 55. history of the philosopher Leo, bishop
c p. 57. of Thessalonica, in Const. Porph. iv.
<• Schrockh, xxiv. 160. 27-9 ; or Cedrenus, 548-550.
« Phot. Ep. 2, ed. Migne ; or in Baron. ^ Const. Porph. v. 2-3 ; Cedren. 557.
861 42-4. See Gibbon, iv. 425 ; Finlav, ii. 272.
2 B
370 BASIL THE MACEDONIAN. Book IV.
where the abbot, it is said, was thrice warned in visions by the
patron, St, Diomede, to open the gate and admit him."" Basil
found employment as servant to a kinsman of the emperor, and
after a time was introduced to the notice of Michael, who, in
reward of his accomplishments as a wrestler, a jockey, and a
toper," raised him to the dignity of the patriciate, and bestowed
on him one of his own mistresses in marriage." Bardas began
to take alarm at the rapid rise of the new favourite ; but Michael
and Basil gave him a solemn assurance of safety, signed by the
emperor's own hand.^ Soon after, however, the murder of the Csesar
was concerted while he was engaged with the emperor on a military
expedition. The assassins, to whom the signal was given by the
sign of the cross, hesitated to strike him in the imperial presence ;
but Basil gave the first blow from behind, and the victim was
despatched while embracing the emperor's feet.^ After a short
interval, during which the vigour of Bardas was missed in the
government, and complaints of the general discontent reached even
the ears of Michael, Basil was nominated Caesar, and on Whitsunday
867 was crowned by the emperor's hands with a diadem which had
been blessed by Photius."^ He immediately began to display talents
of a different order from those which had won for him the imperial
favour, and endeavoured to put some restraint on the increasing
grossness of his patron's debaucheries ; but the attempt provoked
Michael to such a degree that he is said in his drunken frenzy to
have given orders for the Caesar's death, and to have announced an
intention of promoting a boatman in his room.^ Basil felt that he
must sacrifice the emperor's life or his own, and by his command
Michael, after having stupefied himself with wine at supper, in the
Ceesar's company, was murdered on the 24th of September, 867.'
The Greek historians can discover no other redeeming fact in the
life of this wretched prince than that he bestowed a chalice and a
splendid chandelier on the church of St. Sophia." Basil found an
exhausted treasury, but exerted himself with vigour and success to
replenish it and to restore the empire.''
>" Const. Porph. v. 9 ; G. Hamartol. " Const. Porph. iv. 44, v. 24-G ; Sym.
Contin. pp. 725-8 ; Cedren. 560. Mag. 47.
" Const. Porph. v. 12 ; Cedren. 563-4. ' G. Hamart. Contin. pp. 749, 750 ;
" Const. Porph. v. 16; Sym. Magist. Const. Porph. iv. 44, v. 27 ; Cedren. 567;
de Mich. 40 ; Schlossei', 630-1. Pagi, xv. 115; Schlosser, 653-8; Fin-
p Cedren. 566 ; Schlosser, 634-8. lay, ii 232. The continuator of Ha-
1 Const. Porph. v. 18 ; Cedren. 555- martolus relates that all Basil's agents
6 : Schlosser, 639. Baronius traces the in the murder came to bad ends. 752-3.
fate of Bardas to his guilt in opposing " Const. Porph. iv. 45 ; Cedren. 557.
the pope. 867. 75, seqq. ^ Const. Porph. v. 29, seqq. ; Cedren.
' Const. Porph. iv. 43; Cedren. 567; 567-8, 570, 577-8.
Schlosser, G44,
Chap. III. a.d. 867-8. PHOTIUS DEPOSED.
371
Two days after the death of Michael, Photius v/as deposed/ He
had formerly been on friendly terms with Basil, and contradictory
accounts are given of the reason for his deposition. By some it is
explained in a manner discreditable to him, while others say that he
provoked the emperor by refusing the eucharist to him as a murderer
and an usurper.^
Nicolas had written to Hincmar, detailing the history of the
Bulgarian affair, and requesting the assistance of the Frankish
clergy, whose character stood highest for learning among the clergy
of the west, to combat the attacks which had been made by the
Greeks on the Christianity of the Latins."^ In consequence of this
invitation, Hincmar desired Odo bishop of Beauvais, and other
divines, to collect materials for a general defence ;^ and the result
was the production of treatises by Odo, JEne&s of Paris, and Ra-
traran.° Of these, the work of Ratramn is regarded as the most
valuable.'^ The first three books of it are devoted to the question
of the Holy Spirit's procession, while the fourth and last discusses
the controversy as to rites and discipline. It is remarkable that, in
opposition to the line usually taken by Nicolas, the monk of Corbie
dwells on the sufficiency of uniting in faith, and censures the Greeks,
not for varying from the Roman usages, but for insisting on their
own as exclusively correct and necessary.^ The Greek doctrine as
to the Holy Spirit was also condemned by a synod of bishops from
the dominions of Louis of Germany, which met at Worms in 868.*
Basil reinstated Ignatius in the patriarchate with great pomp,^
and sent a member of each party to Rome, accompanied by one of
his own officers, for the purpose of representing the state of affairs ;
y Vita Ign. 981, Mr. Finlay says as calumnious were not without foimda-
that he remained in office two years, ii. tion in the practice of so7ne among the
274. Latins. See Giesel. II. i. 375. Dr.
^ G. Hamart. Contin. 754; Zonaras, Floss supposes that Scotus, as might
ap. Baron. 867. 101 ; Schrockh, xxiv. have been expected from his general
161-2. The refusal of communion seems character, took the Greek side in the
hardly agreeable to the character of controversy between the churches, and
Photius, who had not scrupled to asso- that this was the reason why Nicolas
ciate with Michael and Bardas, notwith- endeavoured to procure his dismissal
standing their vices (Neand. vi. 315). from the court of Charles the Bald.
Nor is it probable that, if such a refusal (Patrol, cxxii. Praef. xxiii. ; see above,
had been given, he would, in reminding p. 314.) But the date assigned to the
Basil of their former friendship, have pope's letter, a.u. 861-2, seems hardly
said in particular, " You have received consistent with this,
at my hands the awful and immaculate ^ Opera, ii. 610.
mysteries" (Ep. 97, init.). Baronius '' Patrol, cxix. cxxi. See pp. 187,
solves the question in his own way, by n. e, 334.
saying that the patriarch was deposed in ^ Mabill. VI. Ixxxi. ; Schrockh, xxiv.
consequence of the condemnation by 178-183; Neand. vi. 313.
Nicolas. 867. 101. ^ Ratr. contra Graecorum Opposita,
" Nic. Ep. 70; Hincm. ii. 809. Some iv. 1. ' See Hefele, iv. 352.
of the charges which the pope mentions « Vita Ign. 985.
2 B 2
372
EIGHTH GENERAL COUNCIL Book IV
but the envoy of Photius was shipwrecked and died on the
journey,*^ so that his cause was left without an advocate. The
representative of Ignatius was charged with a letter from the
patriarch, in which the authority of St. Peter's successors was
acknowledged in terms such as had not been usual at Constantinople.'
Adrian, who had now succeeded Nicolas, assembled a synod which
renewed the former sentence against Photius."^ It was ordered that
the copy of the Byzantine synod's acts which had been transmitted
to Rome should be burnt, and that those at Constantinople should
share the same fate."'
A council, which is regarded in the Roman .church as the eighth
General Council," met at Constantinople in October 869. It was
attended by two bishops and a deacon from Rome ; Antioch
was represented by the metropolitan of Tyre, Jerusalem by a
presbyter;" and to these a representative of the Alexandrian see
was added at the ninth session.'' Some high civil officers were
present, but the number of bishops was at first exceedingly
small ;'^ and, although afterwards gradually increased, it did not
rise beyond 60 at the ninth session, and 102 or 109 at the tenth
and last.''
On the first day the sentence of the late Roman council against
Photius was adopted, and all bishops who afterwards joined the
assembly were required to sign it.^ The second, third, and fourth
sessions were chiefly occupied in dealing with bishops and clergy
who, after having been ordained by Ignatius or his predecessor,
had submitted to Photius. These presented a confession of their
offences, alleging that they had been forced or deceived into them ;
^ Vita Ign. 985. Anastasius the Li- 899, seqq.) ; in the Greek, only 14 (ib.
brarian makes an edifying use of the 1097, seqq.) : the reason being, perhaps,
shipwreck, — " Qui navim Christi, hoc that the I^atins prepared the larger num-
est ecclesiam, sciderat, navis suse scis- ber, while the Greeks inserted in their
sionem non inconvenienter incurrit." report such only as related to the main
Hard. v. 754. subject (Schrockh, xxiv. 170-1). Among
' The letters of the emperor and of those which are found in Latin only are
the patriarch are in Hard. v. 790-3. some which lay down pseudoisidorian
•' Hard. v. 862-871. " Ib. 874. doctrines as to the position of metropo-
" See Baron. 869. 61-4; Pagi, xv. litans, and the trial of bishops (cc. 17,
180 ; Palmer on the Church, ii. 215. 26). One, directed against the icono-
° Hard. r. 764, 77]. clasts, is found in both versions (c. 3
p Hard. v. 884, 1092. There are two Gr. ; c. 7 Lat.) ; and a Frank writer,
reports of this council — the one in La- the contiuuator of Aimoin, speaks of
tin, by Anastasius the Librarian, who this as contrary to the orthodox doctrine
was then at Constantinople for the pur- of the fathers, Giesel. II. i. 377.
jiose of negotiating a marriage between i lb. 764-5 ; 1025-7.
the families of Louis II. and Basil ■■ Held on the last day of February,
(Hard. V. 755); the other Greek: and 870. See Pagi, xv. 163; Schrockh,
they vary very considerably. In the xxiv, 164-5; Hefele, iv. 409.
Latin acts there are 27 canons (Hard. v. ' Hard. v. 773, 817.
Chap. m. a.d. 869. OF THE LATINS. 373
and they were admitted to communion on condition of performing
some penitential exercises. At the fourth session there was a sharp
discussion witli a bishop named Tlieophilus, who was firm in his
adherence to Photius.' The patriarch himself was brought forward
on the fifth day, and met the questions addressed to him by a
dignified silence. When urged to speak, he replied that God
would hear him although he said nothing. " You will not," said
the Roman legates, " by your silence escape a greater condemna-
tion," " Neither," he replied, " did Jesus by holding his peace
escape condemnation ; " and he resumed his former silence." When
the lay president of the council, Baanes, who treated him with a
courtesy unlike the behaviour of the ecclesiastics, afterwards asked
him what he could allege in his justification, Photius answered,
" My justifications are not in this world." ^
The emperor appeared at the sixth session, and told the council
that he had absented himself from its earlier meetings lest he should
be supposed to influence its decision as to Photius. y But the affair
of the patriarch was not yet concluded. He was cited before the
council on the seventh day, and entered leaning on a staff"; — " Take
away his staflp," said the Roman legate Marlnus, " it is an ensign
of pastoral dignity." ^ The bishops of his party in vain appealed to
the canons.^ Anathemas were pronounced against Photius and his
adherents, the most odious epithets being attached to their names ; ^
the writings and documents on his side were burnt f and, in token
of the exasperation by which the council was animated, it is said
that the condemnation of the patriarch was subscribed in the wine
of the eucharistic cup.''
In the course of the council's proceedings, however, it appeared
that the personal question as to the patriarchate was not the only
subject of difference between Rome and Constantinople. The
Romans complained that the pope's letter had been mutilated in the
reading ; the Greeks told Ignatius that his church had been made
the servant of Rome ; and Ignatius himself was as resolute as
Photius to assert the jurisdiction of his see over Bulgaria.*^ Some
ambassadors from that country were at Constantinople, and their
' Hard. v. 782, seqq. gently treated, and cites prodigies which
" lb. 819, 1(151. soon after happened in favour of this
" lb. 822, 105-1. opinion (988-9). In the subscriptions
y lb. 835, 1004. to the acts of the council, the Ifomau
^ lb. 839, 10G5. legates stand first, while Basil and his
» lb. 841. sons do not sign until after the represen-
'' lb. 873. tatives of all the patriarchates. (Hard.
<= lb. 875, 1086. V. 922-3.) See Hefele, i. 25-7.
■i Vita Igu. 988. The biographer, <= Schriickh, xxiv. 173.
however, thinks that Photius was too
374 DISPUTES AS TO BULGARIA. " Book IV.
master — by what influence is unknown — had been again induced
to waver in his religious allegiance. The ambassadors, on being
summoned into the emperor's presence, with Ignatius, the Roman
legates, and the representatives of the eastern patriarchs, inquired
to which church they must consider their country to belong. The
orientals asked to which church it had belonged while a province of
the empire, and whether the clergy at the time of the Bulgarian
conquest had been Greeks or Latins. It was answered that the
province had been subject to Constantinople, and that the clergy
found in it were Greeks ; and on these grounds it was adjudged that
Bulgaria ought to belong to the patriarchate of Constantinople.
The Roman legates, however, disputed the alleged facts, and
handed to Ignatius a paper from the pope, charging him not to
interfere, which the patriarch received in a respectful manner, but
did not further regard. The emperor dismissed the legates with
coolness.^ Ignatius in the same year consecrated an archbishop for
Bulgaria, and within a short time all the Latin clergy were ejected
from that country.^
John VIIL wrote to the Bulgarians, exhorting them to return to
the communion of his church, which they had formerly
chosen, and warning them as to the danger of a connexion
with the Greeks, who, he said, were always in one heresy or another.''
He wrote to Ignatius, telling him that, as he was indebted to the
apostolic see for his dignity, so he should lose it if he kept possession
of Bulgaria. The Greek clergy, who were already excommunicate
for introducing their errors into a church planted by the holy see,
must be withdrawn within thirty days ; and Ignatius is threatened
with excommunication and deposition if he should neglect the
order." Letters in a like tone were written to the Bulgarian king,
and to the Greek clergy in that country ; ^ and a violent collision
would probably have ensued, but for the death of Ignatius, which
took place in 878.
Photius, after his deprivation, had at first been treated with
extreme severity. He complains in his letters that he is strictly
guarded by soldiers ; that he is deprived of all intercourse with
relations, friends, monks, and clergy ; that his property is confiscated,
that he is allowed no attendance of servants, and in his sickness can
obtain no medicines,™ He suffers from hunger, and yet more from
f Vita Hadriani ap. Murator. v. 267- Paulicians. See p. 185.
8 ; Schvockh, xxiv. 173-5. •> Hard. vi. 16, 19.
B Vita Hadr. 344 ; Pagi, xv. 218. It ' lb. 20.
was to this archbishop that Peter of << lb. 22, 50, 56, 59, &c.
Sicily addressed his account of the >" Ep. 97, p. 137.
Chap. III. a.d. 869-8T8. RESTORATION OF PHOTIUS. 375
" a famine of the word of God ;" he is separated fi'om all books — a
cruelty unexampled in the persecutions of the orthodox by heretics
or by pagans ; and in the mean time his adherents are cruelly
treated, churches are destroyed, holy things are profaned, the poor,
whom he had tended for the benefit of his soul, are left friendless
and helpless." He inveighs against the synod of 869 as having
neglected all the forms of justice in its dealings with him — as
worse than anything that had been known among the most lawless
and savage heathens."
But after a time he found means to recover the favour of Basil.
According to the biographer of Ignatius, he drew up an imaginary
pedigree, tracing the emperor's ancestry to the Persian kings ; this
was written in antique letters on parchment of corresponding
appearance ; it was bound in the cover of an old manuscript, and
was introduced into the library of the palace by the keeper, who
took an opportunity of showing it to Basil, and suggested that
Photius was the only man capable of explaining it.^ A still more
unlikely tale asserts that the emperor's love was won by charms
administered in his food and drink.'^ But it would seem that in
truth Basil, out of regard for the unequalled learning of Photius, and
perhaps also from a wish to conciliate his partisans, whose constancy
to the ejected patriarch may have raised some apprehensions,
recalled him from banishment, and appointed him tutor to Leo,
the heir apparent of the crown.'' While thus employed, he was
reconciled with Ignatius, and fi'om that time lived on good terms with
him, steadily refusing to become the head of a party in opposition to
the aged patriarch.^
Photius was now raised to the see as successor of Ignatius, and
announced his promotion to John VIII., with a request
that the pope would send legates to a new synod which
was to be held at Constantinople.' The chief object of this application
was to secure the assistance of Rome for the purpose of quieting the
Ignatian party ; " but John seized on it as an acknowledgment that
the title of Photius to the patriarchal throne depended on the papal
" Epp. 97, pp. 137-8; 174, pp. 240, ^ So Photius himself said in the synod
247-8, 250. of 879. (Hard. vi. 256.) His oppo-
** Epp. 117-8. nents, however, tell a different story.
p Vita Ign. 1004. Comp. Sym, Ma- See Hefele, iv. 430,
gist, de Basil. 7, and a story told by the ' Hard. vi. 1152. Gregory of Syra-
same writer as to the emperor Theophi- cuse, who had shared the misfortunes of
lus and the patriarch Methodius. De Photius, now received the bishoprick of
Theoph. 24. Nicsea, in which he died soon after. Vita
1 Hard. v. 1149. Ign. 1008.
■• Const. Porph. v. 44 ; Schrockh, « Neander, vi. 322-3.
xxiv, 186; Hefele, iv, 427.
376 EIGHTH GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE GREEKS. Book IV.
judgment, and supposed that the Byzantines would be willing to
bear anything for the sake of obtaining his countenance. Two
Au^. 16, bishops and a priest were sent as legates, with letters
^^^- and instructions in which it was said that Photius miffht
be restored if he would make satisfaction for his offences and would
ask mercy of the synod ; and it was insisted on that he should
resign all pretensions to Bulgaria.'' The ensigns of the patriarchal
dignity were transmitted in the same manner which had been usual
in bestowing the pall on metropolitans.^
The synod — the eighth General Council according to the Greek
reckoning — was imposing as to numbers, consisting of 380 bishops
from the empire, with the three Boman legates, and three deputies
from the oriental patriarchs."' The precedent set by the second
council of Nicasa, of having representatives from the oriental
thrones, had been followed in the council under Photius in 861,
and in that under Ignatius in 869. But at the latter of these,
tlie representatives of the east had declared that the orientals who
had taken part in the synod under Photius were impostors, with
forged credentials.'' Photius, however, asserted that those who
made that declaration were themselves not only impostors, but
agents of the Saracens ; " and letters were now produced from
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, in which the patriarchs
disavowed the persons who had acted in their names, and disowned
all connexion v/ith the proceedings against Photius."
The Roman legates found that matters were conducted in a very
different way from what the courteous behaviour of Photius had led
them to expect. Instead of submitting himself to their judgment,
he assumed the presidency of the council from the beginning, de-
claring that both his first and his second elevation had been forced
on him — that he had committed no wrong, and did not need any
mercy."^ The pope's letters were read, but with omissions of the
more violent pretensions, and with insertions to the honour of the
patriarch,® The demand of Bulgaria was, with great professions
''Hard. v. 1165, 118.5; vi. 207, lOS.'j-g, 1100.
1168-9. I' Ep. 116, p. 159. The explanation
y Hard. vi. 228. See Neand. vi. 323. offered by the opposite party is, that the
^ Schrockh, xxiv. 188-9. The Greeks patriarch of Jerusalem, in order to avert
disallowed tlie council of 869. the suspicions of the Saracens, had given
" The synod discovered the persons the envoys instructions to negotiate for
who had taken on themselves the cha- the redemption of Saracen captives at
racter of envoys. These said that, hav- Constantinople. Hard vi. 1160 ; Hefele,
iiig come to Constantinople on other iv. 423.
business, they had been induced by <-' Hard. vi. 300, 301, 325.
Piiotius to appear in liis synod, and on ^ lb. 253-7.
this ground he was anathematised in ^ See Hard. v. 1165, seqq. ; vi. 63-72,
the 9th canon. Hard, v. 874-7, 901, or 231, seqq. ; 246, seqq.; 277, seqq.; 1152.
CiiAP. III. A.D. 879-890. ROME AND CONSTANTINOPLE. 377
of respect for Rome, evaded as being foreign to the question in
hand/ The Greek bishops all supported the patriarch, and acted
as if in entire indei)endence of Rome f yet the legates allowed all
to pass without a protest, and joined in anathematising the council
of 8G9, by which Photius had been deposed.
It was only by degrees that John became acquainted with the
result of the council. At first, he declared himself willing to confirm
its restoration of Photius, if he should find that the legates had not
disobeyed their instructions. Misconstruing the polite phrases of
the Greeks, he supposed that Bulgaria had been given up to him,
and wrote to thank the emperor for the concession ; while in a
letter to Photius he expressed surprise that in some re- Aug. 13,
spects his directions had not been followed by the council.'' ^^^•
When, however, he discovered the real state of the matter, his
exasperation was unbounded. He ascended the pulpit of a churchy
and, holding the book of the Gospels in his hand, threatened to
anathematise all who should not regard Photius as one condemned
by God's judgment, according to the sentences of Nicolas and
Adrian ;* andhe sent Marinus, one of the legates who had attended
the council under Ignatius, to insist that matters should be restored
to the state which had been established by that council. But the
legate was treated with indignity, was imprisoned for a month at
Constantinople, and returned without any success.*^ On the death of
John, Marinus was raised to the papacy ; and the sentence against
Photius was renewed by him,™ by Adrian III., and by Stephen V.,
f Hard. vi. 252, 309. in the story told by the biographer of
e lb. 312, seqq. ; Schrockh, xxiv. Ignatius, that Photius forged the acts of
192; Hefele, iv. 462-3. Although this a synod against his rival, and sent them
synod answers all the conditions usually to Louis II. (see above, p. 365).^Ba-
laid down for a general council, the lio- ronius says that the synod of 879 is
manists speak of it as a Photian conven- " una cum auctore in imis inferis obru-
ticle, and censure John for consenting to enda" (879. 63). Dolliuger more rea-
it in any degree. Baronius supposes sonably contents hmiself with comparing
the fable of Pope Joan to have taken its it to the " Latrocinium" of Ephesus, with
ori'^in from the pope's weakness in yield- the exception thatwhat was there done by
iDg° to the wishes of Basil (879. 4-6)-a violence was here done by craft (i, 396).
supposition very inconsistent with the A marginal note on the council (Hard,
general character of John. The same vi. 331) asserts that the sixth and seventh
historian ventures to conjecture that the sessions were invented by Photius ; but
acts of the council were forged by Hardouin regards this as the trick ot
Photius (879. 73) ; and the extravagant some "Grseculus," in order to bespeak
idea has been more confidently repeated credit for the earlier sessions ! bee
bv others, as by Rohrbacher, who speaks Hefele, iv. 463.
in his index of the " Fourberie de ^ Ep. 108 ad Phot. ; Ep. 109 ad Im-
Photius, peut-etre unique dans This- peratores, Hard. vi.
toire" (See also vol. xii. 237, and > Hard v. 1161 ; Baron. 880. 11.
Schrockh, xxiv. 193-5 ; Giesel. II. i. '' Stephan. V. ap. Hard. vi. 367.
380.) This charge may have originated " Baron. 882. 12.
378 ROME AND CONSTANTINOPLE. Book IV.
who held an angry correspondence on the subject with Basil and
his son Leo VI."
Leo, formerly the pupil of Photlus, on his accession in 886, de-
posed the patriarch, confined him in a monastery, and filled the
see with his own brother Stephen, a boy of sixteen." The reasons
of this step are unknown ; the Greek writers in general trace it to
a suspicion that Photius was implicated with a monk named Theo-
dore Santabarenus, who is said to have gained an influence over
the late emperor by magical arts, and had endeavoured by a double
treachery to alienate him from his son.^ An inquiry into the con-
duct of Photius took place, and no evidence could be found against
him ; yet he did not recover his see, and he died in exile in the
year SOl.'i The two parties which had divided the church of
Constantinople were reconciled within a few years ; but
Pope John IX. made difficulties as to recognising the
clergy who had been ordained by Photius.' At length, however,
the churches resumed communion, and the name of Photius himself
was among those of the patriarchs acknowledged by Rome.^ But
political jealousies, and the retention of Bulgaria by the Byzantine
patriarchate,' together with the difference as to rites and doctrine,
continued to keep up a coolness between the sees, until at a later
time they again broke out into open discord.
n See Hard. v. 1116, seqq. ; vi. 365, up Stephen as an ecclesiastic. (Kircheng.
seqq. iii.- 301.) Symeon Magister describes
" G. Haraart. Contin. p. 762. Santabarenus as a Manichsean and a ma-
P Const. Porph. v. 101; vi. 2; G. gician. De Basil. 17-18, 21.
Hamart. Contin. 768-770 ; Cedren. 593 ; i Const. Porph. vi. 5 ; Cedren. 594-5 ;
Schrockh, xxiv. 198. The continuator Pagi, xv. 424.
of Hamartolus says that when, in con- "• Hard. vi. 479 ; Baron. 905. 9; Pagi,
sequence of Theodore's charges, Basil xv. 539 ; Schrockh, xxiv. 198-207.
was about to blind his son, Photius sue- ^ See Baron. 905. 11-12, and Pagi's
cessfully interceded for Leo (763). An notes; Schrockh, xxiv. 201.
unknown Greek writer, cited by Baro- * In 923, the Bulgarian king Symeon,
nius (886. 16), ascribes the deposition to in dictating terms of peace to the em-
the emperor's regard for the pope, peror Eomanus I., required that the
Gfrorer conjectui-es that Photius had a chief bishop of Bulgaria should be ac-
scheme for rendering the church inde- knowledged by Constantinople as an in-
pendent, and that the emperor meant to dependent patriarch ; and this lasted
defeat this by getting the patriarchate until John Tzimisces put an end to the
into his own family — Basil having al- Bulgarian kingdom, a.d. 972. Finlay,
ready shown alike intention by bringing ii. 81.
cii.vp. IV. ( 379 )
CHAPTER IV.
SPAIN — ENGLAND — MISSIONS OF THE NINTH CENTURY.
I. The Christians of Spain after the Mahometan conquest, who
were known by the name of Mustaraba or Mozarahes,'' enjoyed the
free exercise of their religion, although on condition of paying a
heavy monthly poll-tax.^ They generally lived on friendly terms
with their Mussulman masters ; many of them held office under the
caliphs, and monks and clergy who understood both the Arabic
and the Latin languages were employed in diplomatic corre-
spondence.'^
But, notwithstanding these relations, the difference of religion
was a continual source of trouble. The Mahometan mobs often
abused Christians in the streets; they shouted out blasphemies
against the Christian name, while all retaliation was forbidden by
law under very severe penalties. If a marriage took place between
persons professing the two religions, the general law against
apostasy from Islam made it death for the Mahometan party to
embrace Christianity ; and the questions which in such marriages
naturally arose as to the religion of the issue produced very serious
difficulties. Moreover, the hostility of the Mussulmans towards
the Christians who dwelt among them was excited by the per-
severing efforts of those who in other parts of the peninsula carried
on a war of independence ; while these efforts served also to raise
among the Christians under the Mahometan rule a desire to do
something for the more public assertion of their faith.*!
The Christians were divided into two parties. The one of these
was bent on preserving peace with their rulers, as far as possible,
and enjoying the toleration which was allowed them. The other
party regarded this acquiescence as unworthy ; they thought that
their brethren had been corrupted by intercourse with the Moslems
into a blameable laxity of opinions. They declared that the
offices of Mahometan courts could not be held without compliances
a The name does not mean (as has " Eulogii Memoriale Sanctorum, in
been mistakenly said) mixti Arabibiis, Bibl. Patr. xv. 249, b. (or in Patrol,
but Arabcs insititii — grafted on the stock cxv.).
of the Araba Arahi, or pure Arabs. <^ Neand. v. 462-3.
Giesel. II. i. 147. ^ Giesel. II. i. 147.
380
PERSECUTION OF Book IV.
unbecoming a Christian ; that those who occupied such offices
were obliged to refrain from openly signing themselves with the
cross, and from other outward manifestations of their faith ; that
they were obliged to speak of the Saviour in such terms as might
not be offensive to the unbelievers. They complained that the
Christian youth preferred the cultivation of " Chaldean " to that
of ecclesiastical literature; that they were more familiar with
Arabic than with Latin/
About the middle of the ninth century a persecution of the
Christians broke out at Cordova under the reign of
Abderrahman II. The first sufferer was a monk named
Perfectus, who, having fallen in with some Mahometans in the
neighbourhood of the city, was questioned by them as to the opinion
which Christians entertained of the Prophet. He attempted to
evade the question, on the ground that he was unwilling to offend
them; but, as they continued to urge him, and assured him that
no offence would be taken, he said that Mahomet was regarded by
Christians as one of the false prophets foretold in Scripture ; and he
remarked on some parts of his history, as scandalous, and as prov-
ing the falsehood of his pretensions. The Arabs, in consideration
of the promise which they had given, restrained their anger for the
time ; but when Perfectus next appeared in public, he was seized,
was dragged before a judge, on a charge of blasphemy against the
Prophet, and was executed.^ The next victim was a merchant,
who had given no provocation ; ^ but the third, a young monk
named Isaac, courted his fate. He went before the judge of the
city, professing an inclination to embrace the religion of the Koran,
and begging for some instruction in its doctrines; and when these
were explained to him, he denounced their falsehood with great
vehemence.'' The execution of Isaac was followed by an outburst
of fanatical zeal. Clergymen, monks, nuns, and laity
rushed to the Mahometan tribunals, reviling the Prophet
as an impostor, an adulterer, a sorcerer, and declaring that his
followers were in the way to perdition.* And, besides those who
voluntarily thrust themselves on death, many children of mixed
marriages were delated by their Mahometan relations as apostates,
although they had probably been brought up from the first in the
religion of the Christian parent.*^
* Alvari Indicul. Luminosus, c. 9, in '' Eulog. Praef. 243; Alvar. 12.
Flores, Espaila Sagrada, xi. Madr. 1792 ■ Eulog. ad Willesind. (Bibl. Patr.
(or in Patrol, cxxi.). xv. .3(10, c.) Details of the martyrdoms
' Alvar. 3; Enlog. ii. 1. in Mem. SS. ii. 3, seqq.
s Eulog. col. 24f., f. ; Alvar. 5. ^ See Eulog. Mem. SS. ii. 8.
Chap. IV. a.d. 850-2. CHRISTIANS IN SPAIN. 381
The wild zeal of the Christians naturally exasperated the
Moslems, Public outrages against Christians increased ; any one
who showed himself in the street was insulted, pelted with filth, or
stoned : the Mahometans shrank from touching the very garments
of Christians, as if it were pollution.™ The sound of church-bells
excited them to a tempest of cursing and blasphemies ; and at
funerals of Christians the populace followed the corpse with outcries,
begging that God would have no mercy on the deceased."
Abderrahman now enacted new laws, of increased severity. The
bodies of those who were executed were to be burnt, lest their
brethren should convert them into relics. Yet the caliph, wishing,
if possible, to quell the excitement by peaceable means, requested
the co-operation of the primate Recanfrid, archbishop of Toledo,
who issued an order that no Christian should present himself before
a Mahometan judge unless he were cited to do so.. This order
was received with indignation and defiance by the more zealous
party, headed by Saul, bishop of Cordova ; and Recanfrid, in
pursuance of his policy, proceeded to imprison some refractory
ecclesiastics — among them a monk and priest of Toledo named
Eulogius, who had been very conspicuous in his opposition. From
prison Eulogius wrote letters, intended to animate the resolution of
his friends ; with the fervour of a Tertullian he exhorts all who
have any worldly ties to cast them aside and boldly confess the
faith, in the assurance of rejoining their martyred brethren in
bliss." A council was held under the archbishops of
Toledo and Seville, and determined that no one ought
voluntarily to provoke death by his religion.^ By those who
agreed with the spirit of this council the evils which had happened
were charged on Eulogius and his associates. They ascribed the
conduct of the sufferers to pride, and questioned their right to the
name of martyrs— citing against them texts of Scripture, with the
canons and practice of the early church.'^ Some went so far as to
declare that there was no opportunity of martyrdom at the hands
of the Arabs, since these were not idolaters, but worshipped the
one true God and acknowledcjed his laws.'
Eulogius and Peter Alvar were the leading spirits of their party .^
'» Eulog. col. 249, d. • 10.
° Alvar. 6. i Alvar. 14 ; Eulog. Mem. SS. ii. 14;
° Alv.ar. Vita Eiilogii, 4-7 (Patrol, col. 248, c.
cxv.) ; Eulog. ad Floram et Mariam ■■ Eulog. 288, d.
(ib. 821, seqq.) ; Neaud. v. 468-9. ^ Flores supposes Eulogius to have
p Hard. v. 37-8, who calls it concilia- -written in 851, and Alvar in 854. Es-
hiduiii. Barouius is loud against it. 852. pana Sagrada, xi. 43.
382 PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS IN SPAIN. Book IV.
They both (and more especially Alvar, who was an ecclesiastic of
Cordova) write in an exalted strain of enthusiasm. Eulogius sets
aside the distinction which had been drawn between heathens and
Mahometans by saying that the Mahometans deny the Son of God
and persecute the faithful.' Alvar argues from the prophecies that
Mahomet is the forerunner of Antichrist." The sufferings of the
Christians, he says, had not been drawn down on them by the
violence of zealots — for the first victims had done nothing to pro-
voke their fate — but by the sins of the whole community.^ He
will allow no compliance with circumstances, no forbearance to
force the Christian profession on the notice of the infidels.^ He
maintains that our Lord's charge to His disciples, " when perse-
cuted in one city to flee into another," is inapplicable in the present
case, since the object of the charge was that the disciples should
spread the Gospel more widely — not that they should hide it.^
He would have Christians to press the truth on the Moslems for
the purpose of rendering them " debtors to the faith " — not (as it
would seem) out of love for them, but in order to render their
unbelief inexcusable.''*
Abderrahman was succeeded in 852 by his son Mohammed,
who carried the proceedings against the Christians further.'' On
the first day of his reign the new king dismissed all who held any
ofiices about the court or in the public service.'' He ordered that
all churches which had been lately built should be destroyed, and
prohibited all display in the ritual or in the furniture of the older
churches which were allowed to stand.*^ The persecution continued
for many years. Eulogius himself, who had been elected to the see
of Toledo, was arrested in 859 "-' in consequence of having aided a
young female convert, named Leocritia, to escape from her parents,
who were bigoted Mahometans ; and, after having firmly resisted
the importunities of some Arabs who, out of respect for his sanctity
and learning, endeavoured to persuade him to save his life by slight
concessions, he was put to death.'
During this long persecution many of the more lukewarm
Christians openly apostatised to the religion of Islam.^ The heats
on both sides at length died away, and the old relations of the
' P. 288, ^. xiv. 396.
» C. 21. ■= Eulog. Mem. SS. ii. 16; iii. 1.
" Cc. 3, 18. •• lb. iii. 3.
y Cc. 16, 17. « Vita, 10.
^ C. 2, p. 223. f lb. 13-16 ; Pagi, xiv. 498. Leocritia
^ C. 10, p. 234. See Neander, v. 474. was put to death four days after him.
^ Eulog. Mem. SS. ii. 16 ; Pagi, e Giesel. II. i. 151-2.
Chap. IV. ENGLAND — THE DANES.
383
parties were restored. A German abbot, who went on an embassy
to Cordova in 954, represents the Christians as living peaceably
with their masters, and as thankful for the toleration which they
enjoyed ; nay, if the information which he received may be trusted,
it would appear that they had carried their compliance so far as to
submit to the rite of circumcision >
II. England, like France, was harassed and desolated by the
ravages of the Northmen. Their first appearance on the coasts
was in the year 767 ;' the first descent which was severely felt was
in 832 ; '^ and from that time their invasions were incessant. Devon
and Wales felt their fury as well as the eastern coasts ; when the
attention of the English was concentrated on one point, a fresh
band of enemies appeared in an opposite quarter ; and they
penetrated into the very heart of the country.™ And here, as in
France, the wealth and the defencelessness of the monasteries
pointed these out as the chief objects of attack. The chronicles of
the time abound in frightful details of their wasting with fire and
sword the sanctuaries of Croyland, Medeshamstede (Peterborough),
Bardsey, and Ely ; of Repton and Coldingham ; of Lindisfarne,
from which a little band of monks carried off the relics of St. Cuthbert
over the mountains of Northumbria, in continual fear of the ravagers
by whom they were surrounded on every side." At length, in 878,
after the victory gained by Alfred over Guthrun at Ethandune, a
large territory in the east of England, north of the Thames, was
ceded to the Danes, on condition of their professing Christianity,
and living under equal laws with the native inhabitants ; ° but the
peace thus obtained was only for a time.
Of the lustre of Alfred's reign it is needless to speak to readers
who may be presumed to know in any degree the history of their
country. Alfred succeeded his father in 871, at the age of twenty-
two,P and his reign lasted thirty years. His character may have
been idealised in some respects, that it might fulfil the conception of
a perfect sovereign ; and institutions have been ascribed to him which
are in truth derived from other sources.'^ Yet historical reality
exhibits to us this " darling of the English " — " Alfred the Truth-
>> Vita Johannis Abbat. Gorziensis, count is given by Lingard, A. S. C. ii.
cc. 123-4 (Pertz. iv.). c. 12.
' Chron. Ang.-Sax. a.d. 787. " Sym. Dunelm., Hist. Dunelm. ii. 6,
k Lingard, Hist. Eug. i. 171. 10.
™ The Danish ravages are very fully ° Spelman, Life of Alfred, ed. Hearne,
related, after the old chroniclers, in Mr. Oxon. 1709, pp. 6.5-7. p lb. 44.
M'Cabe's ' Catholic History of Eng- i Hallam, M. A. ii. 74-8 ; Lappenb.
land,' vol. ii. A more condensed ac- i. 332.
584
ALFRED.
teller " ' — as the deliverer, the lawgiver, and the wise ruler of his
country, as a hero, and as a saint. It sets before us his efforts to
revive the public spirit which had become all but extinct during the
long calamities of the Danish invasions ; ^ his zealous and successful
labours to repair in mature years the defects of his early education ; '
his exertions for the restoration of learning among the clergy,
which had fallen into melancholy decay, and for the general
instruction of the people ; " his encouragement of learned men,
whether natives, — as his biographer Asser," Plegmund, Werfrith,
and Neot, — or foreigners whom he invited to impart to the English
a culture which was not to be found at home — as Grimbald of
Rheims, and John of Old Saxony ; ^ his care to enrich the vernacular
literature by executing or encouraging versions and paraphrases of
religious and instructive works — portions of Scripture, writings of
Boethius, Gregory the Great, Orosius, and Bede.'' It shows us
that these labours were carried on under the continual tortures of
disease,'^ and amidst the necessities of providing for the national
defence ; it dwells on his habits of devotion, and on the compre-
hensive interest in the affairs of Christendom which induced him
even to send a mission to the shrine of St. Thomas in India. '^ Small
as his kingdom was, he raised it to a high place among the nations ;
and among great sovereigns no character shines brighter or purer
than his. Alfred died in 900 or 901.'^
III. The conversion of Bulgaria, which has been related in the
history of the dissensions between the Greek and Latin churches, led
to that of the Slavonic inhabitants of Greece and of the Mainotes.'^
The Croats were evangelised by missionaries from Rome ; while the
victories of Basil, about the year 870, were followed by the labours
of Greek missionaries in Servia.®
Christianity had been introduced into Moravia by the arms of
Charlemagne, who, in 801, according to his usual system, compelled
the king to receive baptism.* Since that time, attempts had been
' Asser (?) in Mon. Hist. Brit. 498. tions to Boethius, see Turner, ii. 22.
s Asser, passim. ' lb. 474, 48C. Orosius has also important additions.
^ lb. 485-6, &c. ; Turner, Hist. Anglo- See the edition of Alfred lately published
Sax. ii. 144. by Dr. Bosworth and others.
^ Asser, 487. Against some doubts " Asser, 484-5, 492.
■which have been raised as to Asser, see '' Chron. Ang.-Sax. a.d. 883 ; Turner,
Lingard, A. S. C. ii. 420; Pauli, Konig ii. 145; Lappeub. i. 338.
Aelfred, 4-14; Hardy, Pref. to Mon. "= Spelman, 216.
Hist. Brit. 80-1. ■* Giesel. II. i. 399.
y Asser, 486-7, 493. This John has ^ Hardwick, 'Manual of Ch. Hist,
been confounded by many writers with Middle Age' (Camb. 1853), 135-6.
Jolni Scotus. See above, p. 314. ^ Conversio Bagoariorum, &c. (Patrol.
' See Milman, ii. 368. For his addi- cxxix. 1271) ; Schrockh, xxi. 406.
Chap. IV. a.d. 801-863. MORAVIA. 385
made to extend the knowledge of the Gospel among the Moravians
under the auspices of the archbishops of Salzburg and the bishops of
Passau, who employed a regionary bishop for the purpose.^ But
these attempts had little effect ; the princes of the country had
relapsed into heathenism, the Christians were few, and their
religion was very rude.^ A new and more effectual movement
arose out of an embassy which Radislav, king of Moravia, sent
into Bulgaria, for the purpose of obtaining aid against Louis of
Germany. His nephew Swatopluk or Zwentibold, who was employed
on this mission, became a convert to the new faith of the Bulgarians ;
and on his return he was joined by the queen, who was herself a
Christian, in urging it on her husband's attention.' An application
for Christian teachers was made to the emperor Michael ; and
two missionaries, Constantine and his brother Methodius — per-
haps the same whose skill as an artist had produced so great an
effect at the Bulgarian court ^ — were sent from Constantinople into
Moravia.™
Constantine — better known under the name of Cyril, which he
is said to have assumed towards the end of his life, in obedience to a
vision " — was a priest and monk, and is designated as a philosopher.
He was a native of Thessalonica, and, from the mixture of the
Greek and Slave populations in his own country, had probably been
acquainted from his early years with a dialect of the Slayonic."
He had preached among the Chazars of the Ukraine and the
Crimea, who in 843 had applied for instructors from Constantinople,
on the ground that they were distracted between the rival preten-
sions of Judaism, Mahometanism, and Christianity'' — a mixture
of religions which was found in the same regions by a Mussulman
traveller seventy years later.*! The success of his labours among
the Chazars is described as complete, and the impression of them
was strengthened by his refusal of all recompense except the release
e Ginzel, 31. See a letter of Eu- been collected, and for the appendix of
genius II., a.d. 826 (Patrol, cv. 641). documents; but the author's judgment
Jaffe includes this among the genuine is strangely warped by his zealous Ro-
epistles, and Rettberg (ii. 56) quotes it manism.)
without suspicion; but Palacky (i. " Translatio S. Clementis, c. 10, ap.
108) and Grinzel (31) regard it as Ginzel.
spurious. ° lb. 1 ; Legenda Pannon. 5 ; Pa-
h Dollinger, i. 330-2; Giesel. II. i. lacky, i. 119; Ginzel, 22.
350-1 ; Gfrorer, Karol. i. 449. p Transl. S. Clement. 1 ; Schrockh,
i Schrockh, xxi. 409. xxi. 400-1. It was in 848 that Cyril
•< See p. 366 ; Neand. v. 423. went on his mission, according to Asse-
nt Transl. S. Clementis, c. 7, in Gin- manni and others ; but Ginzel (25)
zel's Supplement. (Ginzel's History of dates it in 861.
Cyril and Methodius is valuable for the i Gfrorer, Karol. i. 452.
industry with which the materials have
2 c
386
MORAVIA.
Book IV.
of such Christians as were captives in the country ; ^ but some of his
biographers appear to regard as more important his discovery of a
body supposed to be that of St. Clement of Rome, who was said to
have been banished by Trajan to the Chersonese, and to have been
tliere martyred.^ The ftime of the mission to the Chazars had reached
the Moravian king, who especially requested that Cyril might be
sent to him ; ' and in 863 " the brothers proceeded into Moravia,
taking with them the relics of St. Clement. Their preaching was
marlced by a striking difference from the ordinary practice of the
time — that, whereas the Greek and Latin missionaries usually
introduced their own tongues as the ecclesiastical language among
barbarian nations, Cyril and Methodius mastered the language of
the country, and not only used it in their addresses to the people,
but translated the liturgy and portions of the Scriptures into it —
Cyril, after the example of Ulfilas, having either invented a Slavonic
alphabet, or improved that which before existed.'' By this innova-
tion the success of the mission was greatly forwarded. Radislav
' Legenda Morav. 3.
» Tiansl. S. Clem. 2-5 ; Giesel. II. i.
353-4. See Tillemont, ii. 161. It need
hardly be said that there were rival
relics of St. Clement elsewhere. See
e. g. Rostangmis, in Patrol, ccix. 905,
seqq. ; Alban Butler, Nov. 23.
• Transl. 7.
" Ginzel, 38.
'^ " Loci indigenae . . . valde gavisi
sunt, quia et reliquias B. Clementis se-
cum ferre audierant, et evaugelium in
eorum linguam a philosopho praedicto
translatum." (Transl. S. Clem. 7 ; cf.
Legend. Morav. 5 ; Leg. Bohem. 2.; Leg.
Pannou. 5.) Ginzel infers that the
translation of the "Evangelium" had
been made at Constantinople, before the
missionaries set out, and that the word
means those portions only of the Gospel
which were read in the church-service
(37). He supposes that the other Scrip-
ture lessons, &c., were afterwai'ds trans-
lated by Cyril and Methodius, and says
that there was no complete Slavonic
Bible until the fifteenth century (42-3).
The statement of the Pannonian legend
(15), that Methodius translated all the
Scriptures, except the books of the Mac-
cabees, in six months, is evidently fa-
bulous— the exception being probably
adopted from the story as to Ulfilas and
the books of Kings. (See vol. i. p. 293.)
Palacky says that the translations were
in the Macedonian dialect of the Sla-
vonic (i. 45), while Gin.'^cl is for the
Moravian dialt'ct (153). But if some
part was executed before the missionaries
entered Moravia, could this part have
been in the dialect of that country?
(See other opinions stated in Ginzel,
132.) As to the alphabet, there has
been much controversy. Slavonic writers
maintain that the other alphabet of their
language, which is known by the name
of Gliigolitic (from glagol, a word or let-
ter, Ginzel, 124), was invented by the
Illyrian St. Jerome, or, at least, was as
old as his time ; while the Germans,
with some eminent exceptions, say that
it was derived from that of Cyril. (See
Schrockh, xxi. 411-3 ; Giesel. II. i. 353 ;
Schleicher, ' Formenlehre der Kirchen-
slawischen Sprache,' 31-2, Bonn, 1852 ;
Ginzel, 36.) Krasinski refers to Ko-
pitar as having shown that the Glago-
litic alphabet is at least as old as Cyril's
(Lectures on the Religious Hist, of the
Slavonic Nations, p. 23, Edinb. 1849). As
the Glagolitic has more of a Latin, and
the Cyrillian of a Greek character,
Ginzel, in accordance with his fancy
that Cyril was from the first strictly
subordinate to Rome, supposes that he
was the inventor of the Glagolitic, and
that the so-called Cyrillian was invented
by his disciples who were afterwards
di-iven into Bulgaria! (112, 129). The
Glagolitic alphabet has long been dis-
used, except for books of church-service,
the latest of which is a Breviary printed
in 1791 (Ginzel, 15G-165); the Cyril-
lian (which Schafarik, ii. 473, describes
as based on the Greek, with additions
CnAp. IV. A.D. 863-870. CYRIL AND METHODIUS. 387
received baptism/ his subjects were rapidly converted, churches
were built for Christian worship, and the reverence in which the
missionaries were held appears from the fact that in Moravia the
clergy were styled by a name which signifies princes.
After a time a report of these proceedings reached pope
Nicolas, who thereupon summoned Cyi'il and Methodius to appear
before him.'' The Moravians were now more closely connected
with the west than with the east ; in the difference between the
churches of Rome and Constantinople, Cyril, who had formerly been
an opponent of Photius,* was not inclined to side with the patriarch,
whose deprivation probably took place about the time when the papal
letter was written ; and a refusal of compliance would have thrown
the pope on the side of the Germans, from whom Radislav was in
imminent danger.*" The brethren, therefore, resolved to continue
their work under such conditions as were possible, rather than to
abandon it, and obeyed the summons to Rome, where they
arrived shortly after the death of Nicolas. The body of
St. Clement, which is said to have wrought many miracles, pro-
duced a great sensation among the Romans,*^ and the orthodoxy of
the missionaries was proved to the satisfaction of Adrian II., who
gi-atified Radislav's desire for the independence of the Moravian
church by consecrating Methodius as archbishop of the Moravians.
Cyril is said to have been also consecrated to the episcopate,
but died at Rome, where he was buried in the basilica of St.
Clement.^
Radislav, after a struggle of many years against Louis of
Germany, was at length betrayed by his nephew Swatopluk into
the hands of his enemy, by whom he was dethroned and blinded in
870.*' Swatopluk succeeded to the crown, and greatly extended the
derived in part from the Armenian and papal approbation of it on their visit to
other oriental characters) has, since the Rome ; and that the pope's citation -was
sixteenth century, been superseded in in answer to a letter in which they had
Moravia by the Roman ; but it is still reported themselves to him. 42-4.
used in Servia and Bulgaria, and from * This opposition related to the opinion
it the Russian alphabet is chiefly formed which I'hotius is said to have held as to
(see SchriJckh and Gieseler, as above), the human soul (see p. 359). Anastas.
For the references to Schafarik and in Patrol, cxxix. 14.
Schleicher, I am indebted to my friend •' Neand. v. 434; Giesel. II. i. 353;
Dr. Rost, professor of Sanscrit in St. Gfrorer, Karol. i. 454 ; Ginzel, 44.
Augustine's College, Canterbury. •= Leo Ostiens. ap. Baron. 8G7. 132;
y Leg. Morav. 5. Transl. 9.
' Transl. S. Clem. 8. Ginzel very ^ Transl. 9-12 ; Leg. Morav. 6 ;
extravagantly fancies that the brothers Giesel. II. i. 353. On the contradic-
from the first regarded themselves as tions between the biographers of Cyril
subject to the pope and to the bishop of and Methodius, see Schroekh, xxi-
Passau ; that, although tliey trans- 415-0.
lated the liturgy, they did not venture ■= Palacky, i. 127-130.
to use it until they had received the
2 c 2
388
SLAVONIC LITURGY.
Book IV.
bounds of the Moravian kingdom, which now included a large portion
of modern Austria and Hungary/ Over all this territory Metho-
dius exercised authority, after some differences with Swatopluk,
whom it is said that he once found it necessary to excommunicate ; ^
and, as his sphere extended, many Christians who had received the
Gospel from the Latin church placed themselves under hhn. This
excited the jealousy of the Germans,** who appear to have obtained
in 873 a mandate from John VIII., forbidding him to employ a
barbarous tongue in the service of the church.' Methodius, however,
persisted,'^ and, in consequence of a renewed complaint, to which it
was now added that he taught some erroneous doctrines, he was cited
to Rome in 879. The pope in his letter forbade the use of the
Slavonic in the liturgy, although he allowed that until further
order it might be used in preaching, forasmuch as the Psalmist
charges all people to praise the Lord, and that St. Paul says, " Let
every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.""*
Methodius repaired to Rome, where he succeeded in justifying
his orthodoxy before a synod — perhaps not without some
concession as to the points of difference between his native
A.D. 880.
f Schrockh, xxi. 418; Ginzel, 78.
s Leg. Morav. 11 ; Schrockh, xxi.
417.
^ The ' Conversio Bagoariorum,'
which Ginzel supposes to have beeu
drawn up about this time, in the inter-
est of Salzburg (60), states that au arch-
priest named Rihbald laboured effec-
tually " usque dum quidam Graecus,
Methodius nomine, noviter inventls
Sclavinis litteris, linguam Latinam doc-
trinamque Romanam, atque litteras
auctorales Latinas philosophice super-
ducens, vilescere fecit cuncto populo ex
parte missas et evangelium ecclesiasti-
curaque officium illorum qui hoc Latine
celebraverunt " (ap. Ginzel, Anhang,
55). Was the Slavonic liturgy a trans-
lation from the Greek, or from the Ro-
man ? or was it a new composition ?
Ginzel, arguing on his assumption that
Cyril and INIethodius from the first re-
garded themselves as clergy of the
Latin church, supposes it to have been
Roman ; and in behalf of this view it
may be pleaded that the objection of
John VIII. related to the language only
(Ginz. 107-110). But the pope ex-
pressly allows of Greek as well as of
Latin service (Ep. 2.39); nor had the
time yet come when Rome attempted to
enforce liturgical uniformity every-
where. On other grounds, too, it seems
more probable that the Cyrillian litur-
gy— whether translated, or in some de-
gree original — was of the Greek type.
And with this accords the fact which is
stated by Dr. Ginzel himself (140 j, that
the extant fragments of the liturgy for-
mei'ly used in the Bohemian monastery
of Sazawa (see below, Chap. VII. sect.
vi.) are of the Greek rite.
' This is inferred from John's words
in the letter of 879 — "Jam litteris nos-
tris per Paulum episcopum Anconita-
num tibi directis prohibuimus " (Ep.
129, Patrol, cxxvi.) — the mission of
Paul into Germany and Pannonia hav-
ing been in 873 or 874. Joh. Ep. G ;
Ginzel, 60.
'' Ginzel supposes that he answered
the pope's letter, and, being satisfied
with his own arguments, thought him-
self justified in continuing the use of
the vernacular service (62), which the
pope tacitly allowed (80). But the sur-
prise expressed by John in his letters of
879 to Swatopluk and Methodius (Epp.
128-9) seems hardly consistent with
this.
™ Ep. 239. That the question of lan-
guage had not occurred under Nicolas
or Adrian II., see Schrockh, xxi. 416.
A letter in the name of Adrian, giving
the same sanction to the vernacular
which was afterwards given by John,
has been published by Schafarik in a
Slavonic version, but is spurious. See
Ginzel, 8, who gives it in a Latin re-
translation, 44-5.
Chap. IV. a.d. 870-880. MORAVIA AND BOHEMIA. 389
church and that of the west. And his arguments in favour of the
Slavonic tongue were so successful that, on returning to Moravia,
he bore a letter from John to Swatopluk, in which the pope approves
of the alphabet invented by Cyril," and sanctions the use of the
Slavonic liturgy, on the ground that the Scriptural command,
" Praise the Lord, all ye nations," shows that the praises of God are
not to be confined to three languages (Hebrew, Greek, and Latin),"
but that He who formed these languages formed all others also, for
His own glory. It is, however, ordered that, as a mark of greater
honour, the Gospel shall be read in Latin before being read in
the vernacular, and also that the king or any nobleman may, if he
think fit, have the service of his private chapel in Latin.^
In the same letter it was stated that Methodius was confirmed in
his archbishoprick, with exclusive jurisdiction over the Moravian
church. The pope adds that he has consecrated as bishop an
ecclesiastic named Wiching, who had been recommended to him
by Swatopluk, and begs the king to send another presbyter who
may be raised to the same degree, in order that the primate,
having two bishops under him, may be able to perform his functions
without external help. By this arrangement it was intended
that the Moravian church should be rendered entirely independent
of Germany.'^
From Moravia the Gospel was introduced among the neigh-
bouring and kindred people of Bohemia. Fourteen Bohemian
chiefs had appeared before Louis of Germany at Ratisbon in 845,
and had been baptised by their own desire.'' But of this conver-
sion, which was most likely a mere political artifice, no effects are
recorded ; and Bohemia was heathen many years later, when the
duke, Borziwoi, visited the Moravian court.'* Swatopluk received
him with honour, but at dinner assigned him and his followers a
»"A Constantino quodam philoso- xxi. 420). But the grounds on -which it
pho." It has been argued that John is rested are quite general. " II y a,"
could not have spoken so vaguely of says M. Rohrbacher, " des hommes qui
Constantine if he had supposed him to pensent que si le pape Jean VIII. avait
have been the brother of Methodius, tenu plus ferme a I'usage du Latin dans
and to have died at Rome not many la liturgie sacre'e, il aurait rendu moins
years before (Neand. v. 438). But Pagi facile le schisme et la perversion des
(xv. 370) and Gieseler (II. i. 356) con- nations Slavonnes." xii. 354.
jecture quondam, aud so Ginzel reads. "> Col. 80; Gfrorer, Karol. ii. 238.
Anh. 61. "■ Annales Fuldenses, a.d. 845, in
° See above, p. 224. Freher, i. or Pertz, i. ; Palacky, i.'llO.
p Ep. 293. Some writers of the Eo- ^ This is placed in 894 by Asseman-
man church have argued that the sane- ni (quoted by Schrockh, xxi. 429j and
tion of the vernacular in this case was Pagi (xiv. 474); in 871, by Gieseler
given merely out of special regard for (II. i. 360), Palacky, and Pertz (ix. 39j ;
Cyril and Methodius (see Schrockh, in 878-9, by Ginzel, 18.
390 MORAVIA AND BOHEMIA. Book IV.
place on the floor, as being heathens.*^ Methodius, who sat at the
king's table, addressed Borziwoi, expressing regret that so powerful
a prince should be obliged to feed like a swineherd. The duke
asked what he might expect to gain by becoming a Christian ; and,
on being told that the change would exalt him above all kings and
princes, he was baptised with his thirty companions." His wife,
Ludmilla, embraced the Gospel on worthier motives, and earned
the title of saint.^
Methodius continued to be much annoyed by the Germans, who
saw in the sanction of the Slavonic tongue an insuperable barrier
against their influence in Moravia. It would seem also that
Swatopluk became unfavourable to him,^ and that Wiching, who
was a German by birth, and a man of intriguing character, instead
of co-operating with the archbishop, and rendering him the
obedience which had been enjoined in the pope's letter to the
king, set up claims to independence of all but the papal authority.^
The last certain notice of Methodius is a letter of the year 881,
in which John VIII. encourages him, and assures him that he had
given no such privileges as were pretended to Wiching (whose
name, however, is not mentioned).''' The death of Methodius has
been said to have taken place at Rome, and has been variously
dated, from 881 to 910 ; but it seems more probable that he died
in Moravia about the year 885.'^
Wiching, after the death of Methodius, persecuted the clergy
who maintained the Slavonic liturgy, and, with the aid of
Swatopluk's soldiery, compelled them in 886 to seek a refuge in
Bulgaria, where it is presumed that they must have adhered to the
Greek communion.'^ On the death of Swatopluk, in 894, the
kingdom was distracted by a war between his sons, while Arnulf
of Germany pressed on it from without. Wiching had in 892
gone over to Arnulf, who appointed hhn his chancellor, and
bestowed on him the bishoprick of Passau ; but from this dignity
he was deposed on his patron's death.'i In 900, the German
' See p. 141, for Ingo's treatment of Ginzel, Anh. 38-40.
heathens. " Ep. 319 (Patrol, cxxvi.). A letter
" Vit. SS. Cyrill. et Method, ap. Pagi, in which Stephen V. (a.d. 890) is made
XV. 474; Ginzel, Anh. 18. Palacky to denounce Methodius, and utterly to
(i. 137) and Ginzel (69) deny the truth disallow the Slavonic liturgy, although
of the story. admitted as genuine by Jaffe (297), is
* Milman, ii. 353. probably a forgery of Wiching. See
y The provision as to Latin service in Ginzel, 20, 87, and Anh. 63.
the king's chapel seems to hint that he '' Giesel. II. i. 357; Palacky, i. 139 ;
had fallen under the German influence. Ginzel, 91.
Ginzel, 84. " Ginzel, 94.
^ Giesel. II. i. 356; Gfrorer, Karol. ^ Palacky, i. 150; Giuzel, 98.
ii. 239. See the Bulgarian legend,
Chap. IV. a.d. 879-908. DENMARK — EBBO.
391
jealousy was provoked afresh by the measures which pope John IX.
took for providing Moravia with a localised hierarchy instead of
its former missionary establishment. Hatto, archbishop of Mentz,
and Theotmar of Salzburg, with their suifragans, loudly remon-
strated against the change f but the strife was ended by the fall
of the Moravian kingdom in 908/
IV. The conquests of Charlemagne had brought the Franks
into close neighbourhood with the northern nations, which were
now so formidable to the more civilised inhabitants of other coun-
tries. Charlemagne, it is said, refrained from placing his territory
beyond the Elbe under any of the bishopricks which he erected,
because he intended to establish in those parts an archiepiscopal
see which should serve as a centre for the evangelisation of the
north. He built a church at Hamburg, and committed it to a
priest who was exempt from episcopal jurisdiction ; but the prose-
cution of the scheme was broken off by the emperor's death.^ The
attention of his son, however, was soon drawn by other circum-
stances towards Nordalbingia. Policy, as well as religion, recom-
mended the conversion of the Northmen ; for, so long as the Saxons
were only separated by the Elbe from those who adhered to the
religion of their forefathers, there was a continual temptation for
them to renounce the Christianity which had been forced on them,
and with it the subjection of which it was the token.^
Disputes as to the throne of Denmark between Harold and
Godfrid led both parties- to seek the countenance of Louis the
Pious. The emperor was struck with the importance of using this
circumstance as an opening for the introduction of Christianity
among the Danes ; and Ebbo, archbishop of Rheims, was willing
to withdraw for a time from the enjoyment of his dignity, that he
miffht extend the faith among these barbarians.' With the consent
of Louis, the archbishop went to Rome, where he obtained a com-
mission from Paschal, authorising himself and Halltgar, afterwards
bishop of Cambray, to preach the Gospel to the northern nations,
and directing them to refer all difficult questions to the apostolic
'^e.^ The mission was resolved on by the diet of Attigny (the
^ Hard. vi. 482-6 ; Ginzel, 99, '' Miinter, i. 239.
f Schrockh, xxi. 421 ; Giesel. II. i. ' Ermold. Nigell. ap. Pertz, ii. 502-
357. 3 ; Flodoard. ii. 19 (Patrol, cxxxv. 131).
s Ludov. Pius, in Patrol, cxviii. '' llimbert, 13. The letter, which is
1033; Eimbert, Vita S. Anskarii, 12, neither in Hardouin nor in the ' Patro-
ap. Pertz, ii. ; Adam. Bremeus. i. 15, 17, logia,' is given in the origiiial by Miiu-
ib. vii. ter, i. 244.
392
ANSKAR. Book IV.
same diet which witnessed the penance of Louis)'" in 822 ; and in
that year Ebbo and his companions set out in company with some
ambassadors of Harold," Welanao (now Miinschdorf, near Itzehoe)
being assigned by the emperor for their head-quarters." Little is
known of their proceedings, but it appears that they preached with
much success,^ and that Ebbo represented the spiritual and the
temporal benefits of Christianity to Harold so effectually as to
induce him to appear in 826 at Ingelheim, with his queen and a
large train of attendants, and to express a desire for baptism, which
they received in the church of St. Alban at Mentz. Louis was
sponsor for Harold, Judith for the queen, Lothair for their son,
and the members of their train found sponsors of suitable rank
among the Franks.*^ The emperor now resolved to send a fresh
mission to the Danes ; but the barbarism of the Northmen, their
strong hostility to Christianity, and the savage character of their
paganism, with its sacrifices of human victims, deterred all from
venturing on the hazards of such an expedition, until Wala of
Corbie named Anskar, one of his monks, as a person suited for the
work.*"
Anskar, " the Apostle of the North," was born about the year
801, and at an early age entered the monastery of Corbie, where
he studied under Adelhard and Paschasius Radbert. He became
himself a teacher in the monastery, and, after having for a time
held a like office in the German Corbey, resumed his position in
the parent society.® From childhood he had been remarkable for
a devout and enthusiastic character. He saw visions, and it is
said by his biographer that all the important events of his life
were foreshown to him either in this manner or by an inward
illumination, so that he even waited for such direction as to the
course which he should take.* The death of his mother, when he
"> See p. 255. of coarser materials. " I have been
" Munter, i. 248. washed here twenty times already," he
° Rimbert, 13. said, " and always got dresses of the best
p Munter, i. 256-8. and whitest stuff ; but such a sack as
1 Astron. 40 ; Einhard. Ann. 826 ; this is fit for a swineherd, not for a
Thegan, 33 ; Ermold. Nigell. ap. Pertz, warrior ; and were it not for the shame
ii. 508. For Ermold's embellishments of going naked, I would leave your
and inaccuracies, see Dahlmanu, Gesch. dress and your Christ together." L. ii.
V. Dannemarck, i. 29. In illustration of c. 19.
the motives by which such converts -• The Life of St. Anskar, by his pupil
were often actuated, the monk of St. and successor Rimbert and another, is
Gall relates that on one occasion, when in Mabillon, vi. ; Pertz, ii. • and the
the unusual number of candidates for ' Patrologia,' cxviii.
baptism had exhausted the svipply of ^ Rimbert, 6 ; Dahlmann, n. on c. 7,
the ordinary baptismal garments, a in Pertz.
Northman neophyte openly expressed to ' C. 36. It may be remarked that in
Louis his indignation at receiving one the recorded visions there is nothing of
CitAP. IV. A.D. 822-6. ANSKAR.
393
was five years old, affected him deeply, and he was weaned from
the love of childish sports by a vision in which she appeared in
company with some bright female forms. He felt himself en-
tangled in mire, and unable to reach them, when the chief of the
band, whom he knew to be the Blessed Virgin, asked him whether
he wished to rejoin his mother, and told him that, if so, he must
forsake such vanities as are offensive to the saints." His worldly
affections were afterwards further subdued by the tidings of
Charlemagne's death, which deeply impressed on him the in-
stability of all earthly greatness.'' In another vision, he fancied
that his spirit was led out of the body by two venerable persons,
whom he recognised as St. Peter and St. John. They first
plunged him into purgatory, where he remained for three days in
misery which seemed to last a thousand years. He was then con-
ducted into a region where the Divine glory, displayed in the east,
streamed forth on multitudes of adoring saints in transcendant
brightness, which was yet not dazzling but delightful to the eye ';
and from the source of inaccessible majesty, in which he could
discern no shape, he heard a voice of blended power and sweetness
— " Go, and thou shalt return to Me with the crown of martyr-
dom."^' At a later time, the Saviour appeared to him, exhorted
him to a full confession of his sins, and assured him that they were
forgiven.^ The assurance was afterwards repeated to him, and in
answer to his inquiry, '•' Lord, what wouldest thou have me to do ? "
he was told, " Go, and preach to the Gentiles the word of God.'"'
When the northern mission was proposed to Anskar, he at once
declared his readiness to undertake it. He adhered to his resolu-
tion, although many endeavoured to dissuade him, while Wala
disclaimed the intention of enforcing the task on him by his
monastic obligation to obedience; and his behaviour while pre-
paring himself for the work by retirement and devotion had such
an effect on Autbert, a monk of noble birth and steward of the
monastery, that he offered himself as a companion.''
The missionaries could not prevail on any servant to attend
them. On joining Harold they were treated with neglect by him
and his companions, who, as Anskar's biographer says," did not
yet know how the ministers of God ought to be honoured. But
when they had sailed down the Rhine as far as Cologne, the bishop
of that city, Hadebold, out of compassion, bestowed on them
what would usually be cousidered a su- " lb. 3. y lb.
pernatural kind. ^ lb. 4. ^ lb. 9.
" Eimb. 2. •> lb. 7. -^ C. 8.
394
DENMARK AND SWEDEN. Book IV
vessel with two cabins, and as Harold found it convenient to take
possession of one of these, he was brought into closer intercourse
with the missionaries, who soon succeeded in inspiring him with a
new interest in their undertaking. They fixed the centre of their
operations at Hadeby, on the opposite bank of the Schley to
Sleswick,^ and laboured among both the Christians and the
heathens of the Danish border, Anskar established a school for
boys — the pupils being partly given to him, and partly bought for
the purpose of training them up in the Christian faith. But
Harold ha'd offended many of his adherents by doing homage to
Louis and by his change of religion ; they were further alienated
when, in his zeal for the advancement of his new faith, he de-
stroyed temples and even resorted to persecution ; and the opposite
party took advantage of the feeling. Harold was expelled, and
retired to a county^ in Frisia which the emperor had
bestowed on him ; and Anskar was obliged to leave
Hadeby. Autbert had already been compelled by severe illness to
relinquish the mission, and died at Corbie in 829,®
A new opening soon presented itself to Anskar. It would appear
that some knowledge of the Gospel had already reached Sweden —
partly, it is said, by means of intercourse which the inhabitants of
that remote country had carried on with the Byzantine empire.*"
In 829 the court of Louis was visited by ambassadors from Sweden,
who, in addition to their secular business, stated that their country-
men were favourably disposed towards Christianity, and requested
the emperor to supply them with teachers. Louis bethought
himself of Anskar, who agreed to undertake the work — reo-ardin<r
it as a fulfilment of his visions. His place with Harold was
supplied by another ; and Wala assigned him a monk named
Witmar as a companion. The vessel in which the missionaries
embarked was attacked by pirates, who plundered them of almost
everything, including the presents designed by Louis for the
Swedish king. But they were determined to persevere, and,
after many hardships, made their way to the northern capital,
Birka or Sigiuna, on the lake Malar.^ The king, Biorn, received
them graciously, and, with the consent of the national assembly,
gave them permission to preach freely. Their ministrations were
welcomed with delight by a number of Christian captives, who had
^ See Bosworth, note in Alfred's ' Sclirockh, xxi. 320. Kruse, ' St.
Works, ii. 47-8. Aiischar,' Auh. E., Altona, 1823.
_« Rimb. 8; Miinter, i. 2G1. Harold e Rimb. 10; Miinter, i. 279. See
afterwards apostatised. Dalilmaun, i. Kruse, Auh. NN. Birka seems to mean
44. a landing-place.
Chap. IV. a.d. 826-837. ANSKAR.
395
long been deprived of the offices of religion ; and among their
converts was Herigar, governor of the district, who built a church
on his estate.^ After having laboured for a year and a half,
Anskar and his companion returned with a letter from Biorn to
Louis, who was greatly pleased with their success, and resolved
to place the northern mission on a new footing, agreeably to his
father's intentions. An archiepiscopal see was to be
established at Hamburg, and Anskar was consecrated
for it at Ingelheim by Drogo of Metz, with the assistance of
Ebbo and many other bishops.^ He then repaired to Rome,
where Gregory IV. bestowed on him the pall, with a bull autho-
risino- him to labour for the conversion of the northern nations, in
conjunction with Ebbo, whose commission from Paschal was still in
force.^ Louis conferred on him the monastery of Turholt (Thou-
roult, between Bruges and Ypres), to serve at once as a source of
maintenance and as a resting-place more secure than the northern
archbishoprick.™
Ebbo, although diverted from missionary work by his other (and
in part far less creditable) occupations, had continued to take an
interest in the conversion of the north, and appears at this time to
have made a second expedition to the scene of his old labours,"
But as neither he nor Anskar could give undivided attention to
the Swedish mission, it was now agreed that this should be com-
mitted to a relation of Ebbo named Gauzbert, who was con-
secrated to the episcopate and assumed the name of Simon. To
him Ebbo transferred the settlement at Welanao, with the intention
that it should serve the same purposes for which Turholt had been
given to Anskar."
Anskar entered with his usual zeal on the new sphere which
had been assigned to him. He built at Hamburg a church, a
monastery, and a college. According to the system which he had
followed at Hadeby, he bought a number of boys with a view to
educating them as Christians ; some of them were sent to Turholt,
while others remained with him.P But after a time 'i Hamburg
•• Rimb. 11. ' Rimb. 12." do not appear in the ' Patrologia,' cxviii.
^ The document, as given in Miinter's 1035, or in the renewal of the grant
Appendix, includes in Anskar's jurisdic- by Sergius II., a.d. 846 (ib. cxxix. 997).
tion Iceland and Greenland— the latter " Ludov. Praeceptum, Patrol, cxviii.
country then iindiscovered, the former 1033; Rimb. 12.
known only to the Irish. But these in- " Schrockh, xxi. 324-5. " Rimb. 14.
terpolations, which have brought on it p Ib. 15 ; Miinter, i. 290.
the (apparently undeserved) suspicion of 'i Dahlmann (n. on Rimb. c. 17) places
forgery(seeDahlm. n. onliimb. c. 13, ed. this in 837; Gfrorer (,Karol. i. 125-6),
Pertz; Miinter, i. 282 ; Gfrorer,Karol. i. in 842; Schrockh (xxi. 325), Miinter
124 ; Kafn, Autiquitates Americanae, 13), (i. 293), and Neauder "(v. 382), in 845.
396
ARCHBISHOPKICK OF HAMBURG. «ook IV.
was attacked by a great force of Northmen, under Eric, king of
Jutland. The archbishop exerted himself in encouraging the
inhabitants to hold out until relief should arrive ; but the assailants
were too strong to be long resisted ; the city was sacked and
burnt, and Anskar was obliged to flee. He had lost his church,
his monastery, and his library, among the treasures of which was
a magnificent bible,*" the gift of the emperor ; some relics bestowed
on the church by Ebbo were all that he was able to rescue. Yet,
reduced as he was to necessity, he repeated Job's words of resigna-
tion— " The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away ; blessed
be the name of the Lord !" Leutbert bishop of Bremen, who had
before looked on the new archbishoprick with jealousy, refused to
entertain him, and he was indebted for a refuge to the charity of a
widow named Ikia, of Ramsloh, where he gradually collected some
of his scattered followers.^ About the same time Gauzbert was
expelled from Sweden by a popular rising, in which his nephew
Notbert was killed.*
To add to Anskar's distress, his monastery of Turholt, being
within that portion of the empire which fell to Charles
the Bald on the death of Louis, was bestowed by the
new sovereign on a layman." His monks, finding no means of
subsistence, were obliged to leave him ; ^ but he found a patron
in Louis of Germany, who founded a monastic establishment for
him at Ramsloh, and resolved to bestow on him the bishoprick of
Bremen, which fell vacant by the death of Leutbert.^ Anskar was
himself unwilling to take any active part in the matter, lest he
should be exposed to charges of rapacity,^ and some canonical
objections arose ; but these were overcome with the consent of the
bishops who were interested. The union of the dioceses was
sanctioned by the council of Mentz (the same at which Gottschalk
was condemned) in 848 ; and, sixteen years after it had virtually
taken effect, it was confirmed by Nicolas I., who renewed
A.D. 864. -I -n n \ ^^ L
the gitt 01 the pall to Anskar, and appointed him legate
for the evangelisation of the Swedes, the Danes, the Slavons, and
other nations of the north.*
' " Bibliotheca." For this sense of ^ Rimbert, 22.
the word, see Ducange. ^ Nic. Kp. 62 (Patrol, cxix.) ; Rim-
Mlimb. 16; Munter, i. 299. bert, 23. This was the first commission
' Rimb. 17. in which absolute obedience to papal de-
" Dahlmann, note on Rimb. crees was required (col. 879; Hard-
^ Rimb. 21. wick, 152). Mansi (in Baron, xiv. 480)
y Dahlmann (on Rimb. 22) places this and Jaflfe (245) date it in 864; Miiuter
in 847 ; Gfrorer (Karol. i. 149) in 845- (i. 303) and others, in 858.
6) ; Mabillon (vi. 95) in 849.
Chap. IV. a.d. 837-?53. ANSKAR. 397
In the mean time Anskar had been actively employed. Repeated
political missions from Louis of Germany had made him known
to the Danish king Horic or Eric, who had long been one of the
most formidable chiefs of the northern devastators, and had led
the force which burnt and plundered Hamburg. Anskar gained a
powerful influence over the king, who, although it does ^.d. 848-
not appear that he was himself baptised, granted the ^53.
missionaries leave to preach throughout his dominions, and to
build a church at Sleswick.'' The work of conversion went on
rapidly. Danish traders who had received baptism at Hamburg
or Dorstadt now openly professed Christianity, and Christian
merchants from other countries ventured more freely into Denmark,
so that Eric found the wealth of his kingdom increased by the
toleration which he had granted. Many of the converts, however,
put off" their baptism until they felt the approach of death ; while
it is said that some heathens, after their life had been despaired of,
and after they had invoked their own gods in vain, on entreating
the aid of Christ were restored to perfect health.^
After the withdrawal of Gauzbert, Sweden remained for seven
years without any Christian teacher, until Anskar sent into the
country a priest and hermit named Ardgar, who preached with
•great effect— his efforts, it is said, being powerfully seconded by
judo-ments which befell all who had been concerned in the expul-
sion of Gauzbert.*^ Herigar had throughout remained faithful,
notwithstanding all that he had to endure from his unbelieving
countrymen ; and on his deathbed he was comforted by the
ministrations of Ardgar.'^ But Ardgar longed to return to his
hermitage, and after a time relinquished the mission.*' Gauzbert,
now bishop of Osnaburg, whom Anskar requested to resume his
labours in Sweden, declined, on the ground that another preacher
would be more likely to make a favourable impression on the
people, than one whom they had already ejected from their
country. Anskar himself, therefore, resolved to undertake the
work— being encouraged by a vision in which his old superior
Adelhard appeared to him.^ He was accompanied by envoys
from Eric to king Olof, of Sweden, and bore a letter of warm re-
commendation from the Danish king. But on landing in Sweden
he found the state of things very unpromising. A short time
before this a Swede had arisen in the national assembly, declaring
that he was charged with a communication from the gods, who
1- Pdmb. 24; Schvockh, xxi. 3'28-3.S3. " lb. 19. ' lb. 20.
•^ Rimb. 24. ^ lb. 17, 19. e lb. 25.
398 ANSKAR'S SECOND VISIT TO SWEDEN. Book IV.
had bidden him tell his countrymen that, if they wished to enjoy a
continuance of prosperity, they must revive with increased zeal the
ancient worship, and must exclude all other religions. "If," the
celestial raessa^'e graciously concluded, " you are not content
with us, and wish to have more gods, we all agree to admit your
late king Eric into our number." A great effect had followed
on this : a temple had been built to Eric, and was crowded with
worshippers ; and such was the excitement of the people that
Anskar's friends advised him to desist from his enterprise, as it
could not but be fruitless and might probably cost him his life.
He was, however, resolved to persevere. He invited the king to
dine with him, and, having propitiated him by gifts, requested
permission to preach. Olof replied that, as some former preachers
of Christianity had been forcibly driven out of the country, he could
not give the required licence without consulting the gods and
obtaining the sanction of the popular assembly ; " for," says
Anskar's biographer, " in that nation public affairs are determined
less by the king's power than by the general consent of the people."^
A lot was cast in an open field, and was favourable to the admission
of the Christian teachers. The assembly was swayed by the speech
of an aged member, who said that the power of the Christians'
God bad often been experienced, especially in dangers at sea ; that
many of his countrymen had formerly been baptised at Dorstadt ;
why then, he asked, should they refuse, now that it was brought
to their own doors, that which they had before sought from a
distance?* The assembly of another district also decided for the
admission of Christianity ; and the feeling in favour of the new
religion was strengthened by miracles performed on an expedition
which Olof undertook to Courland. Converts flocked in, churches
were built, and Anskar found himself at liberty to return to Den-
mark, leaving Gumbert, a nephew of Gauzbert, at the head of the
Swedish mission.'^
During the archbishop's absence, Eric had fallen in a bloody
battle with a pagan faction, which had used his encouragement of
Christianity as a pretext for attacking him. The most powerful of
Anskar's other friends had shared the fate of their king ; the
greater part of Denmark was now in the hands of the enemy ; and
Eric II., who had succeeded to a part of his father's territory, was
under the influence of Hovi, earl of Jutland, who persuaded him
that all the late misfortunes were due to the abandonment of the
^ Rimb. 26. Cf. Ad. Brem. Descr. ' Rimb. 27,
Iijsul. Aqui). c. 22, ap. Pertz. vii. >' lb. 28, 30.
Chap. IV. a.d. 854-S65. LAST YEARS OF ANSKAR. 399
old national religion. The church at Slcswick was shut up, its
priest was expelled, and the Christians were cruelly persecuted.™
Anskar could only betake himself to prayer for a change from this
unhappy state of things, when he unexpectedly received a letter
from the young king, professing as warm an interest in the Gospel
as that which his father had felt, and inviting the missionaries to
resume their labours, Hovi had fallen into disgrace, and was
banished. The progress of Christianity was now more rapid than
ever. The church at Sleswick was for the first time allowed to
have a bell ; another church was founded at Ripe, the second
city of Denmark, on the coast opposite to Britain, and Rimbert, a
native of the neighbourhood of Turholt, who had grown up under
Anskar's tuition, was appointed its pastor."
Anskar's labours were continued until the sixty-fourth year of
his age, and the thirty-fourth of his episcopate. Although the
progress of the Swedish mission was retarded by the death or the
withdrawal of some who were employed in it, he was able to provide
for its continuance, chiefly by means of clergy of Danish birth,
whom he had trained up in the seminary at Ramsloh," Amidst
his trials and disappointments he frequently consoled himself by
remembering the assurance which Ebbo, when bishop of Hildesheim,
had expressed to him, that God would not fail in His own time to
crown the work with success.^ The biographer Rimbert dwells with
delight on his master's strict adherence to the monastic customs,
which he maintained to the last ; on his mortifications, which he
carried to an extreme in youth, until he became aware that such
excesses were a temptation to vainglory, and how, when no longer
able to bear them, he endeavoured to supply the defect by alms
and prayers ; on his frequent and fervent devotion ; on his charitable
labours, his building of hospitals, redemption of captives, and other
works of raercy.'i Among the results of his exertions, it deserves
to be remembered that in 856 he persuaded the leading men of
Nordalbingia to give up the trade which they had carried on in
slaves.' In addition to worKS of a devotional kind, he wrote a
Life of Willehad, the first bishop of Bremen,^ and a journal of his
own missions, which is known to have been sent to Rome in the
thirteenth century, and, although often sought for in vain, may
possibly still exist there.' He is said to have performed some
miraculous cures, but to have shunned the publication of them,
•n lUmb. 31 ; Miinter, i. 310-1. ' Miinter, i. 31.5.
n Riiub. 32 ; Miiuter, i. 313-4. ^ Priuted in Pertz, ii., and Patrol.
" Rimb. 3'i. cxviii.
p lb. 34. 1 C 35. ' Miinter, i. 319.
400
RIMBERT. Book IV.
except among tiis most intimate friends ; and when they were once
spoken of in his hearing, he exclaimed, "If I were worthy in the
sight of my Lord, I would ask Him to grant me one miracle — that
He would make me a good man ! " "
In his last illness Anskar was greatly distressed by the appre-
hension that his sins had frustrated the promise which had been
made to him of the martyr's crown. Rimbert endeavoured to
comfort him by saying that violent death is not the only kind of
martyrdom ; by reminding him of his long and severe labours for
the Gospel, and of the patience with which he had endured much
sickness — especially the protracted sufferings of his deathbed. At
length, as he was at mass, the archbishop, although fully awake^
had a vision in which he was reproved for having doubted, and
was assured that all that had been promised should be fulfilled.
His death took place on the festival of the Purification, in the
year 865.^
When asked to name a successor, Anskar declined to do so, on
the ground that he was unwilling by preferring one before others
to add to the offence which he might probably have given
to many during his lifetime. But on being questioned as to
his opinion of Rimbert, he answered — " I am assured that he is
more worthy to be an archbishop than I to be a subdeacon." ^ To
Rimbert, therefore, the see of Hamburg was committed on Anskar's
death ; and for nearly a quarter of a century he carried on the work
in the spirit of his master, for the knowledge of whose life we are
chiefly indebted to his reverential and affectionate biography.
Rimbert died in 888.'
" Vita, 39. y Vita S. Eimberti, c. 10, ap. Pertz, ii.
" lb. 40-1. ^ Miinter, i. 341.
COI..COL1
LIBRARY
N YORK.
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
This book is due on the date indicated below, or at the
expiration of a definite period after the date of borrowing,
as provided by the rules of the Library or by special ar-
rangement with the Librarian in charge. ;
DATE BORROWED
DATE DUE
DATE BORROWED
DATE DUE
CSBUSWMIOO
ri
93/
M
i'iUl
H'i
tii'.-^'UUil
illiiliilllllill
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11