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.

d

A.D. 847.

Sergius died after a pontificate of three years, and Leo IV. was chosen by general acclamation. The Romans were in great perplexity; the imminent danger in 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 introduced 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.h

Benedict III. was elected as the successor of Leo; but he met with a very serious opposition from Anastasius,-probably the same

66

that the Byzantine church eunuchos passim promovendo fœminam in sede pontificum suorum sublimasset aliquando." (Hard. vi. 940.) The first writers, unsuspected of forgery or interpolation, in whom it is found, are Stephen de Borbone and Mart. Polonus -both of the thirteenth century. Its origin is still matter of question, but is most commonly referred to the degradation of the papacy under female influence, which followed soon after this time. See Baron. 853. 56-69; Ciacon. i. 626-640; Pagi, xiv. 424; Schröckh, xxii. 75-110; Bayle, art. Papesse and Polonus; Gibbon, iv. 512-3; Giesel. II. i. 29-32; Guericke, ii. 113. Luden is inclined to favour the tale (vi. 5137). Gfrörer very confidently proposes some wild conjectures on the subject. i.

289.

A.D. 855.

with a cardinal of that name who under the last pontificate had been deposed, chiefly for his attachment to the Frankish 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 Frankish soldiers, and gained over the envoys who were sent to ask the imperial confirmation 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.m

A.D. 858.

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 ceremony 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. 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 Prüm, 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.); Anast. 224; Baron. 853. 3-5; Gfrörer, i. 288.

k Anast. 247-8; Gfrörer, i. 293-4. m Anast. 249; Milman, ii. 275. Annales Bertiniani (in this part written by Prudentius, bishop of Troyes), Pertz, i. 452.

• See p. 187.

P Anastas. 253; Schröckh, xxii. 112. 9 Anast. 253. In the Donation' Constantine is made to say, "Tenentes frænum ipsius [Sylvestri] pro reverentia B. Petri stratoris officium illi exhibuimus." Patrol. clxxxvii. 464.

r

Regino, A.D. 868 (Pertz, i. 579).

enforcement of discipline in the church, filled with a sense of the importance of his position, ambitious, active, and resolute in maintaining 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.t

8

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 narrative 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

" i. 569; ii. 226.

• Giesel. II. i. 196; Gfrörer, 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, archbishop of Ravenna-a see which had often before given trouble to the popes-set up high pretensions to independence. But he was disappointed in his hopes of support from Louis II., and, being excommunicated by Nicolas, he was reduced to a very abject state. In order to obtain absolution, he bound himself to repair to Rome once a-year, and submitted to a limitation of his power over his own suffragans, whom he was not to consecrate without the pope's permission (A.D. 861-2). Anas

* Ebrard, i. 309, seqq.; Giesel. I. ii. 117. Villiers, the editor of Fulbert's works, finding in them a quotation where it is said that our Lord's words as to eating His body are a figure, inserted" dicet hæreticus;" but, being informed that the quotation was from St. Augustine, he coolly put his own interpolation into the table of errata, with the note, "Interpretatio est mystica." (Patrol. clxi. 333; Schröckh, xxiii. 506.) For Fulbert see below, Book V. c. iii.

blishment of such views was now made by Paschasius Radbert, abbot of Corbie. Paschasius had been brought up in that monastery 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 copy 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.a 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 Transubstantiation 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."

e

y Hist. Litt. v. 289; Pagi, xiv. 390. 2 See Patrol. civ. 1128-31..

Pagí, xiv. 173; Mabill. VI. viii.-x. b'De Corp. et Sanguine Domini' (in Bibl. Patr. Lugd. xiv. or Patrol. cxx.).

Cc. 1, 10. It seems to be chiefly in thus maintaining the identity of the body, that Paschasius goes beyond John of Damascus. See p. 226; Joh. Dam. de Fid. Orthod. iv. 13 (t. i. 169); Dupin, vii. 65. Mabillon attempts to show that it was only at the expression of this idea that the contemporaries of Paschasius were offended, and argues very unsuccessfully that there was

m

Paschasius had professed to lay down his doctrine as being that which was established in the church; but protests were immediately raised against it.h Raban Maur,i Walafrid Strabo,k 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 contradiction 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 outwardly the same as before consecration, the body and blood of

virtual effect (i. 410-412). But the very chapter in which the word potentialiter occurs (c. 4) goes on to language and illustrations which seem clearly to show that the representation usually given of the writer, both by friends and by opponents, is correct. To the same purpose are the stories of miracles (c. 14), which Bishop Cosin is obliged to dispose of by supposing them interpolated (p. 81). The utmost that Professor Ebrard appears to establish is an inconsistency in the doctrine of Paschasius (411-416).

[Since this volume was first published, Mr. Freeman has also denied that Paschasius taught the doctrine which is commonly ascribed to him (Principles of Divine Service, ii. 35-40). But see the masterly reply in Bishop Thirlwall's Charge for 1857, Appendix B, where cc. 12, 13, 16, are especially brought forward in evidence.]

This fact is enough to disprove the argument of Mabillon (VI. xv.) and of Pagi (xiv. 173), that so learned a man could not have mistaken the Church's doctrine.

i De Institutione Clericorum, i. 31; iii. 13 (Patrol. cvii.); Pœnitentiale, 83 (ib. cx.); compare Ep. 3 (ib. cxii.)—a piece which Mabillon found with the title 'Dicta cujusdam sapientis,' and identified with a letter which Raban speaks of himself as having written to Eigil on the doctrine of Paschasius (Poenit. 1. c.). Mabillon's conjecture, however, has been questioned. Gieseler, II. i. 120.

See

De Rebus Eccles. 16-17 (ib. cxiv.). m Adv. Amalar. 9 (ib. cxix.).

n In Matth. xxvi. 26 (ib. cvi. 1476). Druthmar was distinguished as a commentator, who, contrary to the usual practice of his time, followed the literal and historical explanation of Scripture Schröckh, xxiii. 269; Hist. Litt. v.). For the history of the manner in which Romish writers have dealt with this writer's testimony, see Maitland, Catal. of Early Printed Books in Lambeth Library, 368-372.

• Ad Frudeg., Bibl. Patrum, xiv. 754, seqq.

P Ratramn. de Corp. et Sang. Domini, Oxon. 1838, or Patrol. cxxi., c. 1.

X