Images de page
PDF
ePub

vidualized and marked out beyond their fellows, by the display of intellectual power. The writers are numerous, but all on one dead level. At the beginning of the time one grand figure emerges, but he is rather to be reckoned among the Fathers, from whom he is separated but by a short interval, than among the monkish compilers who follow him. Yet even Gregory, proficient as he was in all the arts and sciences cultivated in his day, and skilled as he was to clothe his universal knowledge in striking and eloquent language, exhibited, as it were, the preparatory stage for the degradation which was to follow him. He who could regard the teaching of grammar and music as a grievous sin in a clerk,1 was separated by an immense interval from Augustine, who wrote treatises on these subjects, and was thoroughly versed in Latin literature. From the time of Gregory at the end of the sixth century, to the time of Charlemagne, in the latter part of the eighth, it is hard to point out any writer or thinker of more conspicuous excellence than the great mass of his fellows. Our own Bede furnishes the nearest exception to this assertion, but Bede, though infinitely valuable as a patient and honest compiler, showed no sign of critical discrimination, or original thought. The treatment which theological subjects were thus for a long time receiving, was necessarily of a character to degrade and lower them. The vast phalanx of monastic expositors and legend-writers which was busy in France during this period, had not availed to save the Church from excessive ignorance and barbarism. Charlemagne was stimulated to become an educational reformer by the extreme illiterateness of the letters which he was in the habit of receiving from the monasteries. Addressing himself to the task with his natural vigour, he called the learned of every land to his aid. Alcuin from England, Clement from Ireland, Theodulph from Germany, came to help him in the restoration of letters in France, and great was the effect which their learned labours and the powerful will of the monarch produced. But in fact the literary revival of Charlemagne was only the giving increased energy and power of expression to the schools of thought and theological treatment which were prevalent before his time. The Church was not so much enlightened by his work, as strengthened and invigorated. Churchmen were taught the trivium and quadrivium. They learned to write without solecisms, and to spell correctly. They acquired the method of transcribing the sacred books with clearness and accuracy, of understanding the Roman ritual, and of chanting the Gregorian tunes. But in theology there was but little

1 Gregor. Magn. Epist. ix. 48.

advance. The estimate of the learned Benedictines of the divines formed in the schools of Charlemagne is, that 'Nothing original is to be found in their writings. They were copyists 'of the Fathers without understanding them. They exhibit more 'labour than genius, more memory than invention, or power of 'selection.' Theological writing, however, though but little improved by the work of Charlemagne, was nevertheless greatly stimulated. New subjects were now debated by the priests and bishops; matters of dogma, which had been left untouched before, were brought forward and discussed. Treatises appeared on Image Worship, the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the nature of the Saviour, and on Baptism. In the general attempt at elucidating all the prominent topics of theology, it was not likely that the highest mystery of the Christian faith should long remain unnoticed. Men had hitherto been content to regard the Eucharist with reverential devotion, and to accept the grand language of Augustine and Ambrose as the best exponent of the Divine Presence therein. They had shrunk from the endeavour to explain and localize so great a mystery, and as not one of the chief Fathers had ever used an expression on this subject, which was incapable of a spiritual interpretation, they had endeavoured to believe, according to their powers, that there was something there beyond their carnal conceptions and understandings. But the monks, stirred up by the educational activity consequent on the work of Charlemagne, thought that they could improve on the Fathers. They would explain these mystical and spiritualized expressions. They would bring down these high things within the reach of the meanest capacity.' Like the charlatans of the present day, who undertake to teach a subject in so many lessons, they would clear up all difficulties, and show precisely what was meant by Christ's Presence in the Holy Sacrament. The first who was possessed by this unlucky desire to define and explain, was one Paschas, or Paschasius, a monk of the French monastery of Corbey. This man had been brought up at the monastery of Soissons, but had afterwards quitted it and taken the secular habit. Tired of this he had retreated to Corbey, then governed by the Abbot Adalard, who had done much to forward the reforming and enlightening process set on foot by Charlemagne and Alcuin. This abbot is justly famous for having procured books from great distances, and at

1 Histoire Littéraire de France, iv. 30.

2 See Bingham's learned Historical Sketch, iv. 15. Hooker, Eccl. Pol. ii. 358: "It appeareth not that of all the ancient Fathers of the Church any one did ever conceive or imagine other than only a mystical participation of Christ's both Body and Blood."

much trouble, for the use of his house, and his monks may well have been inspired by an esprit de corps to endeavour to distinguish themselves in the literary world. At any rate Paschasius was eager to try his hand at authorship, and not very fastidious as to the subjects on which he employed his pen. His first treatise appears to have been a disquisition on the way in which the Saviour was delivered from the womb of his mother, and his next effort was directed against those who held the extraordinary theory that there was but one universal soul, in which all living men had a share.

Having disposed of these matters in a way which met the approbation of the orthodox, Paschasius thought himself qualified to give instruction on more important subjects. According to the monastic custom of sending out and establishing daughter settlements from the old parent stock, the French Corbey had established a German Corbey. The monks of the new house might be expected to look with deference to the luminaries of the parent cloister. Thus Paschasius, thinking the opportunity suitable, addressed to the Abbot of the German Corbey his Treatise 'De Corpore et Sanguine Domini.' This was in the year 831, a.d. The work was not intended to be controversial, but simply explanatory and devotional. It is a very plain, ordinary performance. It has nothing to recommend it save some rather ingenious misapplications of Scripture, and a few legends of miracles, more than usually grotesque and absurd. Yet this plain insignificant writing forms an era in the history of doctrine, and commences a controversy likely ever to continue in the Church. It was, in fact, the first decided attempt to materialize the Divine Mysteries. Paschasius doubtless thought he could increase the reverence paid to the Holy Sacrament, by teaching that the actual body born of the Virgin was therein pressed by the teeth; but his age, ignorant and materialistic though it was, could not receive this novelty with complacency. A disturbance was straightway stirred up. Paschasius might have used the strongest possible language as to the presence of the Saviour in the mysteries, and no devout mind would have been shocked; but to begin by explaining the process of change in which a substance passes out of, and quits its original nature, to pass into and assume a new nature, and then to apply this explanation to the bread and wine quitting their first nature and assuming the actual substance of the flesh which was born of Mary and suffered upon the cross, and rose again from the tomb,' was more than the thoughtful and soberminded of that day could readily bear. That which takes place at the Holy Eucharist, he expressly declares to be the same which took place in the womb of the Virgin, when by the

[ocr errors]

Holy Spirit the Body of Christ was formed therein. The actual flesh of Christ is given to us under the appearance of bread and wine.' 'The colour and appearance of bread and 'wine are preserved partly for the trial of faith, partly to 'avoid giving scandal to unbelievers, who would think it 'an abominable thing for Christians to feed upon flesh and 'blood.' (c. xiii.) Such was the unfortunate attempt made by this probably well-intentioned monk, to explain down to human conceptions the great mystery of the Real Presence. From his materializing various disagreeable questions arose, viz., as to how the sacred food assimilated with the body -how was it digested? Did it pass away by the ordinary channels? What was the effect of crumbs eaten by mice? &c. All these points were discussed and controverted, to the great degradation of the holy mysteries. The expressions used by Paschasius, say the Benedictines, appeared 'novel, and offended some. For although the Church had 'always believed that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are 'really present in this august Sacrament, and that the bread. and wine are changed into them, yet men had not been 'accustomed to use or hear language of so distinct a character on 'this mystery.'2 But though the more thoughtful were offended at the vulgarizing treatment applied to the divine mysteries, no immediate effect followed. Controversial treatises were not in those days dashed off with the speed and vehemence of modern times. Some thirteen years elapsed, and Paschasius, now raised to the dignity of Abbot of Corbey, and flattered doubtless by his monks for his great literary powers, thought that he could pay no more acceptable court to the King of France than to send him this book as a new year's gift. Charles the Bald was, for the time in which he lived, a literary and learned prince. He received the Abbot's book and read it, but the effect which it produced on him was very different from that which Paschasius had expected. He was much scandalized and disgusted with its materializing language. Feeling himself, however, doubtful about the right explanation of these high mysteries, he applied to those who were able and willing to assist him in such matters. There was living in his court at the time a man famous for his learning, skilled especially in the Greek tongue, a man given to metaphysical subtleties and abstract disquisitions, a man standing apart by a long interval from the monkish literati of the time-a thinker, a philosopher-such a one as would naturally be sought for counsel and instruction.

1 The Treatise of Paschasius Radbertus will be found in Martini Collectio Vet, Script. ix. 378-470.

Histoire Littéraire de France, iv. 159.

[ocr errors]

6

2

This man was the familiar friend of the king, his constant companion, the partner of his board, and even of his bed. His name was John the Irishman, and because the Scotic or Irish race was to be found not only in Erin, but also in the neighbouring island, it was added, as a surname, that he was Erin-born(Erigena). To him, after the reading of the book of Paschasius, did Charles the Bald apply for a right and trustworthy account of the matters handled by the Abbot. Our authority for this is a letter written by Berengar of Tours to the Monk Richard. Know,' he writes, that what John Scot wrote on the Eucharist, he wrote by the recommendation, and at the the request of Charles the Great [the Bald], who, being desirous 'that the ignorance of the uneducated and carnal men of that 'time should not prevail, assigned to the learned John the task of collecting out of the Sacred Scriptures the materials for changing that ignorant folly of theirs.' Nothing can be clearer than this statement of the commission given by the king to his literary friend. Let us see, in the next place, what evidence there is as to the performance of this commission by Erigena. The passage just quoted mentions his having written. Berengar, writing to Ascelinus, characterises his work thus:'If John Scot is to be considered a heretic, the Fathers also 'must be held heretics, for I can repeat on the subject of the Eucharist, the very expressions out of their writings which 'John Scot uses.' Ascelinus replies that 'John Scot indeed ' endeavours to prove his false assertions by certain works of the · Fathers, which he applies in a wrong sense.' Again, writing to Lanfranc, Berengar says:- If John Scot, whose sentiments on 'the subject of the Eucharist I approve, be held as a heretic by 'you, you must also hold Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine, as heretics, to say nothing of the rest.'

3

This, one would think, is tolerably conclusive evidence that John Scot wrote a book on the Eucharist, but Dr. Floss, seeing clearly enough what must needs follow if he grants this, will have it that his sentiments on the Eucharist were not contained in a separate book, but in his Commentaries on S. John, and on the Pseudo-Dionysius. Even, however, if this supposition

4

1 Those who take an interest in observing the remarkable eccentricities of which a learned man may be guilty in the matter of etymology, should not fail to consult Dr. Floss's Preface as to the derivation of the word Erigena. 'Compositum est ex 'Iepoû (sc. výrov) et gena, ita ut sit "oriundus ex insula Sanctorum."' This happy mixture of Greek and Latin is gravely defended by the example of Grajugena! as though a word which, though of Greek origin, has entered into the Latin tongue and become adopted, could stand upon the same footing as a purely Greek and un-Latinized word like 'Iepós.

2 Labbe, Concil. ix. 1062.

3 Lanfranci Opera (ed. Giles), i. 17, 373, 374.

It must be acknowledged, however, that Dr. Floss has printed the fullest

« PrécédentContinuer »