Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

XII.

The contests be

Latins con

tinued.

CENT. XIV. The contest between the Greeks and PART II. Latins, the subject of which has been already mentioned, was still carried on by both parties with the greatest obstinacy and vehemence. The tween the Grecian champions were EUTHYMIUS, NICETAS, Greeks and and others of less renown, while the cause of the Latins was vigorously maintained by ANSELM, bishop of Havelsberg, and HUGO ETHERIANUS, who distinguished themselves eminently by their erudition in this famous controversy [x]. Many attempts were made both at Rome, and Constantinople, to reconcile these differences, and to heal these fatal divisions; and this union was solicited, in a particular manner, by the emperors in the Comnene family, who expected to draw much advantage from the friendship and alliance of the Latins, towards the support of the Grecian empire, which was at this time in a declining, nay, almost in a desperate condition. But as the Latins aimed at nothing less than a despotic supremacy over the Greek church, and as, on the other hand, the Grecian bishops could by no means be induced to yield an implicit obedience to the Roman pontif, or to condemn the measures and proceedings of their ancestors, the negociations, undertaken for the restoration of peace, widened the breach instead of healing it, and the terms proposed on both sides, but especially by the Latins, exasperated, instead of calming, the resentments and animosities of the contending parties.

Matters of less mo

XV. Many controversies of inferior moment ment con- were carried on among the Greeks, who were troverted extremely fond of disputing, and were scarcely ever without debates upon religious matters. We shall not enter into a circumstantial narration of these theological contests, which are more proper

among the Greeks.

to

[*] See LEO ALLATIUS De perpetua consensione Ecclesia Oriental, et Occident. lib. ii. cap. xi. p. 644.

XII.

to fatigue than to amuse or instruct, but shall C E N T. confine ourselves to a brief mention of those pART II which made the greatest noise in the empire. Under the reign of EMANUEL COMNEÑUS, whose extensive learning was accompanied with an excessive curiosity, several theological controversies were carried on, in which he himself bore a principal part, and which fomented such discords and animosities among a people already exhausted and dejected by intestine tumults, as threatened their destruction. The first question that exercised the metaphysical talent of this over-curious emperor and his subtile doctors was this: In what sense it was or might be affirmed, that an incarnate God was at the same time the OFFERER and the OBLATION? When this knotty question had been long debated, and the emperor had maintained, for a considerable time, the solution of it that was contrary to the opinion generally received, he yielded at length, and embraced the popular notion of that unintelligible subject. The consequence of this step, was, that many men of eminent abilities and great credit, who had differed from the doctrine of the church upon this article, were deprived of their honours and employments [y]. What the emperor's opinion of this matter was, we find nowhere related in a satisfactory manner, and we are equally ignorant of the sentiments adopted by the church in relation to this question. It is highly probable that the emperor, followed by certain learned doctors, differed from the opinions generally received among the Greeks concerning the Lord's supper, and the oblation or sacrifice of CHRIST in that holy ordinance.

XVI. Some years after this, a still more warm The contest arose concerning the sense of those words dispute of CHRIST, John xiv. 28. For my Father is greater the words concerning

H 3

than of Christ,

John xiv. [] NICETAS CHONIATES, Annal. Lib. vii. sect. 5. p. 112.23. ed. Veneta.

CENT. than I, and divided the Greeks into the most PART II. bitter and deplorable factions. To the ancient

XII.

the God of

explications of that important passage new illustrations were now added; and the emperor himself, who, from an indifferent prince, was become a wretched divine, published an exposition of that remarkable text, which he obtruded, as the only true sense of the words, upon a council assembled for that purpose, and was desirous of having received as a rule of faith by all the Grecian clergy. He maintained that the words in question related to the flesh that was hid in Christ, and that was passible, i. e. subject to suffering [x], and not only ordered this decision to be engraven on tables of stone in the principal church of Constantinople, but also published an edict, in which capital punishments were denounced against all such as should presume to oppose this explication, or teach any doctrine repugnant to it [z]. This edict, however, expired with the emperor by. whom it was issued out, and ANDRONICUS, upon his accession to the imperial throne, prohibited all those contests concerning speculative points of theology, that arose from an irregular and wanton curiosity, and suppressed, in a more particular manner, all inquiry into the subject now mentioned, by enacting the severest penalties against such as should in any way contribute to revive this dispute [b].

Concerning XVII. The same theological emperor troubled Mahomet. the church with another controversy concerning

the God of MAHOMET. The Greek Catechisms pronounced anathema against the Deity worshipped by that false prophet, whom they represented as a solid and spherical Being [c]; for so they trans

[2] Κατὰ τὴν ἐν αὑτῷ κ]τὴν και παθητὴν σάρκα.

lated

[a] NICETAS CHONIATES, Annal. lib. vii. sect. 6. p. 113. [b] NICETAS in Andronico, lib. ii. sect. 5. p. 175

[c] Ολόσφαιρος.

XII.

lated the Arabian word elsemed, which is applied C ENT. in the koran to the Supreme Being, and which PARTI indeed is susceptible of that sense, though it also signifies eternal [d]. The emperor ordered this anathema to be effaced in the Catechism of the Greek church, on account of the high offence it gave to the Mahometans, who had either been already converted to Christianity, or were disposed to embrace that divine religion, and who were extremely shocked at such an insult offered to the name of God, with whatever restrictions and conditions it might be attended. The Christian doctors, on the other hand, opposed with much resolution and vehemence this imperial order. They observed that the anathema, pronounced in the Catechism, had no relation to the nature of God in general, nor the true God in particular; and that, on the contrary, it was solely directed against the error of MAHOMET, against that phantom of a divinity which he had imagined. For that impostor pretended that the Deity could neither be engendered nor engender; whereas the Christians adore God the Father. After the bitterest disputes concerning this abstruse subject, and various efforts to reconcile the contending parties, the bishops, assembled in council, consented, though with the utmost difficulty, to transfer the imprecation of the Catechism from the God of MAHOMET, to MAHOMET himself, his doctrine, and his sect [e].

the Lord's

XVIII. The spirit of controversy raged among The conthe Latins, as well as among the Greeks, and troversy various sentiments concerning the sacrament of concerning the Lord's supper were propagated, not only in supper is the schools, but also in the writings of the learned, carried on For though all the doctors of the church were Latins.

[blocks in formation]

[d] RELAND. De religione Mohammedica, lib. ii. sect. 3. p.

142.

[e] NICETE CHON. Annales, lib. vi. p. 113-116.

among the

PART II.

CEN T. now extremely desirous of being looked upon as XII. enemies to the system of BERENGER, yet many of them, and among others [f] RUPERT of Duytz, difiered very little from the sentiments of that great man; at least it is certain, that notwithstanding the famous controversy wh.ch had arisen in the church concerning the opinions of BERENGER, nothing was, as yet, precisely deter mined with respect to the manner of CHRIST's presence in the eucharist.

As also that con

RUPERT had also religious contests of another. nature with ANSELM, bishop of Laon, WILLIAM of Champeaux, and their disciples and followers, who maintained their doctrine when they were no more. The divine will and the divine omnipotence. were the subjects of this controversy, and the question debated was, "Whether God really will"ed, and actually produced all things that exist, "or whether there are certain things whose ex"istence he merely permits, and whose production, "instead of being the effect of his will, was con

66

trary to it?" The aflirmative of the latter part of this question was maintained by RUPERT, while his adversaries held that all things were the effects not only of the divine power, but also of the divine will. This learned abbot was also accused of having taught that the angels were formed out of darkness; that CHRIST did not administer his body to JUDAS, in the last supper; and several other doctrines [g], contrary to the received opinions of the church.

XIX. These and other controversies of a more private kind, which made little noise in the world, cerning the imma- were succeeded, about the year 1140, by one of culate con- a more public nature, concerning, what was

ception of

the Virgin

Mary.

called,

[f] BOULAY, Histor. Academ. Paris. tom. ii. p. 30. [g] See MENGOZ. Epistola, published by MARTENE, in his Thesaur. Anecdotor. tom. i. p. 290.- Jo. MABILLON, Annál, Benedict. tom. vi. p. 19, 20. 42. 168. 261.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »