160 PART II. CENT. VII. themselves for their ministry by a diligent application to study; and in this they were directed by the monks, one of whose principal occupations it was to preside over the education of the rising priesthood. The ignorance of the bishops. It must however be acknowledged, that all these institutions were of little use to the advancement of solid learning, or of rational theology, because very few in these days were acquainted with the true nature of the liberal arts and sciences, or with the important ends which they were adapted to serve; and the greatest part of those who were looked upon as learned men, threw away their time in reading the marvellous lives of a parcel of fanatical saints, instead of employing it in the perusal of well chosen and excellent authors. They who distinguished themselves most by their taste and genius, carried their studies little farther than the works of Augustin and Gregory the Great; and it is of scraps collected out of these two writers, and patched together without much uniformity, that the best productions of this century are entirely composed. II. The sciences enjoyed no degree of protection at this time, from kings and princes, nor did they owe any thing to men of high and eminent stations in the empire. On the other hand, the schools which had been committed to the care and inspection of the bishops, whose ignorance and indolence were now become enormous, began to decline apace, and were, in many places, fallen into ruin. The bishops in general were so illiterate, that few of that body were capable of composing the discourses which they delivered to the people. Such of them as were not totally destitute of genius, composed out of the writings of Augustin and Gregory a certain number of insipid homilies, Histoire Litteraire de la France, tom. iii. p. 428. PART II. which they divided between themselves and their CENT. VII stupid colleagues, that they might not be obliged, through incapacity, to discontinue preaching the doctrines of Christianity to their people, as appears evident by the examples of Cæsarius, bishop of Arles, and Eloi, bishop of Noyon. There is yet extant a summary of theological doctrine, which was unskilfully compiled by Taion, bishop of Saragossa, from the writings of Augustin and Gregory; and which was so highly exalted in this illiterate age, that its author was called, by the rest of the bishops, the true salt of the earth, and a divine light that was sent to illuminate the world. Many such instances of the ignorance and barbarity of this century will occur to those who have any acquaintance with the writers it produced. England it is true was happier in this respect than the other nations of Europe, which was principally owing to Theodore of Tarsus, of whom we shall have occasion to speak afterward, who was appointed archbishop of Canterbury, and contributed much to introduce among the English a certain taste for literary pursuits, and to excite in that kingdom a zeal for the advancement of learning. art of into barbarity tion. corrup IIL In Greece the fate of the sciences was truly The sciences lamentable. A turgid eloquence, and an affected writing sunk pomp and splendour of style, which cast a perplex- and ing obscurity over subjects in themselves the most clear and perspicuous, was now the highest point of perfection to which both prose writers and poets aspired. The Latin eloquence was still vastly below that of the Greeks; it had not spirit enough even In the original we read Eligius Noviomagensis, which is a mistake either of the author, or printer. It is probable that Noviomagensis has slipt from the pen of Dr. Mosheim, in the place of Noviodunen» sis; for Eloi was bishop of Noyon, and not of Nimeguen. • Mabillon, Analecta veteris ævi, tom. i. p. 42. • Wilkins's Concilia Magne Britanniæ, tom. i. p. 42. Conringii At: tiquitat. Academica, p. 277. PART II. The fate of CENT. VII. to be turgid, and, a few compositions excepted, was sunk to the very lowest degree of barbarity and corruption. Both the Greek and Latin writers, who attempted historical compositions, degraded most miserably that important science. Moschus and Sophronius among the former; and among the latter Braulio, Jonas, an Hibernian, Audoenus, Dado, and Adamannus, wrote the lives of several saints; or rather a heap of insipid and ridiculous fables, void of the least air of probability, and without the smallest tincture of eloquence. The Greeks related without discernment or choice the most vulgar reports that were handed about, concerning the events of ancient times; and hence that multitude of absurd fables, which the Latins afterward copied from them with the utmost avidity. IV. Among the Latins philosophy was at its lowest ebb. If there were any that retained some faint reluctance to abandon it entirely, such confined their studies to the writings of Boetius and Cassiodorus, from which they committed to memory a certain number of phrases and sentences; and that was all their philosophical stock. The Greeks, abandoning Plato to the monks, gave themselves entirely up to the direction of Aristotle, and studied with eagerness the subtilties of his logic, which were of signal use in the controversies carried on between the monophysites, the nestorians, and monothelites. All these different sects called the stagirite to their assistance, when they were to plead their cause, and to defend their doctrines. Hence it was that James, bishop of Edessa, who was a monophysite, translated in this century the dialectics of Aristotle into the Syriac language. philosophy. See Assemanni Biblioth. Oriental. Vatican. tom. i. p. 498. CHAPTER II. CONCERNING THE DOCTORS AND MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH, AND L. THE disputes about pre-eminence that had so long subsisted between the bishops of Rome and Constantinople, proceeded in this century to such violent lengths, as laid the foundations of that deplorable schism, which afterward separated the Greek and Latin churches. The most learned writers, and those who are most remarkable for their knowledge of antiquity, are generally agreed that Boniface III. engaged Phocas, that abominable tyrant, who waded to the imperial throne through the blood of the emperor Mauritius, to take from the bishop of Constantinople the title of œcumenical or universal bishop, and to confer it upon the Roman pontiff. They relate this however upon the sole authority of Baronius; for none of the ancient writers have mentioned it. If indeed we are to give credit to Anastasius and Paul Dea con, something like what we have now related was transacted by Phocas; for when the bishops of Constantinople maintained that their church was not only equal in dignity and authority to that of Rome, but also the head of all the christian churches, this tyrant opposed their pretensions, and granted the pre-eminence to the church of Rome; and thus was the papal supremacy first introduced. CENT. VII. PART II. The disputes nence between Rme and Con about pre-emi the bishops of stantinople. ey of the for. II. The Roman pontiffs used all sorts of methods The supremato maintain and enlarge the authority and pre-em- mer opposed 8 Anastasius, De vitis Pontificum. Paul. Diacon. De rebus gestis Longobard. lib. iv. cap. xxxvii. in Muratorii Scriptor, rerum Italicar. tom. i. pars i. p. 46. by many. CENT. VII. inence which they had acquired by a grant from PART II the most odious tyrant that ever disgraced the an nals of history. We find however in the most authentic accounts of the transactions of this century, that not only several emperors and princes, but also whole nations opposed the ambitious views of the bishops of Rome. The Byzantine history, and the Formulary of Marculfus contain many proofs of the influence which the civil magistrate yet retained in religious matters, and of the subordination of the Roman pontiffs to the regal authority. It is true the Roman writers affirm, that Constantine Pogonatus abdicated the privilege of confirming, by his approbation, the election of the bishop of that city; and, as a proof of this, they allege a passage of Anastasius, in which it is said, that according to an edict of Pogonatus, the pontiff who should be elected, was to be ordained immediately and without the least delay. But every one must see that this passage is insufficient to prove what these writers assert with such confidence. It is however certain, that this emperor abated, some say remitted the sum which, since the time of Theodoric, the bishops of Rome had been obliged to pay to the imperial treasury before they could be ordained, or have their election confirmed.1 Anastasii vit. Pontif. in Bened. p. 146, in Muratorii Scriptor. rerum Italicar. tom. iii. i Anastas. vit. Pontif. in Agathone, p. 144, compared with Mascovii Hist. German. tom. ii. p. 121, in the annotations. It will not be amiss to observe here, that by the same edict, which diminished the ordination money paid by the bishops of Rome to the emperor, Constantine resumed the power of confirming the election of the pope, which his predecessors had invested in the exarchs of Ravenna; so that the bishop elect was not to be ordained till his election was notified to the court of Constantinople, and the imperial decree confirming it was received by the electors at Rome. See Anastasius in his life of Agath'ò. |