and consequently the Unchangeable in purpose. With such a conception it appeared to him impossible to reconcile the notion that the fate of man depended on his own conduct, and remained, as it were, in suspense until his death. No formal admission to the Church on earth, no sacramental rite, could in the slightest degree avail to save the soul foreordained to perdition. The theory of the freedom of the human will was consequently altogether discarded by him. СНАР. V. the Frank schalk ously opposed by Rabanus. In this theory of a divine government which thus reduced all human action to insignificance, of an autocracy which recognised no element of freedom in the moral world, it might at first sight seem not improbable that a Latin clergy would It divides be disposed to detect an analogy to their sacerdotal system, ish theoinvolving, as that system did, habitual and unquestioning logians. submission to authority. It is, however, a fact familiar to the student of Church history, that fatalism in theology has generally been the creed of those who have rebelled most stubbornly against ecclesiastical tyranny,' and it is certain that the clergy both in Francia and Germany were divided by Gotteschalk's teaching. Rabanus, who, as we can well understand, Gottehad watched the career of his unworthy disciple with little strenudisposition to judge him favourably or leniently, took up his pen to refute the doctrine of predestinarianism with arguments which derived their main force from the consequences to which, as he pointed out, such a doctrine must inevitably lead. This treatise appeared in the year 840, when Gotteschalk had already made numerous converts, not only in Western and Eastern Francia, but also in Italy. In the year 848 he again visited the latter country, and found for a time kindly shelter under the protection of Eberhard, the distinguished count of Friuli. Even here, however, the enmity of his former teacher followed him. Rabanus addressed a letter to Count Eberhard, pointing out the perilous tendencies of the doctrine taught by Gotteschalk; many, he asserted, were, under this influence, falling away from all endeavour to lead a godly life, being persuaded that no efforts would avail to win the divine favour, and that the actions of the individual were 1 See, on this point, Milman's observations, Lat. Christianity, iv 329. CHAP. His efforts at propagating his uoctrine. to the Synod of Maintz. valueless. He concluded by urging Eberhard not to suffer a teacher of doctrine so injurious to the faith to remain under his roof.1 The remonstrances of the powerful archbishop of Maintz were only too successful, and Gotteschalk was compelled to quit the hospitable mansion of Eberhard in disgrace. But his spirit was undaunted, and, taking his course through Dalmatia and Pannonia into Bavaria, he assumed the tone and the language of a reformer, exhorting the people as he went to return to the true faith.2 Hincmar, when subsequently referring to his conduct on this journey, accused him of having usurped the function of an apostle among a pagan people, and of having thus sown the tares of false His appeal doctrine in a virgin soil. From Bavaria Gotteschalk proceeded to Maintz, and of his own accord there presented himself before an assembled Council of the nobility and clergy, and the teacher and his former disciple stood face to face.3 They maintained their respective grounds; the latter citing numerous passages from Augustine to establish the authority of the tenet he taught, and declaring his readiness personally to attest its truth by submitting to the terrors of a fiery ordeal; the former insisting on the essential heterodoxy of that tenet, and reiterating his objections to the consequences to which such teaching must lead. Rabanus bore hardly on the renegade monk, and pressed his conclusions with the utmost rigour. In the eyes of the pious Lewis the German, who presided at the council, Gotteschalk stood convicted of promulgating doctrine subversive of all popular morality. He was declared a heretic, and, along with many of his adherents who had accompanied him, was sentenced to be publicly scourged. After this order had been executed, he was compelled to swear that he would never again set foot in East Francia, and was finally handed over to Hincmar, in whose diocese the monastery of Orbais lay, for further 1 Dümmler, i 316-17. His condemnation and disgrace. 2 Prudentius, Annales, Pertz, i 443. Gotteschalk here appears sketched by his subsequent ally as scientia tumidus, quibusdam superstitionibus deditus.' 3 Gfrörer, i 214; Dümmler, i 318. punishment. Few will be disposed to call in question the comment of Dümmler, that it was a harsh and unrighteous sentence and leaves a stain on the reputation of Rabanus. Even Staudenmaier admits that the archbishop's conduct was neither merciful nor paternal. of CHAP. V. Council of The treatment which Gotteschalk received in the wes- His condemnation tern kingdom, at the hands of Hincmar, was not less rigat the orous. In the following year, at the famous Council Chiersy, summoned by Charles the Bald, his doctrine was again condemned, he himself degraded from his priest's orders, and, after having been cruelly scourged, compelled to commit to the flames the confession of faith which he had drawn up and persistently taught. He was then consigned to perpetual imprisonment in the monastery of Hautvilliers. But even here his stern spirit showed itself still unbroken. He declared himself confident that his teaching would yet be vindicated by the divine interposition on his behalf, and once more took up his pen to defend his interpretation of Augustine.2 in his His constancy and the excessive severity with which he Counter had been treated roused the sympathy of many on Gotte- movement schalk's behalf. Ratramnus, a monk of Corbey, the able favour. opponent of Paschasius, espoused his side, and set forth his own views in two books, De Praedestinatione Dei,3 which he dedicated to Charles the Bald. Prudentius, bishop of Troyes, together with Amolo and Remigius, successively bishops of Lyons, and Florus, a presbyter of the same city, all rallied to his defence. Even Lupus Servatus, much as he deplored the controversy, laid aside his Cicero and his Quintilian to sum up the evidence of the Fathers and advocate a conclusion that virtually exonerated the prisoner at Hautvilliers from the charge of heresy. With such an array 1 Dümmler, i 319. 2 Ibid. i 319-20. 3 Migne, cxxi 10-11. Ratramnus was not, as Ussher supposes, abbat of Orbais; see Staudenmaier, p. 191. 4 Migne, cxv 969. Florus, Amolo, and Remigius, maintained the doctrine in a modified form, denying that men were fore-ordained to sin. This has led some writers to suppose that they sided with Hincmar. See Werner (K.), Gesch. d. apolog, und polem. Literatur, ii 679–84. СНАР. John V. Praedesti natione. of learning Hincmar himself was but very imperfectly qualified to cope. His long and busy public career left him no leisure for theological speculations, and his own endeavour to reply to the arguments of Gotteschalk must rank among the least considerable of his claims to the remembrance of posterity. Under these circumstances, it can be but small matter for surprise that he eagerly availed himself of the aid of the famous teacher recently installed at the Palace School; and all learned Frankland now looked on with new interest as it saw the hard-headed and resolute Saxon matched against the keen intellect and logical adroitness of the brilliant Irishman. The De Praedestinatione of John Scotus contains, it is Scotus De true, no direct allusion to the Timaeus, but it is easy to perceive that the conception unfolded in that dialogue militates strongly against the notion of a definite, irresistible, omnipresent purpose working from all eternity. We can understand also how John's theological training would still more directly incline him to that view of the question which was espoused by the Greek Fathers; while in the doctrine which he found set forth in the Celestial Hierarchy of the purely negative character of evil,' he had an argument which undoubtedly furnished a conclusive reply to the theory of men predestined to perdition. He employs the aid of dia lectic. The manner in which he addressed himself to the controversy illustrates his native ingenuity and tact. Urgently summoned, as he was, to take part in the conflict, he not unreasonably claimed the right to choose his own weapons, and the one on which he chiefly relied was that of dialectic. Though, as yet, this was still a distrusted weapon with the orthodox party, it had, as we have already seen,2 recently been sanctioned by the high authority of Rabanus. The De Institutione Clericorum was probably by this time in the hands of almost every better educated and more intelligent 1 Dionysius, De Divin. Nom. iv 23, a point with respect to which Mr. Lupton notes that John Colet ventured to differ from his author. See Lupton's Introd. p. xlvii. 2 See supra, p. 144. V. ecclesiastic throughout Frankland, and John could point CHAP. triumphantly to the passage in which the most eminent. teacher in East Francia had vindicated the dialectical art as a satisfactory reply to all objectors. The Rabanici,' whom Gotteschalk had so acrimoniously assailed, could not but be conciliated by John's appeal to the dictum of their leader. He commences accordingly with the broad assertion— Religion and philoan assertion in which we may discern the nascent theory sophy which constitutes the key to the whole scholastic philoso- cannot be opposed. phy-that philosophy and religion can never be really at variance. What then, he asks, are philosophical discussions but an attempt to enquire into the principles of true religion, whereby the Divine Nature, the chief and primary cause of all things, is humbly worshipped and investigated in a manner conformable to reason? Hence it follows that true philosophy is true religion, and conversely that true religion is true philosophy. But reason, he next goes on to demonstrate, requires the employment of definite method. In every quaestio four principal stages are necessary to be His observed in its solution-those of division, definition, de- fourfold monstration, and analysis, which he designates under their Greek names, as the διαιρετική, the ὁριστική, the ἀποδεικτική, the avaλUTIKý. Then he reproduces almost verbatim the weighty passage from the pen of Rabanus,' wherein that eminent authority had insisted upon the unwisdom of depriving the defenders of the faith of all the legitimate weapons of oratory and argument, while their opponents are systematically trained in every art whereby the hearer is conciliated, persuaded and convinced. And with this 1 The passage 'Ne igitur defensores . . . dormitent' in the Liber de Praedestinatione (Migne, cxxii 358-9) will be found to be nearly a transcript of the passage in the De Institutione Clericorum cited in note, p. 144. No writer with whom I have met has noted this remarkable adoption from Rabanus. The custom of incorporating passages from other writers without acknowledgement was very common in the ninth century, but in the present instance it may be reasonably inferred that John considered the passage in question to be so familiar to most readers as to render the mention of the author's name unnecessary. method. |