contained in it, and that he was bound to pursue it through every danger and difficulty, as a churchman and a pope. This was his grand and original delusion, and here alone can we discover any trace of narrowness and littleness. And yet there have existed so many good men in all ages, even in the most enlightened, who have mistaken their own form of faith for the only true faith, and held their own particular church to be synonymous with the Church of Christ, that the error of Gregory will meet with much sympathy, though it can deserve no pardon. But when we observe the measures into which it betrayed him, and through which he followed it with deliberate hardihood; when we recollect the profusion of blood which flowed through his encouragement or instigation, for the support of an ambitious and visionary project; and, more than that, when we compare the nature of that project with the humble, and holy, and peaceful system of Christ, whose gospel was in the pontiff's hands, and whose blessed name was incessantly profaned for the support of his purposesit is then that we are obliged to regard him with unmitigated disgust. His endeavours to reform the morals of his clergy and the system of his church will only be censured by those who prefer diseases to their remedies, or who think it dangerous to apply any remedy to ecclesiastical corruption-and over such persons the sceptre of reason has no control. But his claims of temporal sovereignty, his usurpation of spiritual supremacy, his lofty bearing, and pontifical arrogance, were so widely at variance with the spirit of that book† on which his church was originally founded, that we must either suppose him wholly to have disdained its precepts, or to have strangely misinterpreted them.

Some writers have represented Gregory as an enemy to innovation, as one of those characters who have placed their pride in keeping the age stationary, and perpetuating all that was transmitted to them. Had Gregory been such a man, he had been long ago forgotten. Far otherwise: he was the greatest of all innovators; but, like Charlemagne and Peter of Russia, he marched to his object by the road of despotism. The reforms which he projected, in affairs civil, political, and ecclesiastical, embraced every interest and reached every department of society; but it was by the establishment of a spiritual monarchy-a sort of papal theocracy-that he proposed to compass them. Guizot has somewhere made this observation: he has further attributed to Gregory two errors in the conduct of his plan, but not (as it seems to us) with equal justice. He blames that pope for having proclaimed his plan too pompously, menacing when he had not the means of conquering; and also for not having confined his attempts to what might fairly seem practicable. Guizot appears for the moment to have forgotten on what uncertain ground the papal power really rested; how much of it was built on mere claims, disputed perhaps at first, but finally established and enforced by mere impudent importunity-the very advance of such claims by one pope was always a stepping-stone for his successors. Again, in treating of what was practicable by Gregory, if we well consider the peculiar nature of his weapons, hitherto untried in any great contest, and the character of the age to be moved by them, it will seem quite impossible that he could exactly have calculated what he could, or what he could not, accomplish. Under all circumstances it was probable, that the bolder his claims, and the more loudly he asserted them, the greater was his chance of ⚫ some immediate success, and the broader the path that was opened for future pontiffs. And Gregory had too extensive a genius not to think and act also for posterity.

The first evil conséquence of associating tradition with the gospel as the foundation of the Church was, that the former was soon considered as substantial a part of the building as the latter. United in words, they were presently confounded in idea, and that not by the very ignorant only, but even by men, especially churchmen, who had deeply studied the subject, and most so by monks. Gregory had received a monastic education; and though his mind was naturally vast and penetrating, it is not absurd to suppose that he might sincerely consider the false decretals (believing them to be genuine) as possessing authority almost equivalent to the Bible; at least, he might think it a fair compromise to govern his church by the former, and his private conduct by the latter rule.

In his epistles he frequently repeats the prophet's words: Cursed is he that doeth the

In descending to the personal character of Gregory, we may first observe, that he was superior to the spirit of intolerance, which was then becoming manifest in his church. The only doctrinal controversy in which he was engaged was that with Berenger, on transubstantiation. The pope maintained the doctrine, which appears then to have been generally received in Italy and France, and he may have menaced the contumacy of the heretic. But no impartial reader can rise from the perusal of that controversy with the impression that Gregory was personally the advocate of persecution. On the contrary, his moderation has been noticed by writers little favourable to his character, and has even led some to the very unnecessary inference that he was friendly to the opinion, because he spared and endured its authort.

Among the calumniators of Gregory, none are found so unjust as to deny his extraordinary talents and address, his intrepid constancy, his inflexible perseverance. And there are none among his blindest admirers who would excuse the unchristian arrogance of his ambition. His other qualities are for the most part disputed :-his moral excellence ‡, and the depth of his private piety, have been strongly asserted by some, and contested by others: for our own part, after carefully comparing the conclusions of his more moderate historians with the particular acts and general spirit of his life, we are disposed to assent to the more favourable judgment to this extent at least, that we believe him to have possessed those austere monastic virtues, common, perhaps, in the cloister, but rare in

work of the Lord deceitfully,'—' that keepeth back his sword from blood;' that is, who does not execute God's commands in punishing God's enemies: hence his severity with simoniacal bishops, and other ecclesiastical offenders.

* Jortin (among others) thinks that the pope was much inclined to defend Berengera merit which might have led that candid writer to pause before he entered into the absurd and fanatical notion that Gregory was Antichrist. Milner also holds this last opinion more confidently-a very remote point of contact between two men of very different and even opposite views, but of equal sincerity and excellence! But (to speak without reference to either of those authors) it has been the misfortune of Gregory to excite the spleen of two descriptions of writers who agree in very few of their principlesthose who abhor the Roman Catholic Church and all its supporters with vehement and unqualified hatred, and those who dislike every church and every assertor of ecclesiastical rights. The former are our religious, the latter our philosophical, historians-both are equally unjust.

After all, it is a question whether Gregory's moderation on questions purely theological does not furnish a fair argument against his general conduct. It proves, at least, that his violence and arrogance were not merely faults of temper, showing themselves whenever there was a dispute; but feelings which, to excite them, required the stimulus of temporal ambition. Again, in an age when reason and philosophy had little influence, moderation on theological questions naturally excites the suspicion of indifference. But if Gregory was indifferent on theological questions, and violent on matters touching the temporal aggrandizement of himself and his Church, his character had even less merit than we have assigned to it.

His intrigue with Matilda, which is insinuated in a very childish manner by Mosheim, is expressly denied by Lambertus, a contemporary historian of good repute. Ambition was motive quite sufficient for his intimacy with that princess, and his advanced age (seventy-two) might reasonably have saved him from the imputation of any other. Besides which, there is no single fact or circumstance to authorize the suspicion; and his deep enthusiasm and intrepid zeal, and the very austerity which made him dangerous, are qualities wholly inconsistent with vulgar hypocritical profligacy. That a widow of thirty (says Denina), also motherless, should be the declared protectress and body-guard of an old and austere pontiff, furnished a famous pretext for calumny to the concubinary clergy who were persecuted by the Pope,' (Rivoluz. d'Ital. l. x. c. 6.) and to them we may probably ascribe this charge.

those days either among princes✶ or popes. And if, indeed, in addition to those merits, he was compassionate to the poor, the defender of the oppressed, the protector of the innocent (as a very impartial, as well as accurate, writer † affirms) we shall find the greater reason to lament that his private sanctity was overshadowed and darkened by his public administration.

Respecting his religious disposition, though passages may be found in his Epistles not uninspired with Christian piety, it is more probable that he sought his motives of godliness and the aliment of his fervour in the interests of his church, than in the lessons of his Bible. A profound canonist, a skilful theologian, a zealous churchman, he may still have been unacquainted with the feelings of a Christian, and uninformed by the spirit of the faith. And it is not impossible that even his reforms in discipline and morals, which were the best among his acts, proceeded from a narrow ecclesiastical zeal, not from the purer and holier influence of evangelical devotion.

SECTION III.

(I.) Controversy respecting Transubstantiation-suspended in the Ninth, renewed in the Eleventh Century-Character of Berenger-Council of Leo IX.-of Victor II. at Tours in 1054 -Condemnation and conduct of Berenger-Council of Nicholas II.-repeated Retractation and Relapse of Berenger-Alexander II.-Council at Rome under Gregory VII.-Extent of the Concession then required from Berenger-further Requisition of the Bishops-a Second Council assembled-Conduct of Gregory-Berenger again solemnly assents to the Catholic Doctrine, and again returns to his own-his old Age, Remorse, and Death-Remarks on his Conduct-on the Moderation of Gregory. (II.) Latin Liturgy-Gradual Disuse of the Latin Language throughout Europe-Adoption of the Gothic Missal in Spain-Alfonso proposes to substitute the Roman-Decision by the Judgment of God-by Combat-by Fire-doubtful Result-final Adoption of the Latin Liturgy-Its introduction among the Bohemians by Gregory-Motives of the Popes-other instances of services not performed in the Vulgar Tongue-Usage of the early Christian Church.

THE age of Gregory was distinguished by a very important doctrinal controversy but though that pontiff was abundantly pugnaOpinions and cious in asserting the most inadmissible rights of the conduct of church, he showed no disposition to encourage the dispute Berenger. in question, nor any furious zeal to extirpate the supposed error; and yet the error was no less than a disbelief in the mystery afterwards called Transubstantiation. We have already mentioned the promulgation of that dogma by Paschasius Radbertus: we have observed with what ardour and liberty it was both supported and

* Gregory reproved the abbot, who admitted Hugo, Duke of Burgundy, into his monastery, on this ground- We have abundance of good monks, but there is a great scarcity of good princes.' Those are the virtues which Gibbon calls dangerous; and it is in speaking of Gregory that he advances that remarkable assertion-that the vices of the clergy are less dangerous than their virtues,-a position which is seldom understood with the qualification which the author obviously intended to attach to it. The passage is illustrated by another in the sixty-ninth chapter-The scandals of the tenth century were obliterated by the austere and more dangerous virtues of Gregory VII.'

Giannone, Storia di Napoli, lib. x. c. 6. Gregory has been reproached with placing faith in the predictions of astrologers; with dealing in divinations, interpreting dreams, and exercising the magical art. Few of those who have shone with great splendour in an ignorant age have escaped the same suspicion.

When Muratori (Vit. Rom. Pontif. in Leo IX.) speaks of him as 'Adolescens....clari ingenii, sanctæque Religionis,' and when Giannone calls him 'uomo pieno di Religione,' nothing more is at all necessarily implied than Gregory's monastic sanctity would justify.

combated during the ninth century, until the flames of the controversy, unsustained by any public edicts, gradually and innocently expired. The arguments which had been urged on both sides were thus left to produce their respective fruits of good or evil, according to the soil on which they fell, and the season in which they were sown. Both these circumstances were fearfully unfavourable to the growth of any wholesome knowledge: for in those days reason was less persuasive than its abuse, and truth was less attractive than specious show; so that religion was buried in superstitious observances. Thus it happened that, during the tenth century, the opinion in question made a general, though silent progress; and, in the beginning of the eleventh, it was tacitly understood to be the doctrine of the Roman church. In the year 1045, Berenger, principal of the public school (scholastic) at Tours, and afterwards Archdeacon of Angers, publicly professed his opposition to it.

Roman Catholic writers do not dispute the brilliancy of his talents, the power of his eloquence, his skill in dialectics, and his general erudition; they admit, too, that habits of exemplary virtue and piety gave life and efficacy to his genius and his learning t. By these merits he acquired the veneration of the people, and the friendship of the most distinguished ecclesiastics of his day. But when some of his historians assert that his virtues suddenly deserted him, and were even changed into their opposite vices, at the moment when he propounded his opinion, we can only consider them as illustrating their own definition of heresy.' It is also said, that Berenger was stimulated to publish, even to invent, his doctrine by private jealousy of the learned Lanfranc; and in truth the most splendid actions do so commonly originate in sordid motives, that this charge may possibly be true: but it is not probable, because it is at variance with the tenour of his character; nor is it at all important, since it affects neither the truth nor the prevalence of his doctrine.

Berenger's opposition to transubstantiation became known to Leo IX., who condemned it at a council held at Rome in 1050; and in the same year two other councils were summoned in France, at Verceil and Paris, both of which strongly anathematized the heresy; and, in consequence of the decree of the latter, Henry I. deprived the offender of the temporalities proceeding from his benefice. He did not attend these councils, but continued to profess and promulgate his doctrine. During the pontificate of Victor II. a council was assembled at Tours in 1055 t, at which Hildebrand presided as legate of the pope. Berenger was summoned before it, and on this occasion he obeyed the summons-with the less apprehension, because he possessed the personal regard of Hildebrand.

Mosheim is guilty of a strange blunder in making him Archbishop of Angers, and of designating him throughout as a prelate. In fact, Angers is only an episcopal see, and Eusebius Bruno, one of Berenger's own pupils, was raised to it in 1047. Hist. Litt. de la France, Vie de Bérenger.

His learning is perhaps sufficiently proved, by the fact, that he too attained the honourable reputation (common to him with so many learned persons) of being a magician.

See Pagi, Vit. Victor II., sect. v., where various authorities are collected, and among them the following expressions from Lanfranc addressed to Berenger: Denique in Concilio Turonensi, cui ipsius Victoris interfuere legati, data est tibi optio defendendi partem tuam. Quam cum defendendam suscipere non auderes, confessus coram omnibus communem ecclesiæ fidem, jurâsti te ab illa hora ita crediturum, sicut in Romano Concilio te jurasse est superius comprehensum. From this it would appear that Berenger had been present at the council of Leo, though he disregarded those assembled in France; unless indeed the Roman Council mentioned by Lanfranc be that afterwards held by Nicholas, which is more probable.

He appears to have urged little in defence of his opinion, and to have made no difficulty in subscribing on oath to the received faith of the Church concerning the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. And having subscribed to this faith, he immediately returned to the propagation of his actual opinions.

He then remained undisturbed for four or five years, until Nicholas II. called upon him to justify himself before a Roman Council. He appeared there, and professed his readiness to follow the doctrine which should seem good to that assembly. Accordingly, a profession of faith was drawn up, which went to the furthest extent to which the dogma has ever been carried *, and with the same hand which signed it Berenger committed to the flames the books containing his opposition to it. He then returned to France, resumed his sincere profession, and abjured his abjuration.

Alexander II. (acting probably under his archdeacon's counsels) contented himself with addressing to the heretic a letter of peaceful and friendly exhortation; but as his opinion and his contumacy now created some confusion in the Church, Hildebrand, not long after his elevation to the chair, summoned Berenger to Rome a second time. For the space of nearly a year Gregory retained him near his person, and honoured him with his familiarity; and then, in a council in 1078, he was contented to require his subscription to a profession which admitted the real presence without any change of substance; and Berenger did not hesitate to sign it. But this moderation did not satisfy the zeal of certain ardent prelates, who required not only a more specific declaration of orthodoxy, but also that the sincerity of the retractation should be approved by the fiery trial. Berenger is stated to have prepared himself by prayer and fasting for submission to that ceremony; but Gregory, though he accorded the first of their requisitions, refused to countenance the senseless mockery of the second. The year following, another council assembled, and once more Berenger in their presence solemnly renounced his opinions, and confirmed by oath his adherence to the broadest interpretation of the Catholic faith. He was then dismissed by the pontiff, with new proofs of his satisfaction; and no sooner was he restored to the security of his native country, than he renewed the profession of the doctrine which he had never in truth abandoned. But he received little further molestation† from the ecclesiastical powers, and died in 1088, at a very advanced age, with no other disquietude than those severe internal sufferings which were the consequence of his repeated and deliberate perjuries ‡.

*In the presence of the pope, and one hundred and thirteen bishops, Berenger subscribed the following profession: Ego Berengarius, indignus diaconus, &c. . . consentio S. R. Ecclesiæ et Ap. Sedi, et ore et corde profiteor de sacramento Dominicæ mensæ eam fidem me tenere quam dominus et venerabilis Papa Nicolaus et hæc sancta synodus tenendam tradidit.. scilicet panem et vinum, quæ in altari ponuntur, post consecrationem non solum sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse; et sensualiter, non solum sacramento sed in veritate, manibus sacerdotum tractari et frangi et fidelium dentibus atteri; jurans per sanctam et homoousiam Trinitatem. Eos vero qui contra hanc fidem venerint æterno anathemate dignos esse pronuntio. Quod si ego aliquando aliquid contra hæc sentire et prædicare præsumpsero subjaceam canonum severitati. Lecto et perlecto sponte subscripsi.' It is cited by Pagi in the Life of Nicholas II., as are the second and third professions of Berenger (in 1078 and 1079) in the Life of Gregory, sect. lxx. lxxii.

+ Dupin mentions that he was summoned before a council at Bourdeaux, in 1080, · where he gave an account of his faith.'

A loud and very unimportant dispute has been raised between Papists and Protes