History.

Origin of

VIIth CENTURY.

MONOTHELITES.

MARONITES.

VIIIth CENTURY.

FELICIANS. ICONOCLASTS. ICONODULI.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.

These two Centuries are remarkable for the progress of ancient Heresies, rather than for the establishment of new. The opinions propagated by Arius were extended in Italy, and the Lombards openly espoused his doctrines, in preference to the Nicene. In Britain the Pelagians continued to excite the warmest dissensions.* The Nestorians and Monophysites acquired new vigour under the empire of the Saracens, from whom they not only received protection but encouragement.† A modification of the Manichean doctrine, the followers of which were known by the appellation of Paulicians, had its rise in this Century; but Ecclesiastical Historians have reserved a more particular account of that Sect until the IXth Century, during which they acquired sufficient strength to support a war with the Greeks. But one Sect arose in the VIIth Century whose History from its connection with other transactions merits a detail.

THE MONOTHELITES.

This Heresy was derived from the Eutychian docthe Heresy, trine, and it arose under the reign of the Emperor

A. D.

622.

A. D.

629.

Heraclius. It had its rise from an ill-digested and untimely project of that Emperor, to restore the Nestorians to the communion of the Greek Church. In pursuance of this project on his return from the Persian war, he held two conferences, the one with a certain person named Paul, a man of great credit and authority among the Armenian Monophysites, and the other with Athanasius, the Catholic Bishop of Hierapolis. These conferences had for their object the peace and concord of the Church.

Both Paul and Athanasius assured the

Emperor that the Monophysites might be induced to receive the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, and thereby to terminate their controversy with the Greeks, on condition that the latter would give their assent to the following proposition, viz., that in Jesus Christ there was, after the union of the two natures, but one will, and one operation. Heraclius communicated the

A. D.

633.

Flattering as was the first appearance of this project, Edict of it was soon changed. The Emperor published an Edict Heraclius. in favour of the Monothelite doctrine, and it was received if not with general approbation, yet without serious opposition. Some Ecclesiastics refused obedience, but the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch received it without hesitation, and from the See of Jerusalem, at that time vacant, no opinion could be received. The consent of the Romish Pontiff was deemed unne- Council at cessary in an affair which belonged solely to the Eastern Alexandria. Church. Cyrus, who had been raised by Heraclius from the Bishopric of Phasis to the Patriarchate of Alexandria, assembled a Council, by the VIIth Canon of which the doctrine of Monothelitism, or one will, was solemnly confirmed. Hence Cyrus has been generally esteemed Author of the founder of the Sect. The decree of the Alexandrian the Heresy. Synod, bringing the doctrine of the Council of Chalcedon nearer to the Eutychian system, had the desired effect, and numbers of the Eutychians, who were dispersed throughout Egypt, Armenia, and other remote Provinces, returned to the bosom of the Church. But in the Council of Alexandria there was one dissentient, who carried his opposition to the Monothelite doctrine further than the limits of mere argument, and hostility in debate. Sophronius, a Monk of Palestine, had opposed the decree of the Alexandrian Synod with violence; but his Opposition was treated with contempt. In the succeeding year, however, he was elevated to the vacant Patriarchate of Jerusalem; and he soon exercised his authority by summoning a Council, and condemning the satisfied with this formal condemnation, he endeavoured Monothelite as a branch of the Eutychian system. Not to gain Honorius, the Romish Pontiff, to his side, but the See of Constantinople, informed Honorius of the his efforts were vain. Sergius, who at that time filled favour of the Monothelite doctrine. state of the question, and the Pontiff determined in

A. D. 639.

In order to terminate, if possible, the commotions to Ecthesis of which this division of opinion had given rise, Heraclius Heraclius. Ecthesis, or Exposition of the Faith, in which all conissued an Edict composed by Sergius, and entitled the troversies upon the question whether in Christ there was trine of a unity of Will was inculcated. A considerable a double operation, were prohibited, though the docnumber of the Eastern Bishops declared their assent to the Ecthesis, and above all by Pyrrhus who succeeded Sergius in the See of Constantinople. A similar acceptation was obtained from the metropolis of the Eastern Church; but at Rome the Ecthesis was differently It is conreceived. John IV. assembled a Council in which that demned at Exposition was condemned.

the Eastern Church any longer than during the life of Neither was the Monothelite system maintained in

IIcraclius.

Rome.

A. D.

639.

of Con

stans.

Edict under the name of the Type, or Formulary, supThe Emperor Constans published a new Formulary pressing the Ecthesis, and enjoining a silence on both the controverted points of one Will and one Operation. This silence was not sufficient for either of the contending 425

648.

The Emperor Constans, offended at these haughty proceedings of Martin, ordered him to be seized, and imprisoned carried a prisoner to the Island of Naxos, where he remained more than a year.† His imprisonment was attended by much cruel treatment; and a similar punishment was inflicted on the opponents of the Monothelite doctrine. Eugenius and Vitalianus, the succeeding Bishops of Rome, were more moderate and prudent than their unfortunate predecessor; and the latter received Constans with the highest demonstrations of respect.

A. D. 650.

VIth Gene

680.

to

A. D.

681.

The flames of contention, though suppressed, were ral Council. always in danger of breaking forth anew; and in order A. D. to extinguish them, Constantine Pogonatus, the son of Constans, by the advice of Agatho, the Roman Pontiff, convened the VIth General Council. It consisted of not less than two hundred and eighty-nine Bishops, among whom were four Legates to represent the Roman Pontiff, the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem; and that " Pope of another world," Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury. The place of meeting was in a spacious hall of the Imperial Palace called Trullus, i. e. Cupola, from the form of the building. The President of the Council was Constantine himself.

Monothe

lites condemned.

Their

tenets.

The Monothelite controversy was accurately investigated from its beginning; the Epistle of Sophronius to Sergius, the rescripts of Honorius, the letters of Cyrus and Theodore were compared; and a unanimous judg ment was passed. 1. The Nicene Creed was defined to be the standard of orthodoxy. 2. The Heresy of the Monothelites and Pope Honorius were condemned, together with Sergius, Pyrrhus, Cyrus, and Macarius. 3. Those who opposed the decree of the VIth Council were anathematized.

The truth, or the falsehood, of the Monothelite tenets, bears no proportion to the fury with which they were assailed and defended; and the contending parties mutually disclaimed the errors with which they charged each other. 1. The Monothelites disclaimed all con

nection with the Eutychians and Monophysites; but maintained in opposition to these two Sects, that in Christ there were two distinct natures which were so united, though without the least mixture or confusion, as to form by their union only One Person. 2. They acknowledged that the soul of Christ was endued with such a will or faculty of volition, that it was retained even after its union with the Divine Nature. For according to their system Christ was not only perfect God, but perfect Man, whence it followed that his soul was

endued with the faculty of volition. 3. They denied Heresies that this faculty of volition in the soul of Christ was of the Vilth absolutely inactive, maintaining on the contrary that it and VI!lth cooperated with the Divine Will. 4. They therefore Centuries. virtually attributed to Christ two Wills, both operative and active; although they affirmed that in a certain sense he had but one Will and Operation.*

THE MARONITES.

These were in fact Monothelites, who, after their doc- Their name trine had been condemned by the Council at Constanti- whence de nople, found a place of refuge among the Mardaites, or rived. end of the VIIth Century they were known by the name of Maronites, from Maro, their first Bishop. This Sect retained the opinions of the Monothelites until the XIIth of One Will in Christ, they were readmitted to the Comcentury, when abandoning and renouncing the doctrine munion of the Romish Church. The most learned of the Maronites have indeed laboured to prove that their Communion was never infected with the Monothelite Heresy.

mountaineers of Libanus and Antilibanus. About the

THE FELICIANS.

Felix, Bishop of Urgella, was consulted by Elipand, Origin of Archbishop of Toledo, to decide in what sense Christ the Heresy was God. The answer of Felix was, that Christ, with the Son of God, begotten of the Father, and hence respect to his Divine Nature, was truly and properly he was the true God, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, in the unity of the Godhead. But that with respect to his Humanity, Christ was the Son of Father, and thus he was nominally God. God by adoption, born of the Virgin by the will of the according to the opponents of the Felicians, it followed that there was a twofold Sonship in Christ, and that He must consist of two Persous. The opinion of Felix was scion of the Nestorian Heresy. considered by the orthodox as nothing more than a

Hence,

The doctrine of Felix was adopted by Elipand, who, Its probeing the Primate of Spain, propagated it through the gress. different Provinces of that Kingdom, while Felix himself contributed to spread it throughout Narbonne and other parts of Gaul. The Roman Pontiff Adrian was a vigorous opponent of Felix, and the Bishop of UrNarbonne, Ratisbon, Francfort on the Maine, and gella was successively condemned by the Councils of Rome. He was at length obliged by the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle to retract his errors. His retractation was, however, merely nominal, for he died at Lyons, firm belief of his doctrine. Elipand lived securely in whither he had been banished by Charlemagne, in the Spain, and was never called before any Synod or Coun- Its follo cil. The disciples of Felix were sometimes known ers calle Adoptia under the name of Adoptians. ‡

* A copious account of the Monothelite Heresy is contained in the Works of Johannas Damen in a Treatise on the two wills, and in his Books on the Orthodox Faith.

The Council of Narbonne was held a. D. 788, that of Ratisbon A. D. 792, that of Francfort A. D. 794, that of Rome A. D. 799. The Authors who have written concerning the Felicians are enumerated by Fabricius, Biblioth. Lat. Med. Ev. tom. ii, p. 482.

History.

Origin of

versy.

A. D.

712.

THE ICONOCLASTS AND ICONODULI.

The controversy on Image worship which terminated in a schism between the Greek and Latin Churches, cannot be more commodiously related, than by classifying the party which incurred the condemnation of the Church of Rome with the Heretics of the VIIth Century, although without assenting to that decision.* The beginning of this unhappy dispute has been he contro placed in the reign of Phillipicus Bardanes, Emperor of the Greeks. That Prince, by the advice of John, the Patriarch of Constantinople, ordered a picture which represented the VIth General Council to be removed from its place in the Church of Sta. Sophia. His dislike to the picture was occasioned by his hatred of the Council which had condemned the Monothelites Bardanes whose cause he espoused. Bardanes, satisfied with this exercise of power, sent an order to Rome for the removal picture to of all similar pictures from the churches. So far, howbe removed ever was this order from producing the desired effect, Church of that Constantine, the Roman Pontiff, published a formal Sta. Sophia. protest against the Imperial Edict. His disobedience to it was expressed by his actions as well as by his words. He commanded six pictures representing the six General Councils to be placed in the porch of the Post Church of St. Peter; and to render his contempt of the Imperial Emperor more public, he assembled a Council at Rome, in which Bardanes was condemned as an apostate from Bardanes the true Religion. Constantine at the commencement deprived of of the dispute gained a decisive victory, for in the folthe Impe- lowing year a revolution deprived Bardanes of the Imperial throne.

orders a

from the

Constantine, the

Roman

poses the

Edict.

rial throne.

Edict of

Leo.

A. D. 726.

Under the two Emperors who succeeded Bardanes the controversy appears to have been suppressed; but when Leo the Isaurian assumed the purple, it broke out with redoubled fury. Leo, disgusted at the superstitious veneration shown by the Greeks to Images, and feeling the reproach which the abuse had drawn on the Christian Religion, determined to extirpate the evil if it were possible. For this purpose he issued an Edict, prohibiting the adoration or worship of Images, which some Writers have misrepresented as an injunction to destroy them. For he expressly commanded that they should be placed higher in the Churches in order that adoration of them might be prevented, and he excepted from his Edict those Pictures or Images which represented the Crucifixion.† It was not till he found that such precautions would not prevent idolatrous worship, that he condemned Pictures and Images by an absolute prohibition.

The Imperial Edict occasioned the most violent tumults. A Civil war commenced in the Islands of the Archipelago, it soon spread over Asia, and it ultimately reached Italy. The people were taught to believe that eo is ana the Emperor was an apostate, and that they were therefore freed from their allegiance. Gregory II. was the author and ringleader of these commotions in the West. Upon the refusal of Leo to revoke his Edict against Images, the Pontiff declared him unworthy of the name

ematized

y Gregory

A. D.

726.

* Spanheim has thus classified them. He has a separate Treatise on Image worship, besides a Chapter in his General Ecclesiastical History. It is contained in the IId volume of his Works, Miscellan. book vi. It was composed in answer to mambong the Jesuit.

Non huc spectat mea sententia ut ea prorsus deleantur, sed hoc ais, sublimiore loco eas collocandas esse. Spanheim, Miscel. Suc, Antiq. lib. vi. Oper. tom. ii.

and privileges of a Christian, and thus excluded him Heresies from the Communion of the Church. No sooner was of the VIIth this sentence made public, than the Romans and the and VIIIth Centuries. inhabitants of other Italian Provinces which were subject to the Grecian Empire, threw off their allegiance Revolt of and massacred the Imperial dignitaries and officers. The the Italian temper of Leo was too warm and resolute to be sub- Provinces. dued by this opposition. He vented his rage against Council at both images and their worshippers; and having assem- Constantibled a Council at Constantinople, he degraded Ger- nople. manus the Patriarch of the Imperial city who was a patron of Images, and placed Anastasius in the See. He commanded all Images to be publicly burned, and he inflicted the most severe punishments on their worshippers.

A. D.

730.

These rigorous measures divided the Christian Church Two fac into two factions emulating each other in violence; the tions. one which maintained that Images should be worshipped, was called Iconoduli, or Iconolatri; the other, which maintained that such worship was impious, was called Iconomache and Iconoclasta.

Leo.

A. D. 741.

Leo was succeeded in the Empire by his son Con- Constantine stantine, to whom the Image worshippers in derision succeeds He had not less gave the surname of Copronymus.* zeal than his father against Idolatry, and employed his power and influence in its extirpation, in opposition to But his proceedings were chathe Roman Pontiffs. racterised by greater moderation than those of his father, for knowing the respect which the Greeks entertained for the decisions of Councils, he assembled at Constantinople a Council of the Eastern Bishops. By Council at

Constanti

nople.

A. D.

754.

the Greeks this is considered as the VIIth Ecumenical Council; by the Romish Church it is not acknowledged. There were present not less than three hundred and thirty-eight Bishops, and it was more numerous than any of the Ecumenical Councils, that of Chalcedon excepted. The two principal Bishops, the Bishop or Exarch of Ephesus, and the Bishop or Metropolitan of Perga, presided in the assembly. Its decrees were, Idolatry is according to the custom of the Eastern Councils, in condemned. favour of the opinions espoused by the Emperor, and an anathema was pronounced against all Image worshippers, among whom Germanus was specially condemned.† Calumnies of the most improbable and contradictory nature were vented against Copronymus. He was accused of Manicheism, of Nestorianism, and of Arianism. The blind obstinacy of superstition was not vanquished, and the Monks still continued to excite commotions among the People. Copronymus, filled with a just indignation at their seditious practices, restrained them by new laws, and inflicted on some of them exemplary punishment.

Korgos, stercus. This name was given to Constantine from a story that he had defiled the sacred font at his baptism. "Jesus

The Council thus expresses its censure of Idolatry. Christ hath delivered us from Idolatry and hath taught us to adore him in spirit and in truth. But the Devil not being able to endure the beauty of the Church, hath insensibly brought back Idolatry under the appearance of Christianity, persuading men to worship the creature, and to take for God a work to which they give the name of Jesus Christ." Fleury, Eccl. Hist. xliii. 7.

A. D. 775.

History.

Irene poi Emperor.

sons the

A. D.
780.

escape the punishment due to her infidelity which he had discovered, she held the reins of government, during the minority of her son Constantine, and the cause of Idolatry was then once more triumphant. To establish her authority more firmly, she formed an alliance with Adrian, Bishop of Rome, and the Roman Pontiff summoned a Council at Nice in Bythinia, which IId Nicene is known by the name of the IId Nicene Council.* Council. An eclipse of the sun immediately preceded it, which A. D. the Iconoclasts did not fail to represent as ominous. 786. Its President was Tarasius, a creature of Irene, and raised by her to the Patriarchate of Constantinople; and although the Council was assembled at Nice, that ambitious Priest took precedence of the Legates of Adrian. None of the Eastern Patriarchs were present, but there were two Monks of Palestine, John and Thomas, who assumed the names of two of those Patriarchs. There are said to have been at least three hundred and fifty Bishops present, but none of the Eastern Church, and none also of the Western who had signalized themselves by opposition to Idolatry. In this assembly the Imperial laws concerning Idolatry were abrogated; the decrees of the Council of Constantinople were reversed; the worship of Images and of the Cross was restored; and severe punishments were denounced against those who maintained that God was the only object of Religious veneration.

Idolatry restored.

A middle course

some

In the violent contests between the Iconoduli and the Iconomachæ, most of the Latins, as the Britons, adopted by Germans, and Gauls, seemed to take a middle course. Churches. They were of opinion that Images might be lawfully retained in the Churches for the purpose of exciting devotion, but they regarded all Image worship as highly injurious and offensive to the Supreme Being. Such was the opinion of Charlemagne, who took a The Four decisive part in this controversy. By the advice of his Bishops, he caused some eminent Theologiant to compose Four Books concerning Images, which he sent to Adrian,‡ with a view of engaging him to withdraw his approbation from the IId Nicene Council. In this performance the arguments for Idolatry were accurately examined, and ably refuted. Adrian, however, was resolved not to leave the cause undefended, and he composed an answer to the Four Books of Charlemagne.§

Books of Charlemagne.

A. D. 794.

Council at The Emperor at length adopted a better way of Francfort. settling the dispute than that of prolonging a controversy with the Pontiff. A Synod was called by Charlemagne at Francfort for the double purpose of settling the Adoptian or Felician controversy; and of examining the question of Image worship. Not less than three hundred Bishops were present, collected from France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Britain, to whom must be IId Nicene added the Legates of Adrian. In this Synod, the decrees of the IId Nicene Council were condemned, and

Council condemned.

every kind of adoration of Images was declared to be superstitious and impious. The opinions contained in the Four Books of Charlemagne were confirmed.

It is called by Spanheim Conciliabulum Nicenum. Alcuin, the Preceptor of Charlemagne, has been supposed to have had a considerable share in the composition of the Four Books, although he was at this time in England. The Books of Charlemagne were published at Hanover in 1731, with a Preface by August. Heuman.

They were presented to Adrian by Engilbert, the ambassador of Charlemagne.

Dupin, Eccl. Hist. Cent. viii. His answer to Charles was tame and insipid

From the decrees of this Council it may be concluded, Heresies! that the Western Churches sometimes dissented from of the VIIth and VIIIth the Roman Pontiff. The Caroline Books not only Centuries. condemned all Image worship, but reprehended the flattering addresses of the Grecian Bishops to Adrian. The de Though they allowed the primacy of the Church of crees of St. Peter, yet they denied that implicit faith was to be the Roman yielded to the decrees of the Romish Pontiffs. And it Pontiff does not appear that Adrian required an unqualified implicitly submission, for, notwithstanding the Council of Franc- followed. fort, there was no interruption of harmony between the Pope and the Emperor.

CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE

EUCHARIST.

Some writers date the origin of this great question from the VIIIth Century, and assert that it had a connection with the controversy on Image worship. It was disputed whether the Symbols used in the Eucharist were only a representation and figure of the body and blood of Christ, or whether they underwent a supernatural change into his real body and blood. The Iconomachi in the Council of Constantinople convened by Copronymus, having recited the words of the Nicene Council, that the bread consecrated in the Eucharist is the true image or type of Christ, added this explanation: That the Eucharistical bread, by the consecration of the Priest, becomes holy,† but without any transubstantiation, or destruction of its former substance.

The Iconoduli asserted a contrary opinion, that the bread and wine are not the image or type of the body and blood of Christ, but actually his body and blood. They become so by a change of substance, or transubstantiation. §

CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE DERI

VATION OF THE HOLY GHOST.

were not

While the controversy concerning Images was at its height, a new contest arose among the Latins and Latins affirmed that the Divine Spirit proceeded both Greeks about the procession of the Holy Ghost. The from the Father and the Son; the Greeks denied this, and affirmed that he proceeded from the Father only. The question was agitated in the Council of Gentilli, Synod of near Paris, called by Pepin at the request of Coprony- Gentilli. mus. The Latins adduced in favour of their opinion the Creed of Constantinople; but the Greeks accused the Latins of having corrupted this Creed by an interpolation. The Synod at Gentilli was principally called on the question of Image worship, and therefore this was a subordinate dispute. Another Synod at Frejus, Synod a convened for the purpose of suppressing the Adoptian Frejus. Heresy, took cognizance of this dispute on the procession of the Holy Ghost.

It was there determined against the Greeks that the Holy Ghost proceeded both from the Father and the Son.

* Adrian died in 795, the year after the Council of Francfort. + Εω τοῦ κοινοῦ προς το ἁγίον.

Johannes Damascenus an antagonist ur the Iconomachi, has this passage. Οὐκ ἔστι τύπος ὁ ἄρτος καὶ οἶνος, ἀλλὰ ἐπὶ Φοιτήσεως τοῦ Πνεύματος ἀγιού υπερφυώς μεταποιούνται εἰς τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οὐκ εισι δύο, ἀλλ' ἕν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ. Joh. Damascenus de Orthodox. Fide, lib. iv. c. 14.

§ Μετουσίωσιν.

A. D. 767.

A. D 791

From

A. D. 814.

to

A. D.

$88. fouth of Louis le

History. THE great Empire rather constructed than consolidated by the genius of Charlemagne, was peaceably transmitted to his son Louis; who is known in History more generally by the title le Debonnaire, conferred on him by his French subjects, than by that of Pius which he received from the Italians. His reign might have been less turbulent and less unhappy, had he not been too largely gifted with the gentle qualities, the possession of which those names avouch. From his birth he was Debonnaire, invested with the title of King of Aquitaine; and when ripening into manhood, the conduct of numerous expeditions against the long and pertinacious rebellion of the Gascons, or the fierce opposition of the Moorish Tribes on the Ebro, were intrusted to his care. Hitherto that mild and flexible temper, which ultimately degenerated into weakness, had manifested itself only in acts of kindness and affability; and the personal valour in which he never was wanting in the field, and which he especially exhibited at the siege and capture of Barcelona from the Saracens, combined with his urbanity to secure for him unalloyed popularity.

Tis super

tition.

A. D.

814.

is acces nand

forms.

To these generous and noble qualities was unfortunately appended a narrow, superstitious zeal, more fitted for the Tonsure than for the Crown. When unoccupied by the necessary duties of the Camp his hours were wholly devoted to the services of the Cloister; and a Prince born to wield the Sovereignty of the Western Empire was more than once prevented, not without difficulty, from adopting the habit and the profession, together with the manuers and the fanaticism of a Recluse. Far, however, from diminishing the attachment of the Nations whose sway devolved upon him by the death of Charlemagne, this mistaken and ill-directed enthusiasm seemed, in the first instance, but another tie by which he was linked more strongly to their hearts; and his progress from Toulouse to Aix la Chapelle, to take possession of his Crown, was every where attended by unequivocal marks of popular joy.

Notwithstanding the dazzling splendour which environed the Government of Charlemagne, many and great indeed were the abuses which demanded reform from his successor. Uninterrupted wars of long continuance had planted round his throne a host of military Chieftains, under whose exactions Liberty had become almost wholly extinguished; and not only had the burdens of the peasants been insupportably aggravated, but even those freemen in the Provinces, whose resources were too scanty to resist the force or fraud of their more powerful neighbours, had in many instances embraced a voluntary servitude: in order that they might obtain

From

A. D.

814.

to

A. D. 888.

the dubious patronage of an acknowledged superior, Carlovin instead of continuing exposed to the certain enmity of gian one nominally their equal. Relief was to be adminis- Empire. tered to this suffering class. The gross dissoluteness also of the Court of Charles could not but prove most offensive to the staid and exact morals of his son; and the first cares of Louis were accordingly directed to the purification of the Palace. Seven daughters of the late Emperor and five of his deceased son Pepin, had lived in compulsory celibacy, and in community of habits and apartments with the numerous Imperial mistresses; and neither the beauty nor the consanguinity of his sisters or of his nieces was allowed by Louis to plead against the unmeasured scandal of their licentiousness. A sentence far more severe than that inflicted upon his female relatives awaited their minions. All of these were pronounced guilty of high treason, both "for the enormity of their offence, and for the arrogance which it discovered;" but punishment was remitted to most of them. Nor till one, bolder than his companions, resisted arrest, and slew the Officer who was commissioned to apprehend him, did Louis manifest an inclination to exact any rigid penalty. Unable to take vengeance upon that chief criminal, who had perished in the affray, he ordered the eyes of another offender, whom he had already pardoned, to be plucked out, and the remainder to be either banished or imprisoned.

At the States Gene. al, which he immediately couvoked, Louis proposed many salutary measures, and despatched into the Provinces new Imperial Deputies, or Missi Dominici as they were termed, to hear and adjust causes. To the Saxons he restored the right of inheritance, of which they had been unjustly deprived by Charlemagne, and by thus wisely placing them on a level with his other subjects he secured their permanent fidelity. Nor was he less successful in the outset of his foreign policy than in these domestic arrangements. An expedition despatched to support the pretensions of Harald, who had been compelled to abandon the throne of Jutland, was signally victorious; and Louis doubtless esteemed as far more honourable than this success in arms, a pacific triumph, which he obtained a few years Baptism of afterwards, over the idolatrous blindness of the Monarch Harald the to whom he had thus extended the protection of his Dane. sword. Harald, with his Queen and a large train of Danish Chieftains, was presented by the Emperor at the font of the Church of St. Alban's in Mayence; and there made a solemn profession of the Christian Faith, renouncing" the works and words of the Devil, of Thor, and Woden, and Saxonodin, with all the evil Spirits

3 K

A. D. $26.