I 121. GOTTSCHALK AND HINCMAR. 529
of eye-witnesses, he was scourged "most atrociously" and " nearly to death," until half dead he threw his book, which contained the proofs of his doctrine from the Scriptures and the fathers, into the fire. It is a relief to learn that St. Kemigius, archbishop of Lyons, expressed his horror at the " unheard of impiety and cruelty" of this treatment of the miserabilis monachus, as Gottschalk is often called by his friends.
Iii his lonely prison at Hautvilliers, the condemned monk composed two confessions, a shorter and a longer one, in which he strongly re-asserted his doctrine of a double predestination. He appealed to Pope Nicolas, who seems to have had some sympathy with him, and demanded a reinvestigation, which, however, never took place. He also offered, in reliance on the grace of God, to undergo the fiery ordeal before the king, the bishops and monks, to step successively into four cauldrons of boiling water, oil, fat and pitch, and then to walk through a blazing pile; but nobody could be found to accept the chal lenge. Hincmar refused to grant him in his last sickness the communion and Christian burial, except on condition of full recantation.1 Gottschalk scorned the condition, died in his un shaken faith, and was buried in unconsecrated soil after an imprisonment of twenty years (868 or 869).
He had the courage of his convictions. His ruling idea of the unchangeableness of God reflected itself in his inflexible conduct. His enemies charged him with vanity, obstinacy, and strange delusions. Jesuits (Sirmond, Peteau, Cellot) condemn him and his doctrine; while Calvinists and Jansenists (Ussher Hottinger, Mauguin) vindicate him as a martyr to the truth.
ITefele, IV. 142 sqq. Hefele doubts, with plausible reason, the concluding sentence of the synod, in which Gottschalk is condemned to everlasting silence.
1 Gottschalk had provoked him by his disregard of episcopal authority, and by the charge of Sabellianism for altering "trina Deilax," in a church hymn, into " summa Deitas." Hincmar charged him in turn with Arianism, but the word to which he had objected, retained its place in the Gallican service.
530 FOUKTH PEKIOD. A. D. 590-1049.
§ 122. T/ie Contending Theories on -Predestination, and the Victory of Semi-Augustinianism.
During the imprisonment of Gottschalk a lively controversy was carried on concerning the point in dispute, which is very creditable to the learning of that age, but after all did not lead to a clear and satisfactory settlement. The main question was whether divine predestination or foreordination which all ad mitted as a necessary element of the Divine perfection, was ab solute or relative; in other words, whether it embraced all men and all acts, good and bad, or only those who are saved, and such acts as God approves and rewards. This question necessa rily involved also the problem of the freedom of the human will, and the extent of the plan of redemption. The absolute predestinarians denied, the relative predestinarians affirmed, the free dom of will and the universal import of Christ's atoning death.
The doctrine of absolute predestination was defended, in sub stantial agreement with Gottschalk, though with more modera tion and caution, by Prudentius, Bishop of Troves, Ratramnus, monk of Corbie, Servatus Lupus, Abbot of Ferri£res, and Remigius, Archbishop of Lyons, and confirmed by the Synod of Valence, 855, and also at Langres in 859.
The doctrine of free will and a conditional predestination was advocated, in opposition to Gottschalk, by Archbishop Rabanus Maurus of Mainz, Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims. and Bishop Pardulus of Laon, and confirmed at a synod of Chiersy, 853, and in part again at Savonnieres, near Toul, in 859.
A third theory was set forth by John Scotus Erigena, intended against Gottschalk, but was in fact still more against the ortho dox view, and disowned by both parties.
I. The doctrine of an ABSOLUTE and TWO-FOLD PREDESTI NATION.
Gottschalk professed to follow simply the great Augustin. This is true; but he gave undue disproportion to the tenet of predes tination, and made it a fundamental theological principle, inse-