Virgil, with a few companions from Ireland, one of whom was a priest—Sidonius or Sedna—arrived in France about the year A.D. 741—the year in which Charles Martel died, and was succeeded in his office of mayor of the palace by the famous Pepin le Bref, father of the still more renowned Charlemagne. Virgil spent some two or three years in the Court of Pepin, who sent him, about A.D. 743, with strong letters of recommendation to the Court of Ottilo, Duke of Bavaria. At this period Bavaria had been partially converted to the faith, by the zealous labours of St. Boniface, the apostle of Germany, afterwards Archbishop of Mentz and Legate of the Apostolic See. Much, however, still remained to be done; and it was the wish of Pepin that Duke Ottilo should avail himself of the services of the two Irish priests, of whose zeal and learning he had ample proofs in the conversion of his own half-Christian subjects. The duke received the friends of Pepin with much consideration; for he seems to have kept them near himself, and entrusted them with his confidence, as we may fairly infer from subsequent events.
The zeal of the Irishmen, however, soon got them into trouble; but what was a source of trouble to them has since proved a useful lesson to all theologians of the Church.
Many of the priests of the period in Germany were by no means learned; so it happened that one of them when baptizing a catechumen made use of this form:—“Ego te baptizo in nomine Patria et Filia et Spiritua Sancta”—which even a boy learning the Latin Grammar can perceive is very different from the orthodox form. The case was referred to Boniface, who declared that the baptism was invalid, and ordered those so baptized to be baptized again. Virgil and his friend, Sidonius, afterwards Archbishop of Bavaria, knew how jealous the Church has always been about re-baptizing those once validly baptized; and they declared that in their opinion the baptism in question was valid. Boniface, however, persisted in his opinion. He was, as he himself says, an Englishman from Saxonia transmarina—and though it is highly probable that he was of Irish origin, he did not wish to accept the teaching of the Irish theologians on this occasion. So the matter was referred to Rome; and it so happened that Pope Zachary, a Calabrian Greek, and a man, too, of great learning and holiness, then filled the Chair of St. Peter. His decision, sent by letter to Boniface, declares distinctly that if the minister of the sacrament, through ignorance of Latin, and not from any heretical purpose of introducing a new form, pronounced the words as given above, the baptism must be held to be valid.[416]
This clear and emphatic expression of Catholic doctrine, as every theological student knows, we owe to Virgil and Sidonius. They rightly deemed that this error in the form was not substantial but accidental; it was not introduced from malice, with a view to pervert the form of the sacrament, but from ignorance; the priest evidently had the intention of doing what the Church does; he corrupted the integrity of the form, but it remained perfectly intelligible to any bystander acquainted with the Latin language, and hence the baptism itself was valid.
Boniface yielded prompt obedience to the Apostolic See, but, although a saint and martyr, he felt sore at the victory gained over him by the Irish strangers,[417] who intruded into his spiritual domain, and seemed to supplant him in favour with the Duke Otillo. And, no doubt, there were not wanting interested parties who strove to foment dissensions between these two saints and servants of God. No one, indeed, who knows the history of Boniface, will endorse the spiteful remark of Basnage that he was—“Vir si quis unquam superbus sive zelotes.” But he was human like others, and his own letters clearly showed that he felt keenly the victory of Virgil. He waited, however, for a while, and then sent a friend of his, Buchardus of Wirzburg, to Rome with letters for the Pope, in which he brought four serious charges against Virgil. He accused him, as we know from the Pope’s answer, first, that this Virgil was making malicious accusations against him, Boniface, because he had been convicted by Boniface of teaching erroneous doctrine;[418] secondly, Boniface charged him with whispering false things to the Duke, with a view of sowing dissension between him, Boniface, and the Duke;[419] thirdly, he accused Virgil of giving out that he was dismissed by the Pope from Rome,[420] in order to get one of the four bishoprics of Bavaria just then vacant. Lastly, he brings against him the most formidable charge of all, that Virgil taught that there was another world, and other men under the earth, and another sun and moon.[421] And, in the same letter, Boniface complains that a certain Samson, an Irishman—“genere Scottus”—erred from the way of truth, teaching that a man could become a Christian merely by the imposition of hands, without baptism. Clearly Boniface was hard on the Irishmen then in Bavaria; and the whole tone of the letter shows that he had not forgotten his previous contest with Virgil and Sidonius.
The Pope in his answer deals with these charges with the greatest prudence. He had very great respect for Boniface, but it is clear he is not prepared to accept all his statements without proof. He makes no special remark on the two first charges, for they could be easily explained. But, as to the third, he declares that the alleged statement of Virgil is false, that he was not (absolutus) dismissed, or sent home by the Pope in order to get a bishopric in Bavaria. Indeed, as to this charge, there is no evidence that Virgil was ever in Rome at all; but it is highly probable that both Pepin and Ottilo were anxious for his advancement to a See in Bavaria, and that their zeal was attributed to the time-serving ambition of Virgil himself. The charge is entirely inconsistent with his character; and it is hardly necessary to observe that it is no proof of its truth that it was made in these letters sent to Rome by Boniface. Too many unfounded charges of the kind have been made in Rome both since and before.
As regards the fourth charge, that of teaching that there was another world, and other men, and another sun and moon, it deserves fuller notice at our hands.
It is clear that Virgil held the doctrine of the Antipodes, and that Boniface, not unwilling to find him erring in doctrine, formulated his teaching as above. The words of the Pope thereupon are noteworthy.[422] “Concerning this charge of false doctrine, if it shall be established,” says the Pope, “that Virgil taught this perverse and wicked doctrine against God and his own soul, do you then convoke a council, degrade him from the priesthood, and drive him from the Church.” But what is this doctrine as represented to the Pope? Certainly not that taught by Virgil, and which he learned in the schools of his native land. The doctrine censured by the Pope, was that there is another world, and another race of men quite different from us, not children of Adam, and hence not redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ. This was the sense in which the Pope understood the doctrine of the Antipodes, this was the sense in which it was understood by St. Augustine, and for that reason reprobated by him as well as by the Pope. And the very words, in which the accusation against Virgilius is formulated, clearly point to this “perverse and wicked” teaching. The truth of the matter was, that neither Boniface nor the Pope knew astronomy as well as Virgil, and hence they imagined he taught doctrines which were quite different from his real opinions.
It is well to observe that great diversity of opinion prevailed concerning the existence of Antipodes, both amongst the ancient philosophers and the Fathers of the Church.
Plato is said to have been the first who held the existence of Antipodes, and used the word in its present signification. But there is no evidence that he himself believed in their actual existence, even though he invented the term which so accurately describes them.