Page:Illustrations of the history of medieval thought and learning.djvu/57

Rh might take the form, as we have seen hitherto, of their claiming powers which really belong to God. It was none the less superstition to postulate the intervention of Clod in cases where human judgement alone was necessary. For men to disregard the evidence of ascertained facts, and to call for perpetual miracles at their behest (Lib. de divinis sententiis digest. contra damnabilem opinionem putantium divini iudicii veritatem igni vel aquis vel conflictu armorum patefieri, ii. p. 301 E.) was impiety of the worst kind, making God in fact the servant of man. It is this argument, supported by copious citations from the Scriptures, that Agobard alleges against the popular customs of ordeal by fire or water and of wager of battle. Of the two usages the ordeal was discouraged (Capit. Wormat., a. 829, Pertz, legg. I. 352 § 12.) and prohibited by the emperor; and Agobard may have deemed it unworthy of serious argument. He applies his forces mainly to the exposure of the wrong - nex, not lex, (Lib. adv. leg. Gund. xi. p. 266 C.) - involved in the test of combat. The ordeal indeed was destitute of any feature except the superstitious, while combat, as Hallam observes (Middle ages, 3. 294, ed. 1872.), might be held to be partly redeemed by 'the natural dictates of resentment in a brave man unjustly accused, and the sympathy of a warlike people with the display of skill and intrepidity.' At Lyons, the old Burgundian capital, the 'wager of battle,' resting as it did on a law of the Burgundian king Gundobad, is thought to have been resorted to (Gfrörer 3. 751.) with peculiar frequency. (Lib. adv. leg. Gundob. vii. p. 265 C.) Agobard addressed one of his two treatises on the subject to the emperor and implored him to suppress the evil. (De div. sent. v. p. 302 B.) He urged not only the religious objections,