§ 90. SCHOLARSHIP AND THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE.[252]
With the exception of Ulfilas’ famous efforts, the Arian period of
German church history is quite barren in scientific performances. Yet
those few who preserved and fostered the scientific gains of earlier
times were honoured and made use of by the noble-minded Ostrogoth king
Theodoric, and under him Boethius [Boëthius] and Cassiodorus (§ 47, 23)
performed the praiseworthy task of saving the remnants of classical
and patristic learning. For Spain the same office was performed by
Isidore of Seville, who died in A.D. 636, whose text-books continued
for centuries, even on this side the Pyrenees, to supply the groundwork
of scholarly studies. The numerous Scottish and Irish monasteries
maintained their reputation down to the 9th century for eminent piety
and distinguished scholarship. Among the Anglo-Saxons the learned Greek
monk Theodore of Tarsus, who died in A.D. 690, and his companion Hadrian,
enkindled an enthusiasm for classical studies, and the venerable Bede,
who died in A.D. 735, though he never quitted his monastery, became
the most famous teacher in all the West, The Danish pirates did indeed
crush almost to extinction the seeds of Anglo-Saxon culture, but Alfred
the Great sowed them anew, though this revival was only for a little
while. In Gaul Gregory of Tours, who died in A.D. 595, was the last
representative of Roman ecclesiastical learning. After him we enter
upon a chaos without form and void, from which the creative spirit of
Charlemagne first called a new day which spread over the whole West its
enlightening beams. This light, however, was put out even by the time of
the great emperor’s grandson, and then we suddenly pass into the night
of the _Sæculum Obscurum_ (§ 100).
§ 90.1. =Rulers of the Carolingian Line.=--=Charlemagne=,
A.D. 768-814, may be regarded as beginning his scientific
undertakings on his first entrance into Italy in A.D. 774.
On this occasion he came to know the scholars Peter of Pisa,
Paul Warnefrid, Paulinus of Aquileia, and Theodulf of Orleans,
and brought them to his palace. From A.D. 782, however, the
particularly brilliant star of his court was the Anglo-Saxon
scholar Alcuin, whom Charles had met in Italy in the previous
year. Scientific studies were now carried on in an exceedingly
vigorous manner in the palace. The royal family, the whole court
and its surroundings engaged upon them, but of them all Charles
himself was the most diligent and successful of Alcuin’s students.
In the royal school, _Schola palatina_, which was ambulatory
like the royal residence itself, the sons and daughters of the
king with the children of the most distinguished families of
the land received a high-class education. The teaching staff
was constantly recruited from England, Ireland and Italy. After
such preparations Charles issued in A.D. 787 a circular to all
the bishops and abbots of his kingdom which enjoined under threat
of his severe royal displeasure that schools should be erected in
all monasteries and cathedral churches. Meanwhile his endeavours
were most successful, but were rather one-sided in the preference
given to classical and patristic literature, without a proper
national foundation. Charles’s great and generous nature indeed
had a warm interest in national culture, but those around him,
with the single exception of Paul Warnefrid, had in consequence
of their Latin monkish training lost all taste for German thought,
language and nationality, and fearing lest such studies might
endanger Christianity and cause a relapse into paganism, they
did not help but rather hindered the king’s effort to promote
a national literature.--=Louis the Pious=, A.D. 814-840, had his
weak government disturbed by the strifes of parties and of the
citizens. This period, therefore, was not specially favourable
to the development of scientific studies, but the seed sown by
his father still bore noble fruit. His son Lothair issued an
ordinance which gave a new organization to the educational system
of Italy, indeed created it anew. But Italy restless and full of
factions was the land where least of all such institutions could
be successfully conducted. A new golden age, however, dawned
for France under =Charles the Bald=, A.D. 840-877. His court
resembled that of his great grandfather in having gathered to
it the élite of scholars from all the West. The royal school
gained new renown under the direction of _Joannes Scotus Erigena_.
The cathedral and monastic schools of France vied with the most
famous institutions of Germany (St. Gall, Fulda, Reichenau, etc.),
and over the French episcopal sees men presided who had the most
distinguished reputation for scholarship. But after Charles’s
death the bloom of the Carolingian period passed away with almost
inconceivable rapidity amid the commotions of the time into thick
darkness, chaos and barbarism.
§ 90.2. =The most distinguished Theologians of the
Pre-Carolingian Age.=
1. In Merovingian France flourished =Gregory of Tours=,
sprung of a good Roman family. When in A.D. 573, in
order to get cured of an illness, he made a pilgrimage
to the tomb of St. Martin (§ 47, 14), he had the bishopric
of Tours conferred upon him, where he continued till his
death in A.D. 595. His _Historia Ecclesiastica Francorum_
in ten Bks. affords us the only exact and trustworthy
information we possess of the Merovingian age. The
_Ll. VII. Miraculorum_ are a collection of several
hagiographic writings, four of them recounting some
of the innumerable miracles of St. Martin.
2. Scientific studies were prosecuted more vigorously on the
other side of the Pyrenees than on this. In the empire of
the Suevi (§ 76, 4) archbishop =Martin of Braccara=, now
Braga, distinguished himself in the work of Catholicising
the Arian population. He was previously abbot of the
monastery of Dumio, and died about A.D. 580. He was a
voluminous writer on church law and also in the departments
of moral and ascetical theology. His writings in the latter
section have so much in common with those of Seneca that
they were at one time ascribed to the Roman moralist. The
treatise _De Correctione Rusticorum_ is very important for
the history of the morals, legal institutions and culture
of that period.--The great star of the Spanish Visigothic
kingdom was =Isidorus [Isidore] Hispalensis=, who died
in A.D. 636. He was descended from a distinguished Gothic
family, and, as successor of his brother Leander, rose to
the archbishopric of Seville (Hispalis). His writings are
diligent compilations, which have preserved to us many
fragments and items of information otherwise unknown.
Incomparably greater, however, was the service they rendered
in conveying classical and patristic learning to the German
world of that age. His most comprehensive work consists
of xx. Bks. _Originum s. Etymologiarum_, an encyclopædic
exhibition of the whole field of knowledge of the day. He
also wrote a _Chronicon_ reaching down to A.D. 627, and
_Hist. de regibus Gotorum_, a shorter _Hist. Vandalorum
et Suevorum_, and a continuation of Jerome’s _Catalogus
de viris illustr_. Of more importance than his numerous
compilations of mystico-allegorical expositions of Scripture
are the iii. Bks. _Sententiarum_, a well-arranged system of
doctrine and morals from patristic passages, especially from
Augustine and Gregory the Great, and the _Lb. II. de ecclest.
officiis_. The two last-named works were highly prized
as text-books throughout the Middle Ages. The two books
_Contra Judæos_ belong to the department of apologetics.
He also composed a monastic rule (comp. further § 87, 1
and 88, 1).--Isidore’s elder brother =Leander of Seville=,
who died in A.D. 590, had a good reputation as a church
leader (§ 76, 2; 88, 1), and had no insignificant rank
as a theological writer. The same may be said of the two
bishops of Toledo, =Ildefonsus=, who died in A.D. 669, and
=Julianus=, who died in A.D. 690.
3. England’s greatest and most famous teacher was the
Anglo-Saxon, the =Venerable Bede=. Trained in the monastery
of Wearmouth, he subsequently took up his residence in
the monastery of Jarrow, where he died in A.D. 735. He
was a proficient in all the sciences of his time and
withal a model of humility, piety and amiability. While
his numerous pupils reached the highest places in the
service of the church, their famous teacher continued
in quiet retirement as a simple monk. He himself wished
nothing else. Even on his deathbed he continued unweariedly
to teach and write. Immediately before his death he
dictated the last chapter of an Anglo-Saxon translation
of the Gospel of John. By far his most important work
for us is the _Hist. ecclest. gentis Anglorum_ in 5 Bks.
reaching down to A.D. 731 (Engl. Transl. by Giles, Lond.,
1840; and by Gidley, Lond., 1871). Connected with this are
his biographies of several saints of his native land, also
a history of the monastery of Wearmouth, and a _Chronicon
de sex ætatibus mundi_ reaching down to A.D. 729. His
commentaries ranging over almost all the books of the Old
and New Testament give evidence of a wonderful knowledge
of the fathers. His numerous sermons are mostly exegetical
and practical, rarely doctrinal. He was distinguished too
as a poet in Latin as well as in his mother tongue.
§ 90.3. =The most distinguished Theologians of the Age of
Charlemagne.=
1. The brightest star in the theological firmament of this
period was the Anglo-Saxon =Alcuin= (Albinus) with the
Horatian surname of Flaccus, which he got for his poetical
productions. He was educated in the famous school of York
under Egbert and Elbert. When the latter was made archbishop
in A.D. 766, Alcuin undertook the presidency of the schools.
While on a visit to Rome in A.D. 781 he met Charlemagne who
took him to his court, where he became the emperor’s teacher,
friend and most trusted counsellor. Down to his death in
A.D. 804 he was the king’s right hand in all religious
ecclesiastical and educational matters. In order to allay
a feeling of home-sickness, he undertook a journey in
A.D. 789 to his native country as ambassador of Charlemagne,
returned in A.D. 793, and did not again quit France. In
A.D. 796 Charles gave him the abbacy of Tours. He soon
raised its monastic school to the highest rank as a seminary
of learning. His exegetical works are mere compilations. The
_Ll. II. de fide s. et Individuæ Trinitatis_ may be regarded
as his dogmatic masterpiece; a compendium of dogmatics based
upon Augustine’s writings. The _Quæstiones de Trin._ treat
of the same matter in the catechetical form of question and
answer. He contributed to the doctrinal controversies of his
time the _Libellus de processione Spiritus S._ (§ 91, 2) and
by several learned controversial tracts against the leaders
of the Adoptionists (§ 91, 1). It is doubtful whether at all,
and if so to what extent, he had to do with the composition
of the _Libri Carolini_ (§ 94, 1) which appeared during his
stay in England. His numerous epistles, about 300 in number,
are very important for the history of his times. In his
Latin poems he sometimes very happily imitates his classical
models.[253]
2. =Paulus Diaconus= or Paul (the son of) Warnefrid, of
an honourable Longobard family, was next to Alcuin the
most distinguished scholar of his age. Probably sorrow
at the overthrow of his people (§ 82, 2) drove him into
the monastery of Monte Cassino; but Charlemagne took
him to his court in A.D. 782, where he was an object
of admiration as a Homer among the Grecians, a Virgil,
Horace, Tibullus, among the Latinists, and a Philo (!)
among the Hebraists. Love of his native land, however,
led him back to his monastery in A.D. 786, where he died
at a very advanced age in A.D. 795. What was specially
praiseworthy in this learned and amiable man, all the more
that few then took interest in those matters, was love and
enthusiasm for the language, the national legends and heroic
tales, the old laws and customs of his fellow-countrymen.
His most important work is the _Historia s. de Gestis
Langobardorum_ in 6 bks., reaching down to A.D. 774. The
earlier _Hist. Romana_, composed at the wish of a daughter
of king Desiderius, is, so far as its earlier periods are
concerned, compiled from the classical historians, but for
the later periods down to the overthrow of the Gothic rule
is more independent. At the Frankish court he composed the
_Hist. Episcoporum Mettensium_. He was also distinguished
as a poet. On his _Homiliarius_ comp. § 88, 1.[254]
3. =Theodulf, bishop of Orleans=, distinguished as a Christian
poet and learned theologian, and especially as a promoter
of popular education, stood in high repute with Charlemagne,
but under Louis the Pious, being suspected of treasonable
correspondence with Bernard of Italy, was deposed and
banished in A.D. 818. Subsequently, however, he was
pardoned and recalled, but died in A.D. 821 before he
reached his diocese. His book _De Spiritu S._ was a
contribution to the controversy about the procession
of the Holy Spirit (§ 91, 2). At Charlemagne’s request
he described and explained the baptismal ceremony in the
book _De ordine baptismi_. His numerous poems have been
published in 6 bks.
4. =Paulinus=, patriarch of Aquileia, who died in A.D. 804,
and bishop =Leidrad of Lyons=, who died in A.D. 813, took
part in Alcuin’s controversy against the Adoptionists by
the publication of able treatises.
5. Of the works of =Hatto=, abbot of Reichenau, subsequently
bishop of Basel, who died in A.D. 836, we still have
the so-called _Capitulare Hattonis_, with prefatory
directions for the official guidance of the Basel clergy,
and the _Visio Wettini_, describing the vision of a monk
of Reichenau called Wettin, who in A.D. 824 three days
before his death was conducted by an angel through hell,
purgatory and paradise. Hatto wrote it in prose and Walafrid
Strabo rendered it into verse. It made a great impression
on his contemporaries and was probably not without influence
upon Dante’s _Divina Comediá_.
§ 90.4. =The most distinguished Theologians of the Age of Louis
the Pious.=
1. =Agobard of Lyons=, a Spaniard by birth, died as
archbishop of Lyons in A.D. 840. As the resolute defender
of the integrity of the empire and the head of the national
church party among the Frankish clergy, he was drawn into
a conspiracy against Louis the Pious in A.D. 833 (§ 82, 4),
which led to his deposition and banishment in A.D. 835.
After two years, however, he was pardoned. He was a man
of remarkable culture and extraordinary force of character,
and withal a vigorous opponent of all ecclesiastical and
extra-ecclesiastical superstition. On his writings referring
to these matters see § 92, 2. In the book _Adv. dogma
Felicis_ he contended against Adoptionism (§ 91, 1). In
connection with his battle against the insolence and pride
of the numerous and wealthy Jews in his diocese he wrote and
dedicated to the emperor the accusatory tract _De insolentia
Judæorum_, followed by several similar addresses to the
most influential councillors of the crown. Another series
of writings from his pen was devoted to the vindication
of the attitude which he had assumed in the struggle
between Louis the Pious and his sons. Several treatises
on the position and task, the rights and duties of the
ministerial office show a reformatory tendency. He engaged
in a passionate controversy with Amalarius of Metz about
the necessity of a liturgical reform. Against Fredigis of
Tours, Alcuin’s successor, he maintained the view regarding
the prophets and apostles that the Holy Spirit _non solum
sensum prædicationis et modos vel argumenta dictionum
inspiraverit, sed etiam ipsa corporalia verba extrinsecus
in ora illorum ipse formaverit_.
2. =Claudius, bishop of Turin=, who died in A.D. 839, was
also a Spaniard by birth and a scholar of Felix of Urgel
(§ 91, 1), without, however, imbibing his heretical views.
He was throughout his whole career a zealous and determined
reformer. His reformatory notions were set forth first
of all in his exegetical works that covered almost the
whole range of Scripture. Of these only the commentary
on Galatians is now extant. He also vindicated his position
against the attacks of his old friend the abbot Theodemir
in his _Apologeticus_ (§ 92, 2).
3. =Jonas of Orleans=, the successor of Theodulf, was one of
the most distinguished prelates of his age, who wrought
earnestly and successfully for the restoring of discipline
and order in his diocese. In the struggle between Louis the
Pious and his sons he resolutely took the side of the old
king. He died in A.D. 844. His three books, _De institutione
laicali_ constitute a handbook of morals for married
persons, which also, because it deals with the sins and
vices that were then rampant, is of value as a picture of
the moral condition of his age. The book _De institutione
regia_, addressed to Louis’ son Pepin, may be regarded
as an appendix to the former treatise. In opposition to
the iconoclastic opinions of Claudius (§ 92, 2) he wrote
_Ll. III. De cultu imaginum_.
4. The principal work of the priest =Amalarius of Metz= is
his _De ecclesiasticis officiis_ in 4 bks., a detailed
description of all the ceremonies of public worship and
the ecclesiastical furniture and vestments, with many
arbitrary mystico-allegorical explanations, which called
forth a crushing rejoinder from Agobard. On his revision
of the rule of Chrodegang, see § 84, 4.
5. From the pen of the German monk =Christian Druthmar= of Old
Corbei we have a commentary on Matthew, which is remarkable
for the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper which it sets forth
(§ 91, 3), as well as for the hermeneutical principle there
laid down, that first and foremost the exegete must secure
a thorough understanding of the historical literal sense,
before he may think of developing the spiritual sense, which
must have the former as its basis.
6. =Rabănus [Rabanus] Magnentius Maurus=, the most
distinguished scholar of his age, was descended from an
old Roman family but one that had long been Germanized at
Mainz. His earliest education was received at the monastery
of Fulda. He then became a pupil of Alcuin at Tours. In
A.D. 803 he became himself a teacher at Tours, and in
A.D. 822 was made abbot of Fulda. After the death of Louis
the Pious he took the side of Lothair against Louis the
German, and was consequently obliged to resign his position
as abbot and to quit Fulda in A.D. 842. Subsequently,
however, he obtained Louis’ favour, and upon Otgar’s
death in A.D. 847 (§ 87, 3) was appointed his successor
in the archiepiscopal see of Mainz. He died in A.D. 856.
The monastic school at Fulda was raised by him to the
highest eminence. His commentaries extending over almost
all the Old and New Testaments are mainly occupied with
the development of the so-called spiritual sense, manifest
wonderful familiarity with the writings of the Latin fathers
from Ambrose to Bede, and were held in the highest esteem
throughout the Middle Ages. The same may be said of his
numerous homilies. The encyclopædic work _De universo_
in 22 bks., is a continuation of Isidore’s _Origines_.
His book _De institutione clericorum_ in 3 bks. affords
a summary of all that was then to be learnt by the clergy
for the practical work of the ministry. The _Tractatus de
diversis quæstionibus ex V. et N. T. contra Judæos_ is an
apologetic treatise. He wrote against Gottschalk’s doctrine
of predestination in a letter to bishop Noting of Verona
(§ 91, 5), and another to the abbot Eigil of Prüm against
Radbert’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper (§ 91, 3). Of his
many other works we may mention a _Martyrologium_ based
upon ancient authorities.
7. =Walafrid Strabo= received his early training in the
monastery of Reichenau. He studied subsequently under
Rabanus at Fulda, in which institution he became a teacher.
About A.D. 842 he was made abbot of Reichenau; the seminary
here he raised to high repute, although he died in his
early prime in A.D. 849. Among his evangelical writings
his so-called _Glossæ ordinariæ_, _i.e._ short explanations
of the Latin text of the Bible, mostly culled from the
commentaries of Rabanus, were extremely popular, and
continued in use throughout the Middle Ages as an exegetical
handbook. In the liturgical department we have his treatise
_De exordiis et incrementis rerum ecclesiasticarum_, in
which he expresses himself on the image controversy in
the spirit of the old Frankish church (§ 92, 1). Walafrid
was also famous as a writer of sacred and secular poems.
§ 90.5. =The Most Distinguished Theologians of the Age of Charles
the Bald.=
1. The powerful metropolitan =Hincmar of Rheims=, who died
in A.D. 882 (§ 82, 7; 83, 2), was not indeed strong in
dogmatics, but in his writings just as well as in his life
and struggle he was heart and soul a church leader and
statesman. His most important work from a theological point
of view is the _Capitula Synodica ad presbyteros parochiæ
suæ_ on various points of worship and discipline, a notable
witness to the zeal and care which this man, so much taken
up with affairs of state and ecclesiastical controversies,
showed in the discharge of his ministerial duties. Of his
writings in connection with the Gottschalk controversy
(§ 91, 5, 6) only the prolix work _De predest. Dei et libero
arbitrio_ vindicating the decrees of Quiersy of A.D. 853 are
now extant.
2. =Paschasius Radbertus=, who died about A.D. 865, was
monk, and, from A.D. 844-851, also abbot of the monastery
of Corbei in Picardy. But among the monks of that place
there was a cotery which occasioned the most profound grief
to the pious-minded abbot; especially the learned monk
Ratramnus under the protection of court favour took delight
in contesting the somewhat ultra-pietistic views of his
abbot. Probably it was this that led Radbertus to resign his
office in A.D. 851. Besides the two treatises controverted
by Ratramnus he composed biblical commentaries, which are
more independent and contain more of his own than was common
at that time. He also wrote 3 bks. on faith, love and hope;
besides several Hagiographies.
3. =Ratramnus=, the antagonist of the former, takes a very
prominent place among the clear and subtle thinkers of that
age. Besides his controversial treatises against Radbertus
(§ 91, 3, 4) and against Hincmar (§ 91, 5, 6), he took part
in the burning controversy between the Greeks and Latins
(§ 67, 1) and wrote, _Contra Græcorum opposita Romanam eccl.
infamantium_.
4. =Florus Magister= was a cleric of the diocese of Lyons
distinguished no less for great learning than for poetic
gifts. His principal work _De actione Missarum, s. expositio
in Canonem Missæ_ is, notwithstanding its title, not so
much a liturgical treatise as a controversial tract against
Radbertus’ doctrine of the Eucharist (§ 91, 3). In the
liturgical controversy between Agobard and Amalarius,
he took the side of Agobard and argued against Amalarius
in several epistles. In the predestinarian controversy
he published the work _Contra J. Scoti Erigenæ erroneas
definitiones_ (§ 91, 5). He also composed a _Martyrologium_.
5. =Haymo, bishop of Halberstadt=, who died in A.D. 853, won
great reputation not only by his compiled exegetical works
and his _Homiliarium_ for the festival part of the year,
but also as author of a Church History, which, however, is
nothing more than a working up of extracts from Rufinus.
6. =Servatus Lupus=, scholar of Rabanus, was from A.D. 842
abbot of Ferrières. His 130 epistles are important for the
history of his time, as he was in constant correspondence
with the most famous men of his day. On the side of
Gottschalk in the predestinarian controversy he wrote
his treatise _De tribus quæstionibus_.
7. =Remigius of Auxerre=, who died about A.D. 908, was
teacher of the monastic school at Rheims, and subsequently
at Paris. Besides numerous commentaries on the books of
the Old and New Testaments in the usual compilatory and
allegorical style, he has left in his _Expositio Missæ_
a mystico-allegorical explanation of the ceremonies of
the mass.
8. =Regius of Prüm=, abbot of the monastery there,
subsequently resigned his rank and retired into the
monastery of Treves. He died in A.D. 915. His _Chronicon_
reaching down to A.D. 906 is of great value for his own
times. His 2 bks. _De cantis synodalibus et disciplinis
ecclesiasticis_ are a directory for the visitation of
churches to be carried out by means of synodical judicatures.
§ 90.6.
9. =Anastasius Bibliothecarius= was abbot of a Roman monastery
and librarian under popes Nicholas I., Hadrian II. and
John VIII., and visited the Byzantine court in A.D. 869
as member of an embassy of Emperor Louis II., and was also
present at the 8th œcumenical Council at Constantinople
(§ 67, 1). He translated the acts of this synod into Latin,
wrote the lives of several saints, and composed a _Hist.
ecclest. s. Chronographia tripartita_ drawn from three
Byzantine historical works of that period. To the _Liber
Pontificalis s. de vitio Roman. pontificum_, reaching down
to the death of Stephen V. in A.D. 891, which has been
ascribed to him, he can only have contributed the _Vita_
of pope Nicholas I., and perhaps also the _Vitæ_ of his
four immediate predecessors. It is a history of the popes
gathered together from various sources that had their
origin at different times, the earliest of which goes back
to A.D. 354. The oldest extant recension of it reaches
down to Pope Conon in A.D. 687, and forms an important
link in the chain of Romish fabrications and interpolations,
by means of which the numerous fabricated acts of Romish
martyrs, as well as already existing fables referring
to particular popes and emperors (comp. _e.g._ § 42, 1),
gained credence, more recently introduced liturgical
practices had assigned to them a more remote antiquity,
and the popes were represented as legislators for the
whole church. The complete biographies often written by
contemporaries preserved in this collection are of great
historical value.
10. =Eulogius of Cordova= was chosen archbishop in A.D. 858,
but was not received by the Moorish government, and suffered
martyrdom in A.D. 859 (§ 81, 1). The most important of his
writings is the historical _Memoriale Sanctorum s. Ll. III.
de Martyrib. Cordubens_. The _Apologeticus Sanctorum_ is a
continuation of the former with violent invectives against
Islam and its false prophet. =Paulas [Paul] Alvarus= of
Cordova, from his youth closely associated with Eulogius,
wrote his life and vindicated in a _Judiculus luminosus_
the tendency to court martyrdom then frequently shown by
Christians but often objected to.
§ 90.7.
11. =Joannes Scotus Erigena=, the miracle as well as the
enigma of his age, by birth probably an Irishman, who
flashed out as a brilliant meteor in the court of Charles
the Bald and passed away from view, without its being known
whence he came or whither he went, was the greatest scholar,
the most profound, subtle and liberal thinker of his times,
with a speculative power the like of which was not seen
for centuries before and after. He died after A.D. 877.
His extant works embrace fragments of his commentary
on the Areopagite (§ 47, 11), and a Latin faithful,
literal and therefore hard to understand translation
of the Areopagite’s writings, also a translation of a
work of Maximus Confessor on difficult passages from
the writings of Gregory Nazianzen (_Loca ambigua_), his
controversial treatise _De prædestinatione_ (§ 91, 5),
a homily on the prologue of John’s gospel, a fragment of
a speculative-mystical treatise _De egressu et regressu
animæ ad Deum_, and the _Opus palmare_ of the author, by
far the most comprehensive of his writings, the 5 bks. _De
divisione naturæ_. Based upon the gnosis of the school of
Origen, but resting mainly on the theosophical mysticism of
the Areopagite and the dialectic of Maximus Confessor, he
produced in this treatise a system of speculative theology
of magnificent dimensions which, in spite of every effort
to hold by the doctrinal position of the church, is but
one piece of heterodoxy from beginning to end. He starts
from the principle that true theology and true philosophy
are only formally different, but essentially identical.
The _Fides_ have to express the truth as _Theologia
affirmativa_ (καταφατική) in the biblically revealed and
ecclesiastically communicated shell, accommodating itself
to the finite understanding by figurative and metaphorical
expressions. But the task of the _Ratio_ is to strip off
this shell (_Theologia negativa_, ἀποφατική), and by means
of speculation raise the faith to knowledge. The title of
this book is to be explained from its fundamental thought
that nature, _i.e._ the sum of all being and non-being, by
which he understands everything the existence of which is
yet unknown, or merely potential, or necessarily belonging
to things past, comprises four forms of existence:--_Natura
creatrix non creata_, _i.e._ God as the potential sum of
all being, _Natura creatrix creata_, _i.e._ the eternal
thoughts of God regarding the world as the eternal primal
types of all creation, _Natura creata non creans_, _i.e._
the world in time as the visible product and sensible
realization of the eternal invisible world of ideas,
and _Natura nee creata nee creans_, _i.e._ God as the
final end of all created being, to whom all creation
when all contradictions have been overcome returns in
the ἀποκατάστασις τῶν πάντων. The Aristotelian threefold
division into the unmoved and moving, the moved and moving,
and the moved and not moving, seems to have afforded
him the starting-point for his fourfold division; while
the divergent conception of them, their enlargement and
development may be traced to Platonic and Neo-Platonic
influences.--That such a system must essentially tend
to pantheism soon became evident, but on the other hand
Erigena’s own Christian consciousness strongly reacted
against the pantheistic current of his thought, and he was
anxiously concerned to preserve the fundamental truths of
Christian Theism. By the fundamental fourfold division of
his system he could not give to the doctrine of the Trinity
a necessary and controlling but only an accidental and
occasional position. Only the presence of this doctrine
in Scripture and tradition obliged him to maintain it.
He speaks indeed of three persons in God, but he uses the
expression only in an improper sense, and has no intention
of explaining Father, Son and Spirit as mere names of
divine relations (_habitudines_, _relationes_): _Pater
vult, Filius facit, Spir. S. perficit_. In the Son as
the creative Word of God are all original causes of
things, undistinguished, unordered; by the Spirit are
they differentiated into the various phenomena and
effects in the kingdom of nature as well as of grace.
On his doctrine of evil, comp. § 91, 5. As Origen has
in himself the germs of all orthodoxy and heterodoxy of
the ancient church undeveloped and uncontrasted, so also
in Erigena are there the germs of the contradictions
of later scholasticism and mysticism. Had he lived
three centuries later he would probably have set the
whole learned world astir, but now he passed unhonoured,
misunderstood, scarcely regarded worth dealing with for
heresy (§ 91, 5), and apparently leaving little trace
behind him. His great work _De divisione naturæ_ was
first condemned by a provincial Council at Sens, and
this judgment was confirmed by Honorius III. in A.D. 1225.
The book was characterized as _Scatens vermibus hæreticæ
pravitatis_; orders were given that it should be sought out
everywhere and burnt.[255]
§ 90.8. =The Monastic and Cathedral Schools= had as their
main task the training of capable servants for the church. The
handbooks mainly in use were those of Cassiodorus, Isidore, Bede,
Alcuin and Rabanus. Great diligence was shown, especially in the
monasteries, in founding libraries and multiplying books by means
of good copies. Alcuin made a threefold division of all sciences;
ethics, physics and theology. Ethics corresponded to what was
afterwards called the Trivium (Grammar, Rhetoric and Dialectic);
Physics to the Quadrivium (Arithmetic, Geometry, Music and
Astronomy). These two together comprehended the whole range
of the seven _free_ arts, _i.e._ worthy of the study of a free
man, liberal studies. Latin was the language of intercourse
and instruction. Greek, which was spread by Theodore of Tarsus,
a Greek monk, who, after being long a teacher in Rome, was in
A.D. 669 made archbishop of Canterbury, and by his pupils was
also taught in the more important schools. Acquaintance with
Hebrew was much more rare, and was often obtained by means
of intercourse with learned Jews. Boethius [Boëthius] was the
vehicle of instruction in philosophy. In the 9th century the works
ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite (§ 47, 11) were sent to
France as a present from the Byzantine emperor Michael to Louis
of France. He was identified with the founder of the church of
Paris of the same name, and patriotic feeling gave an immense
impulse to the study of his writings. The abbot Hildmin of
St. Denys, and subsequently Joannes Erigena, translated them
into Latin. Encyclopædic works, giving compendiums of the whole
range of the sciences then known, were produced by Isidore and
Rabanus.[256]--Continuation, § 99, 3.
§ 90.9. =Various Branches of Theological Science.=--The labours
of the German church in the department of scientific theology was
directed to the church’s immediate needs, and hence the character
of its theology was biblical and practical, and the reputation of
the fathers so extravagantly high, that wherever it was possible,
teaching, preaching, proving and refuting were all carried on in
their very words. Charlemagne’s powerful efforts in the direction
of reform gave even in the department of theology abundant
occasion and encouragement to scholars round about him to a
more independent procedure, and the theological controversies
of the 9th century afforded sufficient scope to independent
thinking.
1. =Exegesis= on the basis of the Vulgate was most diligently
prosecuted. Charlemagne set Alcuin to produce a critical
revision of its very corrupt text. Agobard combated the
mechanical theory of inspiration by the assertion that the
holy prophets were something better than Balaam’s ass. Only
one out of the very numerous exegetes, Christian Druthmar,
recognised it as a first principle, most essential and
necessary, if not the only task of the exegete, to bring
out the grammatical and historical sense of the words
of Scripture. The literal sense was and continued to
be regarded as the scullion of interpretation, while it
was thought that the most precious treasures of Divine
wisdom were to be found in the _allegorical_ sense,
_i.e._ with application to the mysteries of the faith,
the _tropological_ or moral, and the _anagogical_, which
aimed at the elevation of the mind.
2. In =Systematic Theology= Apologetics was most feebly
represented. The humble form of the paganism to be
controverted did not require elaborate defences of the
Christian faith, but the advance of Mohammedanism and the
great number of Jews established in France, especially
under Louis of France, by means of their wealth and bribes,
developed an incredible arrogance. While Jewish and pagan
slaves were not allowed to have baptism, Christian slaves
on the other hand were compelled to observe the Sabbath,
to work on Sunday, to eat flesh on fast days; they openly
blasphemed Christ, insulted the church and sold Christian
slaves to the Saracens. Agobard fought against them
energetically by word, Scripture and action, but the
needy court protected them. Isidore and Rabanus in their
apologetical writings proved the nullity of the Jewish
beliefs. From the time of Charlemagne theologians were
much more eagerly engaged in polemics (§§ 91, 92). Isidore
in his _Ll. III. Sententiarum_ collected from patristic
passages a system of doctrine and morals, which continued
a favourite text-book for centuries. Alcuin’s _Ll. III.
De fide Trinitatis_ form a compendium of dogmatics. The
introduction of the Pseudo-Areopagita into the West prepared
the way for speculative mysticism, which had its first
representative in Joannes Scotus Erigena.
3. In =Practical Theology= homiletical literature was but
poorly represented. Besides the Homiliarius of Paul
Warnefrid (§ 88, 1), we meet with Bede, Walafrid, Rabanus
and Haymo as authors of sermons. On the other hand great
and constant interest was shown in developing a theory of
worship, in describing it and giving a mystical explanation
of it. Isidore with _De officiis ecclesiasticis_ was
the first in this department. Charlemagne set to all his
theologians the task of explaining the baptismal ceremony.
In the time of Louis the Pious, Agobard appears as a
reformer of the liturgy, in connection with which he
passionately contended against Amalarius, against whom
also Florus Magister entered the lists. Important works
in this department were also written by Rabanus, Walafrid
and Remigius. On works treating of church law and church
discipline, see § 87 and § 89, 5.
4. Finally, as to the department of =Historical Theology= all
knowledge of earlier church history was derived from Rufinus
and Cassiodorus. Even Haymo’s Church History is made up
simply of extracts from Rufinus. All the greater diligence
was shown throughout the Middle Ages in chronicling the
ecclesiastical and political events of the immediate
present and also keeping the past in memory. This endeavour
shows itself in a threefold direction. (a) The writing of
=National Chronicles=. The Visigoths had their Isidore, the
Ostrogoths their Cassiodorus,[257] the Longobards their Paul
Warnefrid, the Franks their Gregory of Tours, the Britons
their Gildas[258] and Nennius,[259] the Anglo-Saxons
their Bede.--(b) Then we have the clumsy compilations of
=Annals= and =Chronicles= which most monasteries produced,
and which were continued from year to year.--(c) And
further, =Biographies=, both of distinguished statesmen
and distinguished churchmen. The _Vitæ Sanctorum_ are
innumerable, mostly quite uncritical, composed purely for
the glorification of some local saint. To this category
belong the numerous _Martyrologies_, arranged in the
order of the Calendar. Among the most famous were those
prepared by Bede, Ado of Vienne, Usuardus, Rabanus, Notker
Balbulus, Wandelbert, etc. In the department of historical
biography proper may be included the portion of the
_Liber pontificalis_ belonging to this period, the _Hist.
Mettensium Episcoporum_ of Paul Warnefrid, and Isidore’s
continuation of Jerome’s _Catalogus_, which was further
continued by Ildefonsus of Toledo.
§ 90.10. =Anglo-Saxon Culture under Alfred the Great=,
A.D. 871-901.--Alfred the Great, the greatest and noblest of
all the kings that England has ever had, was the grandson of
Egbert who had united in A.D. 827 the seven Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.
When five years old he received papal anointing at Rome and two
years later in company with his pious father he travelled thence,
made a considerable stay at the brilliant court of Charlemagne
where he received the impress of its superior culture, and
began his reign in A.D. 871 in his 22nd year when the kingdom
was sorely oppressed by Danish invasions. He applied all the
energy of his mind to the difficult problems of government, to
the emancipation and civilization of his country and people by
driving out the Danish robbers, and then improving the internal
condition of the land by attention to agriculture, industry and
trade, by a wise organization, legislation and administration,
by the founding of churches, monasteries and schools, and
by furthering every scientific endeavour from a thoroughly
national point of view. When already thirty-six years of age
he learnt the Latin language and used this acquirement for the
enriching of Anglo-Saxon literature by translations from his
own hand, with many important additions of his own, of Boëthius’
_Consolatio philosophiæ_, the Universal History of Orosius, Bede’s
History of the Church of England and the _Regula pastoralis_ of
Gregory the Great. He also began a translation of the Psalms.
He stimulated his learned friends to a like activity, among whom
bishop Asser of Sherborne in his _Vita Alfredi_ (Engl. transl.
in “Six Old English Chronicles”) has reared a worthy memorial
of his master.[260]--Continuation, § 100, 1.
§ 91. DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES.
The first important heresy that grew up independently on German
soil was Adoptionism. This heresy took its rise at that point in the
development of Christology that was reached by the 6th œcumenical
Council of Constantinople in A.D. 680 (§ 52, 8), for it recognises
the double nature and the double will while denying the double sonship.
Frankish orthodoxy, however, saw in it not a further development of
doctrine, but a relapse into Nestorianism, and so condemned the new
doctrine. During the same period the dogma of the procession of the
Holy Spirit was the subject of lively controversy, and the Frankish
church came forward as defender of Western orthodoxy against the Greeks.
In the Eucharistic controversy the most eminent Frankish theologians
opposed the Transubstantiation doctrine of Balbutus [Balbulus].
A further controversy as to the conception of the Blessed Virgin
was closely connected with the one just referred to. Neither of
them was made the subject of any synodal decision. On the other
hand very definite synodal decisions were passed in reference to the
predestination controversy, without, however, bringing that controversy
by any means to a conclusion. Of subordinate importance was the dispute
over the expression _Trina Deitas_.
§ 91.1. =The Adoptionist Controversy, A.D. 782-799.=--Of all
Christian dogmas none were so offensive to the Moslems as that
of the Trinity which to their barren monotheism necessarily
appeared as Tritheism, and none were the subject of so much scorn
as the idea that God should have a son. It need not, therefore,
surprise us to find that Spanish theologians endeavoured to
put this doctrine in a form as little offensive as possible
to the Moslems. One =Migetius= went so far as to adopt a very
crude form of Sabellianism, for he, undoubtedly approaching
the Mohammedan view of the prophetic order, represented the
Trinitarian development of the one Divine Being as a threefold
historical manipulation of God: in David the person of the
Father is revealed, in Christ as son of David that of the Son,
and finally, in the Apostle Paul that of the Holy Spirit. At
a Spanish synod of A.D. 782 he was successfully opposed by the
archbishop =Elipandus of Toledo=, who took the opportunity of
attempting a further development of the Christological dogma.
This also was more fully elaborated by =Felix of Urgel= in
the Spanish Mark. Both taught: That Christ is properly Son of
God only according to His divine nature (_Filius Dei Naturâ_);
according to His human nature He is properly, like all of us,
a servant of God, and only by the decision of the Divine will
is He adopted as the Son of God (_Filius Dei Adoptivus_), just
as all of us may by Him and after His example be raised from the
condition of servant into the family of God. According to His
Divine nature therefore He is the =Only Begotten=, according to
His human nature the =First Begotten= Son of God. The adoption
of the human nature into Divine Sonship began with its conception
by the Holy Ghost, but was more definitely determined in His
baptism, and perfected in His resurrection. The first scene of
the controversy called forth by this doctrine was enacted on
Spanish soil. Two representatives of the Asturian clergy, the
presbyter Beatus of Libana and bishop Etherius of Osma, contended
by word and writing against the heresy of Elipandus (A.D. 785).
This was done perhaps with the view of emancipating the Asturian
church from the see of Toledo then under Saracen domination. The
Asturians applied to Hadrian I., who in an epistle to the bishops
of Spain in A.D. 786 condemned Adoptionism as a heresy. The
controversy entered upon a second stage through the interference
of Charlemagne. The absence of Adoptionism in Frankish Spain
afforded him an excuse for interfering, and he readily seized
upon this, because it gave him an opportunity of posing as the
defender of orthodoxy in the West, _i.e._ as Emperor _in esse_.
Before a Synod at Regensburg in A.D. 792, Felix was compelled
to renounce this heresy, and was sent to Rome to pope Hadrian I.
There he had to make a second recantation, but escaped from
prison and fled to Saracenic territory. In the meantime Alcuin
had returned from his travels in England, and immediately engaged
in controversy by addressing an affectionate exhortation to
Felix. The Spaniards gave a very firm reply and Charlemagne
then convened the famous œcumenical German Synod of Frankfort
in A.D. 794. After further investigation Adoptionism was again
condemned, and the judgment of the synod, in order that it might
have an œcumenical character, was sent to Spain accompanied
by four complete reports as representing the various national
churches and authorities. But on the Spaniards this made little
impression. Just as little effect had a learned controversial
tract of Alcuin’s, to which Felix made a smart rejoinder.
Meanwhile Charlemagne sent a clerical commission under Leidrad
of Lyons and Benedict of Aniane (§ 85, 2) into the Spanish
Mark, in order to root out the weeds of heresy that were growing
there. Felix declared himself ready for further enquiry. At the
national Synod of Aachen in A.D. 792 he disputed for six days
with Alcuin, and declared himself at last thoroughly convinced.
Alcuin and Paulinus of Aquileia published new controversial
tracts, and Leidrad went a second time into the Spanish Mark
where he succeeded in rooting out the heresy. But all the more
determined were the bishops of Saracenic Spain in maintaining
their doctrine, and Elipandus answered a conciliatory letter of
Alcuin in a passionate and angry tone. Felix remained until the
end of his life in A.D. 818 under the guardianship of the bishop
of Lyons. Leidrad’s successor, Agobard, found among his papers
undoubted evidence that to the end he was at heart an Adoptionist,
and from this took occasion to publish another controversial
tract. This was the very last of these productions. But in Spain
Adoptionism seems to have maintained its hold down to the second
half of the 9th century. At last about that time Paulus Alvarus
of Cordova (§ 90, 6) contended with a certain Joannes Spalensis
on account of his Adoptionist views. In the 12th century the
controversy again broke out on German soil (§ 102, 6).[261]
§ 91.2. =Controversy about the Procession of the Holy
Spirit.=--At a Synod at Gentiliacum in A.D. 767, held for
the purpose of meeting a Byzantine embassy about the iconoclast
controversy, the addition to the creed of the _Filioque_ was
spoken about (§ 67, 1). The result of the discussion is unknown.
In Charlemagne’s time Alcuin and Theodulf defended the Latin
doctrine in special treatises, and at a Synod at Friaul in
A.D. 791 Paulinus of Aquileia justified its adoption into
the creed and the Carolingian books (§ 92, 1). The discussion
was renewed when the Latin monks of Mount Olivet, blamed by
the Greeks because of the addition, appealed to the usage of
the Frankish church. Pope Leo III. communicated in regard to
this with Charlemagne, and a Council at Aachen in A.D. 809
defended the addition. But the pope, although not contesting
the correctness of the doctrine, disallowed the change in the
creed, and had two silver tablets erected in St. Peter’s in Rome
with the creed wanting the addition. This was evidently a damper
upon the ecclesiastico-political movements of the emperor.
§ 91.3. =The Eucharistic Controversy, A.D. 844.=--Vacillations
about the doctrine of the Supper (§ 58, 2) lasted down to the
9th century. Paschasius Radbertus, monk at Corbie, undertook
in A.D. 831, in his treatise _De Sanguine et corpore Domini_,
theologically to justify, and on all sides to develop the
doctrine of the Supper, which had long ago struck its roots
in the practice of the church and the faith of the people.
The air of genuine piety which meets us in this work impresses
us favourably, and it cannot be denied that he had a profound
perception of fulness, power, and depth of the Sacrament. It
was, therefore, quite in accordance with popular belief. He
could, also, refer to facts from the _Vitæ Sanctorum_, where
the inner _Veritas_ had come to outer manifestation. He thinks
that the fact that this did not always happen is to be accounted
for partly by this, that the Supper in its very nature is
a _Mysterium_ for faith and not a _Miraculum_ for unbelief,
partly by the divine condescendence which takes into account the
natural horror at flesh and blood, and would take away from the
heathen all occasion for blasphemy. At this time, A.D. 831, the
Scriptures were not appealed to. Meantime Radbertus was made
abbot of Corbie, and in this important position he revised his
work, and presented it to Charles the Bald in A.D. 844. The king
called upon the learned monk, =Ratramnus= of Corbie, to express
his opinion on the subject, and he was only too ready to do
an injury to his abbot. Without naming him, he contested his
doctrine in his treatise, _De corp. et sang. Domini ad Carolum
Calvum_, with bitter criticism, and subtly developed his own
view, according to which the body and blood of Christ are enjoyed
only _spiritualiter et secundum potentiam_. Rabanus Maurus,
Scotus Erigena, and Florus of Lyons also opposed the magical
transformation doctrine of Radbertus in favour of a merely
spiritual enjoyment. Hincmar and Haymo, on the other hand,
took the side of Radbertus, while Walafrid Strabo, and the able,
energetic Christian Druthmar, found in the idea of impanation
and consubstantiation a more fitting expression for the solemn
mystery. But Radbertus had spoken the word which gave clear
utterance to the ecclesiastical feeling of the age; the protest
of so many great authorities might delay, but could not destroy
its effects. Continuation, § 101, 2.
§ 91.4. =Controversy about the Conception of the Virgin.=--This
notion of the magical operation of the Divine prevailed with
Radbertus when soon afterwards he undertook in his own way,
and also in accordance with Ps. xxii. 10 and Jer. xxxi. 22,
in the tract, _De partu virginali_, to establish the opinion
already expressed by Ambrose and Jerome (§ 57, 2), that Mary
brought forth _utero clauso_, and without pain. Ratramnus also
has left a treatise on this theme: _De eo quod Christus ex
Virigine natus est_. He maintains equally with Radbertus that
during conception as well as in bearing, the Virgin did not
lose her virginity. But while Radbertus contended against those
who taught less than this, _i.e._, that though Mary conceived
as a virgin, she bore after the manner of all women, Ratramnus
directed his attack against those who affirmed more than that,
_i.e._, that Christ at His birth did not leave His mother’s womb
in the usual, natural manner, by His mother bearing Him. Further,
while the former was angry at the profaning of the mystery of
the birth of Christ, by ranking it under the laws of nature, the
latter emphasized the fact that in no case should it be regarded
as in itself ignominious to be placed under the laws of nature.
Finally, while Radbertus unconditionally repudiated the position,
_Vulvam aperuit_, Ratramnus felt compelled by Luke ii. 23 to
admit it in a certain sense. C. v. “_Utique vulvam aperuit,
non et clausam corrumperet, sed et per eam suæ nativitatis
ostium aperiret, sicut et in Ezech. xliv. 3 porta et clausa
describitur et tamen narratur Domino aperta; non quod liminis
sui fores dimoverit ad ejus egressum, sed quod sic clausa
patuerit dominanti_,” and c. viii. “_Exivit clauso sepulchro
(?) et ingressus foribus obseratis (Jo. xx. 9) ... ut et clausam
relinqueret et per eam transiret ... nec haureundo patefecit_.”
The polemic, therefore, was most probably occasioned not by
anything in the writings, but rather in their oral utterances.
Neither understood the other’s view, and the one drew consequences
from the other’s statements that were not warrantable. But when
Ratramnus pretends to be debating, not with his abbot but with an
unnamed German opponent, this can only be regarded as a literary
artifice.
§ 91.5. =The Predestinarian Controversy A.D. 847-868.=--The
earlier predestinarian controversy (§ 53, 5), was, so far
from being brought to a conclusion, that all the gradations
of doctrinal views, from that of Semi-Pelagianism to a doctrine
of predestination to condemnation that went far beyond Augustine,
could find representatives among the teachers of the church. In
the 9th century the controversy broke out in a passionate form.
=Gottschalk=, the son of Berno, a Saxon count, had been placed
by his parents when a child in the monastery of Fulda. A Synod
at Mainz in A.D. 829 allowed him to go forth, but the abbot of
Fulda at that time, Rabanus Maurus, got Louis the Pious to annul
this dispensation. Transferred to the monastery of Orbais, in
the diocese of Soissons, Gottschalk sought comfort in the study
of the writings of Augustine, and was an enthusiastic defender
of the doctrine of absolute predestination. In one point he
even went beyond Augustine himself, for he taught a two-fold
predestination (_Gemina prædestinatio_), a predestination to
salvation and a predestination to condemnation, while Augustine
had spoken of the latter mostly as a giving over to deserved
condemnation. He took advantage of two journeys into Italy in
A.D. 840 and A.D. 847 for spreading his doctrine. Impelled with
a vehement desire to make converts, he made an attempt upon
bishop Noting of Verona. Through him Rabanus, from A.D. 847
archbishop of Mainz, obtained information thereof, and issued
to Noting, as well as to Count Eberhard of Friaul, with whom
Gottschalk was living, threatening letters which distorted
Gottschalk’s doctrine in many particulars, and drew from it
unfair consequences, making the _Prædestinatio ad damnationem_
a _Prædestinatio ad peccatum_. Rabanus’s own doctrine
distinguished prescience and predestination, and placed the
condemnation of the wicked under the former point of view. At
the same time, in A.D. 848, he convened a Synod at Mainz, before
which Gottschalk stated his doctrine without reserve, in the
joyous conviction that it was in accordance with the doctrine
of the church. But the Council excommunicated him, and assigned
him for punishment to his metropolitan Hincmar of Rheims. Hincmar
had him anew condemned at the Synod of Quiersy in A.D. 849,
then, because he steadily refused to recant, had him savagely
scourged and consigned to imprisonment for life in the monastery
of Hautvilliers. Gottschalk offered to prove the justice of
his cause by submitting to an ordeal; but Hincmar, though in
other instances a defender of the ordeal, denounced this as the
proposal of a second Simon Magus. The inhuman treatment of the
poor monk, and the rejection of the doctrine of Augustine by two
church leaders, occasioned a mighty commotion in the Frankish
church, which was mainly directed against Hincmar. At first,
bishop Prudentius of Troyes took the condemned monk’s part. Then
Charles the Bald asked the opinions of Ratramnus of Corbie and
the abbot Servatus Lupus of Ferrières. Both of these took the
side of Gottschalk. Hincmar’s position threatened to become very
serious. He looked out for supporters, and succeeded in finding
champions in the deacon Florus of Lyons, the priest Amalarius of
Metz, and the learned Joannes Scotus Erigena. But the latter’s
advocacy was almost more dangerous to the metropolitan than the
charges of his accusers. For the speculative Irishman founded
his objections to the doctrine of predestination on the position,
unheard of before in the West, that evil is only a μὴ ὄν, and
condemnation therefore not a positive punishment of God, but
consisting only in the consciousness of a defect. Hincmar’s
position was now worse than ever, for his opponents made him
responsible for the heresies of Scotus. And not only an old
objector, Prudentius of Troyes in his _De prædest. c. Joh.
Scotu_, but even archbishop Wessilo of Sens and the deacon
Florus of Lyons, who had hitherto supported him, now put on
their armour against him. But Charles the Bald took the part
of the sorely-beset metropolitan, and summoned the national
Synod of Quiersy of A.D. 853, where in four articles (_Capitula
Carisiaca_), a modified Augustinianism, rejecting the _gemina
prædestinatio_, was set forth as the orthodox faith. The
Neustrian objectors were now compelled to keep silence, but
archbishop Remigius of Lyons set a Lothringian national Synod
of Valence of A.D. 855 over against the Neustrian Synod. This
Synod expressly condemned the decisions of the Synod of Quiersy,
together with the Scottish mixture (_pultus Scotorum_), and
laid down six conflicting articles as the standard of orthodoxy.
Finally the rulers of the West Franks combined their forces and
called an Imperial Synod at Savonnières, a suburb of Toul, in
A.D. 859. But harmony was not yet secured, and they were likely
to part with bitter feelings, when Remigius made the proposal to
reserve decision for a subsequent assembly to be convened in a
less agitated time, and meanwhile to maintain the peace. This
was agreed upon, and so the controversy put out of view, for
the proposed assembly was never brought about. Gottschalk, left
in the lurch by his former friends, now turned for help to the
powerful pope Nicholas I. The pope ordered Hincmar to answer
before the papal plenipotentiaries for his proceedings against
the monk at the Synod of Metz in A.D. 863 (§ 82, 7). Hincmar
preferred not to comply to this demand, and to his delight the
pope himself annulled the decisions of the Synod because his
legates had been bribed. Moreover the metropolitan succeeded by
intercession and well-planned letters in winning over the pope.
Thus then Gottschalk was cheated out of his last hope. For twenty
years he languished in prison, but with his latest breath he
rejected every proposal of recantation. He died in A.D. 868,
and by Hincmar’s orders was buried in unconsecrated earth.
§ 91.6. =The Trinitarian Controversy, A.D. 857.=--From his
prison Gottschalk had accused his metropolitan of a second
heresy. Hincmar had removed from a church hymn, _Te trina Deitas
unaque poscimus_, the expression, =trina Deltas=, as favouring
Arianism, and substituted the words, _sancta Deitas_. His
opponents therefore charged him with Sabellianism, and Ratramnus
made this accusation in a controversial tract no longer extant.
Ratramnus, on the other hand, to whom Hincmar applied, supported
the change, but would not commit himself to a written approval
of it, whereupon Hincmar himself undertook a defence of the
expression substituted in his treatise, _De una et non trini
Deitate_.[262]
§ 92. ENDEAVOURS AFTER REFORMATION.
The independence which Charlemagne gave to the German church first
awakened in it the consciousness of its vocation as a reformer.
This consciousness was maintained throughout the Middle Ages,
though hampered indeed by much narrowness, one-sidedness, and error.
Charlemagne himself stood first in the series of reformers with his
energetic protest against image worship. Louis the Pious too persevered
in this same direction, and encouraged Agobard of Lyons and Claudius of
Turin when they contested similar forms of ecclesiastical superstition.
§ 92.1. =The Carolingian Opposition to Image Worship,
A.D. 790-825.=--On the occasion of an embassy of the emperor
Constantinus Copronymus (§ 66, 2) Pepin the Short convened a
Synod at Gentiliacum in A.D. 767 (§ 91, 2) where the question
of image worship was dealt with. We have no further information,
as the acts of this Synod have been lost. Then in A.D. 790
Hadrian I. sent to Charlemagne the acts of the 7th occasional
Synod of Nicæa (§ 66, 3). Charles, as emperor-elect, regarded
himself as grievously wronged by the assumption of the Greeks,
who, without consulting the German court, sought to enact
laws that were wholly antagonistic to the Frankish practice.
He published under his own name a state paper in 4 bks., the
so-called _Libri Carolini_, in which the Byzantine proceedings
were censured in strong terms, the synodal acts refuted one by
one, every form of image worship denounced as idolatry, while at
the same time the position of the iconoclasts was repudiated and,
with reference to Gregory the Great (§ 57, 4), the usefulness
of images in quickening devotion, instructing the people and
providing suitable decoration for sacred places was admitted.
Veneration of saints, relics, and the cross is, on the other
hand, permitted. Charlemagne sent this writing to the pope,
who in the most courteous language wrote a refutation, which,
however, made no impression upon Charlemagne. On the contrary he
now hastened preparations for calling a great œcumenical Synod of
all German churches that would outdo the Synod of the Byzantine
court. Alcuin utilized his visit to England for securing a
representation at this Synod of the Anglo-Saxon church. The
Synod met at Frankfort in A.D. 794 and confirmed the positions
of the Caroline books. The pope found it prudent to yield to
the times and the people. Under Louis the Pious the matter was
brought forward anew on the occasion of an embassy from the
iconoclast emperor Michael Balbus. A national Synod at Paris
in A.D. 825 condemned image worship sharply, in opposition to
Hadrian I., and affirmed the positions of the Caroline books.
Pope Eugenius II. kept silent on this subject. In the Frankish
empire down to the 10th century no recognition was given to the
2nd Nicene Council, and official opposition was continued against
image worship.
§ 92.2. Soon after the Parisian council of A.D. 825, =Agobard
of Lyons= made his appearance with a powerful polemic: _Contra
superstitionem eorum, qui picturis et imaginibus sanctorum
adorationis obsequiem deferendum putant_. He goes much further
than the Caroline books, for not only does he regard it as
advisable, on account of the inevitable misuse on the part of
the people, to banish images entirely, but with image worship
he also rejects all adoration of saints, relics, and angels. Man
should put his trust in the omnipotent God alone, and worship
and reverence only the one Mediator, Christ. He comes forward
also as a reformer of the liturgy. He finds fault with all
sensuous additions to Divine service, would banish from it all
non-Biblical hymns, urges to earnest study of Scripture, contends
against the folly of the ordeal (_De Divinis Sententiis_), the
popular superstitions about witchcraft and weather omens (_Contra
insulsam vulgi opinionem de grandine et tonitruis_), and the
idea that by presents to churches a stop can be put to epidemics
and pestilences. Also on inspiration he entertained very liberal
opinions (§ 90, 9). No one thought on account of these views to
charge him with heresy. =Claudius of Turin= went still further
than Agobard. By the help of Augustine he was able to grasp more
profoundly than any of his contemporaries the essential core of
saving truth, that man without any merit of works is justified
and saved by the grace of God in Christ alone. Louis the
Pious appointed him to the bishopric of Turin with the express
injunction that he should contend against image worship in his
Italian diocese. He found there image worship along with an
extravagant devotion to relics, crosses and pilgrimages carried
on to such a degree that he felt himself constrained reluctantly
because of the condition of affairs to cast images and crosses
out of the churches altogether. The popular excitement over this
proceeding rose to the utmost pitch, and his life was saved and
his office retained only through dread of the Frankish arms. When
pope Paschalis intimated to him his displeasure, he said the pope
is only to be honoured as apostolic, when he does the works of
an apostle, otherwise Matt. xxiii. 2-4 applies to him. Against
the views of his early scholar and friend the abbot Theodemir,
regarding monastic psalmody, he vindicated himself in A.D. 825
in his controversial tract _Apologeticus_, which is now known
only from the replies of his opponents. A Scotchman, Dungal,
teacher at Pavia, entered the lists against him and accused him
before the emperor, who, however, contented himself with calling
upon bishop Jonas of Orleans to refute the apologetical treatise.
This refutation appeared only after the death of Claudius. It
assumed the position of the Frankish church on the question of
image worship, as also Dungal had done.
Butler & Tanner, The Selwood Printing Works, Frome, and London.