Part 66

§ 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.