§ 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 inA.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 expressionTrina Deitas.
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 inA.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 expressionTrina 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. OneMigetiuswent 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 ofA.D.782 he was successfully opposed by the archbishopElipandus of Toledo, who took the opportunity of attempting a further development of the Christological dogma. This also was more fully elaborated byFelix of Urgelin 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 theOnly Begotten, according to His human nature theFirst BegottenSon 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 inA.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 Emperorin esse. Before a Synod at Regensburg inA.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 inA.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 inA.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 inA.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 inA.D.767, held for the purpose of meeting a Byzantine embassy about the iconoclast controversy, the addition to the creed of theFilioquewas 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 inA.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 inA.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 inA.D.831, in his treatiseDe 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 theVitæ Sanctorum, where the innerVeritashad 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 aMysteriumfor faith and not aMiraculumfor 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 inA.D.844. The king called upon the learned monk,Ratramnusof 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 onlyspiritualiter 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 forthutero 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 ControversyA.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 inA.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 inA.D.840 andA.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, fromA.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 thePrædestinatio ad damnationemaPrædestinatio 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, inA.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 inA.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 hisDe 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 ofA.D.853, where in four articles (Capitula Carisiaca), a modified Augustinianism, rejecting thegemina 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 ofA.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, inA.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 inA.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 inA.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
§ 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. OneMigetiuswent 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 ofA.D.782 he was successfully opposed by the archbishopElipandus of Toledo, who took the opportunity of attempting a further development of the Christological dogma. This also was more fully elaborated byFelix of Urgelin 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 theOnly Begotten, according to His human nature theFirst BegottenSon 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 inA.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 Emperorin esse. Before a Synod at Regensburg inA.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 inA.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 inA.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 inA.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 inA.D.767, held for the purpose of meeting a Byzantine embassy about the iconoclast controversy, the addition to the creed of theFilioquewas 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 inA.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 inA.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 inA.D.831, in his treatiseDe 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 theVitæ Sanctorum, where the innerVeritashad 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 aMysteriumfor faith and not aMiraculumfor 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 inA.D.844. The king called upon the learned monk,Ratramnusof 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 onlyspiritualiter 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 forthutero 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 ControversyA.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 inA.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 inA.D.840 andA.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, fromA.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 thePrædestinatio ad damnationemaPrædestinatio 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, inA.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 inA.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 hisDe 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 ofA.D.853, where in four articles (Capitula Carisiaca), a modified Augustinianism, rejecting thegemina 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 ofA.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, inA.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 inA.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 inA.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