Chapter 21

HERESIES IN SPAIN.

Such mixtures of religions are by no means without example in history. The Sabians, for instance, were the followers of a religion, which may have been a cross between Judaism, Christianity, and Magianism.[1] But Mohammedanism itself has furnished the most marked instances of such amalgamation. In Persia Islam combined with the creed of Zoroaster to produce Babyism; while in India Hinduism and Mohammedanism, fused together by the genius of Nanak Guru, have resulted in Sikhism.

It may be said that Mohammedanism has been able to unite with Zoroastrianism and Hinduism owing to their very dissimilarity with itself, whereas Christianity is too near akin to Islam to combine with it in such a way as to produce a religion like both, and yet different from either.[2] Christianity and Mohammedanism, each have two cardinal doctrines (and two only) which cannot be abrogated if they are to remain distinctive creeds. In one of these, the unity of God, they agree. In the other they do, and always must, differ. The divinity of Christ on the one side, and the divine mission of Mohammed on the other, are totally incompatible doctrines. If the one is true, the other cannot be so. Surrender both, and the result is Judaism. No compromise would seem possible. Yet a compromise was attempted, if we can credit a statement attributed by Dozy to Ibn Khaldun,[3] in recounting the history of the successful rebel, Abdurrahman ibn Merwan ibn Yunas, who during the last quarter of the ninth century, while all Moslem Spain was a prey to the wildest anarchy, became a leader of the renegade or Muwallad party in Merida and the neighbourhood. Thinking to unite the Muwallads and Christians in one revolt, he preached to his countrymen a new religion, which held a place halfway between Christianity and Islam. This is all we are told of an endeavour, which might have led to the most important consequences. That we hear no more of it is evidence enough that the attempt proved abortive. The only other attempt, if it can be called so, to combine Islam and Christianity has resulted in that curious compound called the religion of the Druses.

[1] For an attempted compromise between Christianity and Brahmanism, see the proceedings of Beschi, a Roman Catholic priest, "Education and Missions," p. 14.

[2] Cp., however, the Druse religion.

[3] Dozy, ii. 184. Dozy adds that Abdurrahman was called the Galician (el Jaliki) in consequence of this attempt of his: but there is some error here, as Ibn Hayyan (see Al Makkari, ii. 439, and De Gayangos' note) says he was called ibn ul'jaliki, _i.e._, of the stock of the Galicians.

But though no religion, holding a position midway between Islam and Christianity, arose in Spain, yet those religions could hardly fail to undergo considerable modifications in themselves by reason of their close contact for several centuries.

In respect to Christianity we shall naturally find the traces (if any) of such modification in the so-called heresies which may have arisen in Spain during this period. These will require a somewhat strict examination to be made to yield up their secret.

The Church of Spain seems to have gained a reputation for introducing innovations[1] into the doctrines and practices of the true faith, and even of priding itself on its ingenuity in this way. The very first Council whose acts have come down to us, held at Elvira in Spain, early in the fourth century, contains a canon censuring the use of pictures. The very first heretics, who were punished for their error with death by the hands of their fellow-Christians, were reared in the bosom of the Spanish Church. The doctrine, novel then, but accepted now by all the Western Churches, of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son as well as from the Father, was first formulated in a Spanish Council at the end of the sixth century, but not universally received in the West until 600 years later.[2] And as we have seen, the use of pictures was denounced long before the times of the Iconoclasts.

We will now take in order the several heresies that made themselves noticeable in Spain, or Gothic Gaul, during the Arab supremacy, and see if we can trace any relation between them and the Moslem faith.

To take an unimportant one first, a heresy is mentioned as having arisen in Septimania (Gothic Gaul), presumably during the eighth century.[3] It was more practical than speculative, and consisted in a denial of the need of confession to a priest, on the (unimpeachable) ground that men ought to confess to God alone. This appears to us Protestants a wholly laudable and reasonable contention; but not so to the worthy abbe who records it: cette doctrine, _si favorable a libertinage_, trouva un grand nombre de partisans, et excite encore le zele d'Alcuin.[4]

[1] Alcuin ad Elipandum, iv. 13---"Audi me, obsecro, patienter, scholastica Hispaniae congregatio, tibi loquentem, quae novi semper aliquid audire vel praedicare desideras, non contenta ecclesiae universalis Catholica fide, nisi tu aliquid per te invenies, unde tuum nomen celebrares in mundo."

[2] Lateran Council, 1215.

[3] See, however, Alcuin's letter to the clergy of the province, Ep., 71. Migne, vol. ci. p. 1594.

[4] Rohrbacher, "Hist. Univ. de l'Eglise Cathol.," ix. 309.

That this error was due in any sense to the influence of the Arabs in the neighbouring territories of Spain, it is of course impossible to affirm, but at all events the reform was quite in the spirit of the verses of the Koran: "O ye who have received[1] the Scripture come to a just determination between us and you, that we worship not any except God, and associate no creature with Him: and that the one of us take not the other for lords, beside God." And "They take their priests and monks for their lords besides God."[2]

[1] Chap. iii. p. 39. See Sale's note: "that is, come to such terms of agreement as are indisputably consonant to the doctrine of all the prophets and Scriptures, and therefore cannot reasonably be rejected."

[2] Chap. ix. Mohammed charged the Jews and Christians with idolatry both on other grounds and because "they paid too implicit an obedience to their priests and monks, who took upon them to pronounce what things were lawful and what unlawful, and to dispense with the laws of God." See Sale, _Ibid._ _Cp._--

Haughty of heart and brow the warrior came, In look and language proud as proud might be, Vaunting his lordship, lineage, fights, and fame, Yet was that barefoot monk more proud than he. And as the ivy climbs the tallest tree, So round the loftiest soul his toils he wound; And with his spells subdued the fierce and free. Till ermined age and youth in arms renowned Honouring his scourge and hair-cloth meekly kissed the ground.

And thus it chanced that valour, peerless knight, Who ne'er to king or kaiser veiled his crest, Victorious still in bull-feast or in fight, Since first with mail his limbs he did invest, Stooped ever to that anchoret's behest; Nor reasoned of the right, nor of the wrong, But at his bidding laid the lance in rest, And wrought fell deeds the troubled world along, For he was fierce as brave, and pitiless as strong. --SCOTT'S "Don Roderick," xxix. xxx.

Let us next consider an heretical view of the Trinity attributed to Migetius (_circa_ 750). According to the rather obscure account, which has come down to us,[1] he seems to have regarded the Three Persons of the Trinity, at least in their relations with the world, as corporeal, the Father being personified in David, the Son in Jesus, and the Holy Ghost in Paul. It is difficult to believe that the doctrine, thus crudely stated by Elipandus, was really held by anyone. We may perhaps infer[2] that Migetius revived the error of Priscillian (itself a form of Sabellianism), and reducing the Three Persons of the Trinity to one, acknowledged certain [Greek: energeiai], or powers, emanating from Him, which were manifested in David, Jesus, Paul respectively. As the first and last of these three recipients of the Divine powers were confessedly men, it follows that Migetius was ready to strip Jesus of that Divinity, which is the cardinal doctrine of Christianity, and which more than any other doctrine distinguishes it from the creed of Mohammed. Accordingly he appears to have actually denied the divinity of the Word,[3] and in this he made an approach to Mohammedanism.[4]

[1] Elipandus to Migetius, sec. 3. See Migne, vol. 96, p. 859.

[2] With Enhueber. Dissert, apud Migne, ci., p. 338 ff., sec. 29.

[3] Enhueber, sec. 32.

[4] Neander, v. 216, n., says, Migetius held that the [Greek: Logos] became personal with the assumption of Christ's humanity; that the [Greek: Logos] was the power constituting the personality of Christ. Hence, says Neander, he was accused of asserting that Christ, the son of David according to the flesh, and not Christ, the Son of God, was the Second Person of the Trinity.

A similar, but seemingly not identical, error was propagated by those who, as we learn from a letter of Alvar to Speraindeo, did not believe the Three in One and One in Three, "denying the utterances of the prophets, rejecting the doctrine of learned men, and, while they claimed to take their stand upon the Gospel, pointing to texts like John xx. 17, 'I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, unto my God and your God,' to prove that Christ was merely man."[1] In his answer to Alvar's letter, Speraindeo says, "If we speak of the Trinity as one Person, we Judaize;" he might have added, "and Mohammedanize." These heretics, according to the abbot, spoke of three powers (_virtutes_) forming one Person, not, as the orthodox held, three Persons forming one God.[2] Here we see a close resemblance to the error mentioned in the preceding paragraph; but the heretics we are now dealing with make an even closer approach to the teaching of Mohammed in their quotation of John xx. 17 given above, as will be seen, if we compare with that text the following passages of the Koran, put into the mouth of Christ: "Verily, God is my Lord, and your Lord; therefore serve him:"[3] "They are surely infidels who say, verily, God is Christ, the Son of Mary, since Christ said, O children of Israel, serve God, my Lord and your Lord:"[4] and, "I have not spoken unto them any other than what thou didst command me--namely, worship God, my Lord and your Lord."[5]

[1] Alvar's letter. Florez, xi. 147. Another text quoted in defence of this doctrine of Agnoetism was Matt. xxiv. 36: "Of that day and that hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." In answer to this, Speraindeo refers to Gen. iii. 9, where God the Father seems not to know where Adam is.

[2] Speraindeo's illustration of the Trinity cannot be called a happy one. He likens it to a king, whose power is one, but made up of the man himself, his diadem, and his purple.

[3] Koran, c. iii. v. 46.

[4] Kor., c. v. 77.

[5] Kor., c. v. 118.

We come next to the famous Adoptionist heresy, the most remarkable and original of those innovations to which Alcuin taunts the Spanish Church with being addicted. Unfortunately we derive little of our knowledge of the new doctrine from the originators and supporters of it--our information on the subject coming chiefly from passages quoted by their opponents (notably our own Alcuin) in controversial works. But that the heresy had an important connection with the Mohammedan religion has been the opinion of many eminent writers on Church history. Mariana, the Spanish historian, and Baronius, the apologist for the Roman Church, held that the object of the new heresiarchs was, "by lowering the character of Christ, to pave the way for a union between Christians and Mohammedans."[1] Enhueber,[2] also, in his treatise on this subject, quotes a tract, "De Primatu Ecclesiae Toletanae," which attributes the heresy to its author, Elipandus, being brought into so close a contact with the Saracens, and living on such friendly terms with them.[3]

Neander[4] thinks that there are some grounds for supposing that Felix, one of the authors of the heresy, had been employed in defending Christianity against objections brought against it from the Moslem standpoint,[5] and in proving the divinity of Christ, so that they might be induced to accept it. Felix, therefore, may have been led to embrace this particular doctrine, called Adoptionism, from a wish to bring the Christian view of Christ nearer to the Mohammedan opinion.

There is considerable doubt as to who first broached the new theory, the evidence being of a conflicting character, and pointing now to Elipandus, bishop of Toledo and primate of all Spain, now to Felix, bishop of Urgel, in Catalonia.[6]

[1] Mariana, vii. 8. Baronius, "Ann. Eccl." xiii. p. 260. See Blunt, "Dictionary of Religions," etc., article on Adoptionism; and Migne, vol. xcvi. p. 847--"deceptus uterque contagione forsan insidentiurn cervicibus aut e proximo blasphemantium Mohametanorum commercio."

[2] Enhueber, sec. 26. Mansi, "Coll. Concil," x. 513, sec. 4.

[3] "Usus enim frequenti Maurorum commercio."--_Ibid_.

[4] V. 219.

[5] This perhaps refers to a "disputatio cum sacerdote" which the Emperor Charles the Great had heard of as written by Felix. Alcuin (see "Ep.," 85) knows nothing of it. In his letter to Charles, Alcuin, speaking of a letter from Felix, says: "Inveni peiores errores, quam ante in eius scriptis legerem."

[6] The prevailing opinion seems to be that the new doctrine arose out of Elipandus' controversy with Migetius.

The claims of Felix[1] are supported by Eginhard,[2] Saxo, and Jonas of Orleans; while Paulinus of Aquileia, in his book entitled "Sacrosyllabus," expressly calls Elipandus the author of the baneful heresy; and Alcuin, in his letter to Leidrad,[3] says that he is convinced that Elipandus, as he was the first in rank, so also was the chief offender.

The evidence being inconclusive, we are driven to follow _a priori_ considerations, and these point to Elipandus as the author. According to Neander,[4] he was a violent, excitable, bigoted man; and he certainly uses some very strong language in his writings against his opponents, and stands a good deal on his dignity as head of the Spanish Church. For instance, speaking of his accusers, Etherius, Bishop of Osma, and Beatus,[5] a priest of Libana, he says of the former that he wallows in the mire of all lasciviousness;[6] that he is totally unfit to officiate at God's altar;[7] that he is a false prophet[8] and a heretic; and, forgetting the courtesies of controversy, he doesn't hesitate, in another place, to call him an ass. Beatus also he accuses of gross sensuality, and calls him that iniquitous priest of Astorga,[9] accusing him of heresy, and giving him the title Antiphrasius, which means that instead of being called Beatus, he should have been named the very opposite.[10]

[1] See "Froben Dissertation," Migne, vol. ci. p. 305.

[2] "Annals," 792.

[3] Alcuin, "Epist. ad Leidradum," says that the heresy arose in Cordova, and he appeals to Elipandus' letter to Felix after the latter's recantation.

[4] Neander (v. p. 217) seems to infer these qualities from his writings. An author, quoted by Enhueber (Tract, de Primata Eccl. Tolet), describes him as "parum accurate in sacris litteris versatus."

[5] Died in 798. Fleury v., p. 236.

[6] Elipand. Epist., iv. 2, "Carnis immunditia fetidus."

[7] "Ab altario Dei extraneus." Neander, v., p. 226, takes this to mean that he was deposed.

[8] He gave the Revelation of St John a Moslem application: and prophesied the end of the world in the near future. See letter of Beatus, book i., sec. 23--"Novissima hora est ... nunc Antichristi multi facti sunt. Omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum est illius Antichristi, quem audistis quoniam venit, et nunc in mundo est." See also Alcuin's letter to the Spanish bishops.

[9] "Elipandus and bishops of Spain to those of Gaul," sec. 1.

[10] This practice of punning on names is very common in these writers. "Infelix Felix" is a poor witticism which constantly occurs. So Samson says of Hostegesis that he ought to be called "hostis Jesu"; and in the account of the Translation of the bodies of Aurelius, etc., we find Leovigild spoken of as a very "Leo vigilans."

But in spite of outbreaks like these we must beware of judging the venerable Elipandus too hardly. Alcuin himself, in his letter to the bishop, written, as he says, "with the pen of charity," speaks of him as most blameless,[1] and confesses that he has heard much of his piety and devotion, an admission which he also makes with regard to Felix, in a letter to him.[2] Yet in his book against Elipandus, he exclaims, not without a touch of bathos: "For all the garments of wool on your shoulders, and the mitre upon your brow, wearing which you minister to the people, for all the daily shaving of your beard[3] ... if you renounce not these doctrines, you will be numbered with the goats!" Another testimony (of doubtful value, however) in Elipandus' favour is to be found in the anonymous life of Beatus,[4] where Elipandus is said to have succeeded Cixila in the bishopric of Toledo, because of his reputation for learning and piety, which extended throughout Spain.

[1] "Sanctissime praesul," sec. 1. Cp. sec. 6, "Audiens famam bonam religiosae vitae de vobis."

[2] "Celeberriman tuae sanctitatis audiens famam." The "Pseudo Luitprand" calls him "Vir humilis, prudens, ae in zelo fidei Catholicae fervens."

[3] Beards were the sign of laymen, see Alvar, "Ep.," xiii., and probably the distinction was much insisted on because of the Moslem custom of wearing long beards. For the distinctive dress of the clergy see the same letter of Alvar, ... "Quern staminia et lana oviuin religiosum adprobat."

[4] See Migne, xcvi., 890 ff.

Elipandus, who boasted of having refuted and stamped out the Migetian errors, and who also took up so independent an attitude with regard to the See of Rome, was not the man to endure being dictated to in the matter of what was, or what was not, sound doctrine, and, in the letter quoted above, he scornfully remarks that he had never heard that it was the province of the people of Libana to teach the Toledans. Here, as in the defiant attitude taken up towards the Pope, we may perhaps see a jealousy, felt by the old independent Church of Spain under its own primate, towards the new Church, that was growing up in the mountains of the North, the centre of whose religious devotion was soon to be Compostella, and its spiritual head not the primate of Spain, but the bishop of Rome.

It is now time to explain what the actual heresy advocated by Elipandus and Felix was. Some have held the opinion that Adoptionism was merely a revival of the Bonosian errors, which had long taken root in Spain;[1] others, that it was a revival of the Nestorian[2] heresy, a new phase of the controversy between the schools of Antioch and Alexandria;[3] or that it was an attempt to reform Christianity, purging it from later additions.[4] Alcuin, however, speaks of its followers as a new sect, unknown to former times.[5] Stated briefly, the new doctrine was that Jesus, in so far as His manhood was concerned, was son of God by adoption. This error had been foreseen and condemned in advance by Cyril of Alexandria (348-386):[6] by Hilary of Arles (429-449).[7] The Eleventh Council of Toledo had also guarded against this same error a hundred years before this (675), affirming that Christ the Son of God was His Son by nature, not by adoption.

[1] Enhueber, Diss., sec. 25. The errors of Bonosus were condemned at Capua in 389. For their development in Spain, see "Isidore of Seville."

[2] Condemned at Ephesus, 431. For connection of Adoptionism with this, see letter of Adrian to bishops of Spain (785?).

[3] Neander, v., p. 216.

[4] _Ibid._, vi., p. 120, see letter of Alvar to Speraindeo.

[5] Alcuin contra Felicem, i., sec. 7. Elipandus denied that it had anything to do with other heresies. "Nos vero anathematizamus Bonosum, qui filium Dei sine matre genitum, adoptivum fuisse adfirmat. Item Sabellium, qui ipsum esse Patrem, quem Filium, quem et Spiritus sanctus (_sic_) et non ipsud, delirat. Anathematizamus Arium, qui Filium et Spiritum Sanctum creaturas esse existimat. Anathematizamus Manichaeum qui Christum solum Deum et non hominem fuisse praedicat. Anathematizamus Antiphrasium Beatum carnis lasciviae deditum, et onagrum Etherium, doctorem bestialem ...," etc.

[6] "Lectures on the Catechism," xi. "Christ is the Son of God by nature, begotten of the Father, not by adoption."

[7] De Trinit, v., p. 7, "The Son of God is not a false God--a God by adoption, or a God by metaphor (nee adoptivus, nec connuncupatus)."

It is a mistake to suppose Adoptionism to be a mere resuscitation of Nestorianism.[1] It agreed with the latter in repudiating the term "Mother of God" as applied to the Virgin Mary,[2] but it differed from it in the essential point of acknowledging the unity of person in Christ. What Felix--and on him devolved the chief onus of defence in the controversy--wished to make clear, was that the predicates of Christ's two natures could not logically be interchanged.[3] He therefore reasoned thus: Christ in respect to His Deity is God, and Son of God; with respect to His Manhood He is also God and Son of God, not indeed in essence, but by being taken into union with Him, who _is_ in essence God, and Son of God. Therefore Christ, unless He derived His humanity from the essence of God, must as man, and in respect of that humanity, be Son of God only in a nuncupative sense. This relation of Jesus the Man to God he preferred to describe by the term Adoption--a word not found in Scripture in this connection, "but," says Felix, "implied therein,[4] for what is adoption in a son, if it be not election, assumption _(susceptio)_." The term itself was no doubt found by Elipandus _in_ the Gothic Liturgy;[5] and he most likely used it at first with no thought of raising a metaphysical discussion on so knotty a point. Being brought to task, however, for using the word by those whom he deemed his ecclesiastical inferiors, he was led to defend it from a natural dislike to acknowledge himself in the wrong. "We can easily believe," says Enhueber, "that Elipandus, who appears to have been the chief author of the heresy at this time, fell into it at first from ignorance and inadvertently, and did not appear openly as a heretic, till, admonished of his error, he arrogantly and obstinately defended a position which he had only taken up through ignorance."[6]

Elipandus also seems to have applied to Felix[7] for his opinion on Christ's Sonship; and the latter, who was a man of great penetration and acuteness, first formulated the new doctrine, stating in his answer that Christ must be considered with regard to His Divinity as truly God and Son of God, but with regard to His Manhood, as Son of God in name only, and by adoption.

[1] See Blunt, "Dict. of Relig.," article on Adoptionism.

[2] Neander, v. 223. Blunt (1.1.) says just the contrary.

[3] Neander, v. 220.

[4] Alcuin contra Felicem, iii. c. 8.

[5] "Elipand. ad Albinum," sec, 11. Adoptio assumptio ([Greek: analepsis]) occurs _(a)_ in the Missa de coena Domini: _adoptivi hominis passio;_ _(b)_ in the prayer de tertia feria Pascha: _adoptionis gratia;_ _(c)_ in that de Ascensione: _adoptionem carnis._ The Council of Frankfurt (794) branded the authors of the liturgy as heretics (so also did Alcuin) and as the main cause of the Saracen conquest! See Fleury, v. 243.

[6] Enhueber, "Dissertatio," sec. 26. Neander, v. 217, has the same remark in other words.

[7] See Blunt, Art. on Adoptionism.

To give an idea of the lines on which the controversy was carried on, it will be necessary to state some of the arguments of Felix, and in certain cases Alcuin's rejoinders. These are:--

_(a.)_ "If Christ, as man, is not the _adopted_ Son of God, then must His Manhood be derived from the essence of God and consequently must be something different from the manhood of men."[1] To this Alcuin can only oppose another dilemma, which, however, is more of the nature of a quibble. "If," he says, "Christ is an adopted Son of God, and Christ is also God, then is God the adopted Son of God?"[2] Here Alcuin confounds the predicates of Christ's two natures--the very thing Felix protested against--and uses the argument thus obtained against that doctrine of Felix, which was based on this very denial of any interchange of predicates.

_(b.)_ Christ is spoken of sometimes as Son of David, sometimes as Son of God. One person can only have two fathers, if one of these be an adoptive father. So is it with Christ. Alcuin answers: "As a man (body and soul) is called the son of his father, so Christ (God and man) is called Son of God."[3] But to those who deny that a man's soul is derived from his father, this argument would carry no weight.

_(c.)_ Christ stood in a position of natural dependence towards God over and above the voluntary submission which He owed to His Father as God.[4] This dependence Felix expresses by the term _servus conditionalis_, applied to Jesus.[5] He may have been thinking of Matt. xii. i8, "Behold my servant, whom I have chosen;" and St Paul's Ep. to Philipp. ii. 7, "He took upon. Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men."[6] Or perhaps he had in his mind, if the theory of the influence of Mohammedanism is true, those passages of the Koran which speak of Christ as a servant, as, "Christ doth not proudly disdain to be a servant unto God,"[7] and, "Jesus is no other than a servant."[8]

(_d._) To prove that Scripture recognises a distinction between Christ the Man and Christ the God, Felix appeals to Luke xviii. 19, "Why callest thou Me good? There is none good, save one, even God;" Mark