Chapter 23

nefanda haeresis Elipandi Toletanae sedis Episcopi, et Felix (_sic_) Orgellitani, eorumque sequacium."

[2] Neander, v. 228.

[3] _Ibid._, p. 232.

[4] Froben, sec, 82. Neander says 10,000.

[5] Alcuin adv. Elip. Preface to Leidrad: "Non pro eius tantummodo laboravi salute, quem timeo forsan citius vel morte praereptum esse propter decrepitam in eo senectutem."

[6] Or perhaps six.

[7] No reliance can be placed in the statement of the Pseudo-Luitprand, who, in a letter to Recemundus, speaking of Elipandus, says: "Postquam illius erroris sui de adoptione Christi sero et vere poenituit, ad quod manifestandum concilium (795) episcoporum ... collegit; et coram omnibus abiurato publice errore _fidem sanctae ecclesiae Romanae_ confessus est." These words in italics reveal a later hand. Cp. also sec. 259 and Julianus. Alcuin, in a letter to Aquila, bishop of Salisbury, says that Elipandus in 800 A.D. still adhered to his error.

We have dealt somewhat at length with the Adoptionist heresy, both from its interest and importance, and because, as mentioned above, there are some reasons for thinking that it was the outcome of a wish to conciliate Mohammedan opinion. It will be as well to recapitulate such evidence as we have obtained on this point. But we must not expect to find the traces of Mohammedan influence in the development, so much as in the origination, of the theory. What we do find is slight enough, amounting to no more than this:--

(_a._) That the one point, which repelled the Mohammedan from genuine Christianity--setting aside for a moment the transcendental mystery of the Trinity--was the Divinity of Christ. Anything, therefore, that tended to emphasise the humanity of Jesus, or to obscure the great fact of Christ the Man, being Son of God, which sounded so offensive to Mohammedan ears, would so far bring the Christian creed nearer to the Mohammedan's acceptance, by assimilating the Christian conception of Christ, to that which appears so often in the Koran.[1] There can be no doubt that the theory of adoption, if carried to its logical conclusion, did contribute to this result:

(_b._) That Elipandus was accused of receiving the help of the secular arm in disseminating his heretical opinions:

(_c._) That the application of the term _Servant_ to Christ, besides being authorised by texts from Scripture, is countenanced in two passages from the Koran:

(_d._) That Leo III., speaking of, Felix's return to Spain, and his relapse into error, implies that it was due to his renewed contact with infidels who held similar views:

(_e._) That in a passage, quoted by Enhueber, Elipandus is said to have lost his hold on the truth in consequence of his close intercourse with the Arabs:

(_f._) That Elipandus accused Etherius of being a false prophet, that is, for giving, as has been conjectured, a Mohammedan interpretation to the Beast in the Revelation of St John.

Something must now be said of one more doctrine, which, though it did not arise in Spain, nor perhaps much affected it, yet was originated by a Spaniard, and a disciple of Felix,[2]--Claudius, Bishop of Turin. Some have seen in this doctrine, which was an offshoot of Iconoclasm, traces of Adoptionism, a thing not unlikely in itself.[3]

Of the relations of Claudius to the Saracens we have the direct statement of one of his opponents, who said that the Jews praised him, and called him the wisest among the Christians; and that he on his side highly commended them _and the Saracens_.[4] Yet his tendency seems to have been against the Judaizing of the Church.[5]

[1] Fifty years later Alvar ("Ind. Lum.," sec. 9), accuses certain Christians of dissembling their religion under fear of persecution:--"Deum Christum non aperte coram eis (_i.e._ Saracenis) sed fugatis sermonibus proferunt, Verbum Dei et Spiritum, ut illi asserunt, profitentes, suasque confessiones corde, quasi Deo omnia inspiciente, servantes."

[2] Jonas of Orleans (Migne, cvi. p. 330) calls him so, and says elsewhere, "Felix resuscitur in Claudio."

[3] Neander, vi. 119.

[4] Fleury, v. 398.

[5] Neander, vi. 125.

The great Iconoclastic reform, which arose in the East, undoubtedly received its originating impulse from the Moslems. In 719 the Khalif destroyed all images in Syria. His example was followed in 730 by the Eastern Emperor, Leo the Isaurian. He is said to have been persuaded to this measure by a man named Bezer, who had been some years in captivity among the Saracens.[1] In 754 the great council of Constantinople condemned images. Unfortunately neither the great patriarchates nor the Pope were represented, and so this council never obtained-the sanction of all Christendom; and its decrees were reversed in 787 at the Council of Nicaea. In 790 appeared the Libri Carolini, in which we rejoice to find our English Alcuin helping Charles the Great to make a powerful and reasonable protest against the worship of images.[2] In 794 this protest was upheld by the German Council of Frankfurt. But the Pope, and his militia,[3] the monks, made a strenuous opposition to any reform in this quarter, and the recognition of images became part and parcel of Roman Catholic Christianity.

Claudius was made bishop of Turin in 828.[4] Though placed over an Italian diocese, he soon shewed the independence, which he had imbibed in the free air of Spain, where the Mohammedan supremacy had at least the advantage of making the supremacy of the Pope impossible. Finding that the people of his diocese paid worship to their images, Claudius set to work to deface, burn, and abolish, all images and crosses in his bishopric. In respect to the crosses he went further than other Iconoclasts, in which we can perhaps trace his Adoptionist training.[5]

These new views did not, as might be expected, find favour with the Catholic party, whose cause was taken up by Theodemir, abbot of Nimes, a friend of Claudius', by Jonas of Orleans, and Dungal, an Irish priest. But, as in the case of Felix, the heresiarch was more than a match for his opponents in argument.[6]

[1] Fleury, xl. ii. 1, says he was an apostate. See Mendham, Seventh General Council, Introd., pp. xii. xiv.

[2] "Adorationem soli Deo debitam imaginibus impertire aut segnitiae est, si utcumque agitur, aut insaniae, vel potius infidelitatis, si pertinaciter defenditur."--III. c. 24.

"Imagines vero, omni cultura et adoratione seclusa, utrum in basilicis propter memoriam rerum gestarum sint, nullum fidei Catholicae afferre poterunt praeiudicium, quippe cum ad peragenda nostrae salutis mysteria nullum penitus officium habere noscantur."--III. c. 21.

[3] Prescott.

[4] Neander says 814, Herzog 820.

[5] Neander, v. 119. The Spanish Christians were not free from the charge of adoring the cross, as we can see from the answer of the Khalif Abdallah (888) when advised to leave his brother's body at Bobastro: shall I, he said, leave my brother's body to the mercy of those who ring bells and adore the cross. Ibn Hayyan, apud Al Makk., ii. 446.

[6] Fleury, v. 398, confesses that the case of the image-worshippers rests mainly on tradition and the usage of the Church--meaning that they can draw no support from the Bible. He might have remembered Matt. xv. 7--"Ye make void the Word of God because of your tradition."

Claudius' own defence has been lost, but we gather his views from his opponents' quotation of them.

Briefly expressed, they are as follows:--

_(a.)_ Image-worship is really idol-worship:

_(b.)_ If images are to be adored, much more should those living beings be adored, whom the images represent. But we are not permitted to adore God's works, much less may we worship the work of men:[1]

_(c.)_ The cross has no claim to be adored, because Jesus was fastened to it: else must we adore other things with which Jesus was similarly connected; virgins, for example, for Christ was nine months in a virgin's womb; mangers, asses, ships, thorns, for with all these Jesus was connected. To adore the cross we have never been told, but to bear it,[2] that is to deny ourselves. Those generally are the readiest to adore it, who are least ready to bear it either spiritually or physically.[3]

Claudius also had very independent views on the question of papal supremacy.[4] Being summoned before a council, with more wisdom than Felix, he refused to attend it, knowing that his cause would be prejudged, and contented himself with calling the proposed assembly a congregation of asses. He died in 839 in secure possession of his see, and with his Iconoclastic belief unshaken.

Such were the heresies which connect themselves with Spain during the first three hundred years of Arab domination, and which seem to have been, in part at least, due to Mohammedan influence. One more there was, the Albigensian heresy, which broke out one hundred and fifty years later, and was perhaps the outcome of intercourse with the Mohammedanism of Spain.[5]

[1] Jonas of Orleans, apud Migne, vol. cvi. p. 326.

[2] Luke xiv. 27.

[3] Jonas, apud Migne, vol. cvi. p. 351.

[4] See Appendix B, pp. 161-173.

[5] So Blunt. It found followers in Leon. See Mariana, xii. 2, from Lucas of Tuy.