13.

OF THE INSERTION IN THE SYMBOLUM OF THE WORDS

FILIOQUE.'

G. J. Vossii de tribus Symbolis (ed. II. Amstd. 1662. 4to.) diss. 3. § 15 seq. Mich. Le Quien diss. de processione Sp. S. - the first of his dissertations prefixed to the works of Joh. Damascenus. T. I. p. 1 seq. J. G. Walchii hist. controv. Græcorum Latinorumque de processione Sp. S. Jenæ. 1751. 8vo. W. C. L. Ziegler's Geschichtsentwickelung des Dogma von heil. Geiste, in his theol. essays, vol. I. p. 204 (Gottingen. 1791).

A doctrine, at first peculiar to the Latin church fathers, of the procession of the Holy Spirit from both Father and Son,1 had long before this been inserted in the Constantinopolitan creed by the Spanish church, and now became a subject of controversy.3 What was decided with respect to it at the council of Gentilly is not known.4 As to the propriety of its insertion in the Symbolum (which had by degrees become customary), there was a diversity of opinion in the French

1 Supported especially by the authority of Augustine (de trinit. IV. 20: Nec possumus dicere, quod Sp. S. et a Filio non procedat, neque enim frustra idem Spiritus et Patris et Filii Spiritus dicitur. V. 14, XV. 26: De utroque procedere sic docetur, etc.) and Leo the Great (Epist. XV. ad Turibium c. 1. — tamquam nec alius sit, qui genuit, alius, qui genitus est, alius, qui de utroque processit). Comp. Wundemann's Gesch. der Glaubenslehren, Th. 1. S. 383 ff. Munscher's Dogmengesch. Bd. 3. S. 500 ff.

* First at the Concil. Tolet. III. ann. 589 (Mansi T. IX. p, 981): - Credimus et in Spiritum S. dominum et vivificatorem ex Patre et Filio procedentem, etc. So also Cone. Tolet. VIII. ann. 653, Bracar. III. 675, Tolet. XII. 681, XIII. 683, XV. 688, XVII. 694. Conc. Tolet. III. cap. 2, provides also, ut per omnes ecclesias Hispania - secundum formam orientalium ecclesiarum, Concilii Constantinopolitani - symbolum fidei recitetur, ut priusquam dominica dicatur oratio voce clara a populo decantetur, etc.

It had been so at an earlier period (about A. D. 650) Maximi Ep. ad Marinum: see Ziegler, S. 208.

Comp. § 12, note 1. More plainly Ado in Chron. ad ann. 767: Quæstio ventilata est inter Græcos et Romanos de Trinitate, et utrum Spir. S. sicut procedit a Patre ita procedat a Filio.

5 Walafrid Strabo de rebus eccles. c. 22: apud Gallos et Germanos post dejectionem Felicis hæretici sub gloriosissimo Carolo Francorum Rectore damnati, idem Symbolum latius et crebrius in Missarum cœpit officiis iterari. Paulinus Patr. Aquilejensis in Concil. Forojuliensi ann. 791 (Mansi T. XIII. p. 829 seq.) is to be sure very animated in resisting all additions to the Symbolum, but what he thereby understands, see p. 836: Addere vel minuere est subdole contra sacrosanctum eorum sensum, aliter, quam illi, callida tergiversatione diversa sentire. Explanatory clauses, therefore, he does not include. Si recenseatur Nicæni symboli series veneranda, nihil aliud de Spiritu S. in ea nisi hoc modo reperiri poterit promulgatum: Et in Sanctum, inquiunt, Spiritum. - Suppleverunt tamen [CL patres] quasi exponendo eorum sensum, et in Spiritum S. confitentur se credere, Dominum et vivificatorem, ex Patre procedentem. - Sed et postmodum propter eos videlicet hæreticos, qui susurrant Spiritum S. solius esse Patris et a solo procedere Patre, additum est: Qui ex Patre Filioque procedit. Et tamen non sunt hi s. Patres culpandi, quasi addidissent aliquid vel minuissent de fide CCCXVIII Patrum, quia non contra eorum sensum diversa senserunt sed immaculatum eorum intellectum sanis moribus supplere studuerunt, etc. Zeigler, S. 211, is wrong in

church, but the doctrine itself was very generally maintained, as for instance by Alcuin and Theodulphus. That it was contained in the so-called Athanasian creed (which, probably, had likewise been brought into France from Spain), served strongly to recommend it. The matter having been brought by Charlemagne before a Synod at Aix (A. D. 809), Pope Leo III. decided in favor of the doctrine, but against its insertion in the Symbolum.8

$14.

ADOPTIAN CONTROVERSY.

Chr. G. F. Walchii hist. Adoptianorum. Götting. 1755. 8vo. Frobenii diss. hist. de hæresi Elipandi et Felicis in his ed. Opp. Alcuini T. I. p. 923 seq. - Walch's Ketzerhist. Bd. 9, S. 667 seq.

It had long since been maintained by various writers of the Western church that Christ as man was only the adopted Son of God.1 This doctrine was now more fully brought out and developed by

supposing that there is here any rejection of the new phrase; nor is the reading p. 842 qui ex patre filioque procedit interpolated. On the other hand, Alcuinus Epist. 75 (ed Froben.) ad fratres Lugdun. Hispanici erroris sectas tota vobis cavete intentione. - Et Symbolo catholicæ fidei nova nolite inserere, et in ecclesiasticis officiis inauditas priscis temporibus traditiones nolite diligere.

6 Alcuini lib. de processione Spir. S. ad Car. M. first printed in Opp. Alcuin. ed. Froben. T. I. p. 743.- Theodulphi de Spir. S. liber (in Theodulfi opp. ed. J. Sirmond. Par. 1646. 8vo. and in Sirmondii opp. T. II. p. 695). — cf. Libr. Carolin. lib. III. c. 3: ex patre et filio-omnis universaliter confitetur et credit ecclesia eum procedere.

7 Vossius as above cited. Guil. E. Tentzelii judicia eruditorum de Symb. Athanas. Gothæ. 1687. 12mo. Dan Waterland critical history of the Athanasian creed. Cambridge. 1724. ed. 2. 1728. 8vo. Quesnelli diss. de variis fidei libellis in antiquo Rom. Ecclesiæ Codice contentis (diss. XIV. in Leon. M. and in Gallandii de vetust. canonum collationibus dissertatt. syll. ed. Mogunt. T. I. p. 829) and Balleriniorum obss. ad Quesnelli diss. (ib. p. 842). Does not the evident affinity of the Athanasian creed with Conc. Tolet. III. and IV. authorise us in ascribing its origin to Spain? In France it is mentioned first by Theodulfus de Spir. S. Hinemarus contra Godeschalcum and in the Capitulis Presbyteris dat. (see § 11, note 16).

8 Disputes of the monks in Jerusalem Baluzii Miscellan. T. VII. p. 14. - Collatio cum Papa Romæ a legatis habita et Epist. Caroli Imp. ad Leonem P. III. utraque a Smaragdo Abb. edita (Mansi T. XIV. p. 17 seq.) — Anastasii vita XCVIII. Leonis III. (Muratori p. 208): Hic vero pro amore et cautela orthodoxæ fidei fecit in basilica S. Petri scuta argentea duo, scripta utraque Symbolo, unum quidem literis Græcis, et alium Latinis, etc. See also Photius epist. ad Patriarcham Aquil. in Combefisii Auctario nov. P. I. p. 529.

1 Comp. Walchii hist. Adopt. cap. 1 (p. 1-67). Especially Fabius Marinus Victorinus [about 360] adv. Arium lib. I.: Non sic filius, quemadmodum nos. Nos enim adoptione filii, ille natura. Etiam quadam adoptione filius et Christus, sed secundum carnem. Isidorus Hispalensis Originn. s. Etymologg. lib. VII. c. 2: Unigenitus autem vocatur secundum Divinitatis excellentiam, quia sine fratribus: Primogenitus secundum susceptionem hominis, in qua per adoptionem gratiæ fratres habere dignatus est, de quibus esset primogenitus. The authorities on this subject in the Epist. Episcoporum Hispan. ad Episc. Galliæ, etc. and in the Epist. Elipandi ad Alcuinum (see notes 6 and 11), Ambrose, Hilary, Jerome, Au

Elipand, archbishop of Toledo, and Felix, bishop of Urgel,2 most probably in the course of controversy with a certain bishop Megetius.3 Having been long contested in Spain, it at length began

4

gustine Isidore Hispal, are mostly inapplicable. At the close: Item Prædecessores nostri Eugenius, Ildephonsus, Julianus Toletana Antistites in suis dogmatibus ita dixerunt in Missa de Coena Domini: "Qui per adoptivi hominis passionem, dum suo non indulsit corpori, nostro demum - pepercit." Item in Missa de Ascensione Domini:-" Hodie Salvator noster post adoptionem carnis sedem repetit Deitatis." Item in Missa defunctorum: "Quos fecisti adoptionis participes, jubeas hæreditatis tuæ esse consortes.' These passages are really found in the Liturgia Mozarabica ed. Alex. Lesle. Romæ. 1755. 4to. - The passage Hilarius de trinit. II. c. 29: Parit virgo: partus a Deo est. Infans vagit: laudantes angeli audiuntur. Panni sordent: deus adoratur. Ita potestatis dignitas non amittitur, dum carnis humilitas adoptatur is on crit. grounds remarkable. Alcuinus c. Felicem lib. VI. c. 6, complains that the passage is corrupt, and reads adoratur, Agobardus adv. Felic. c. 40, explains it correctly by adsumitur (juxta hunc modum et ceteros doctores dixisse et sensisse, ubicumque nomen et verbum adoptionis in fidei dogmatibus inseruerunt, credimus). Concerning the controversy between P. Coustant, who in his ed. of Hilarius defends adoptatur, and Barth. Germonius, who would substitute adoratur, see Walch hist. Adopt. p. 26 seq.

non

Epist. Episc. Hisp. ad Episc. Galliæ, etc. c. 2: Nos confitemur et credimus, Deum Dei filium ante omnia tempora sine initio ex Patre genitumadoptione sed genere, neque gratia sed natura:- pro salute vero humani generis, in fine temporis ex illa intima et ineffabili Patris substantia egrediens, et a Patre non recedens, hujus mundi infima petens, ad publicum humani generis apparens, invisibilis visibile corpus adsumens de virgine, ineffabiliter per integra virginalia Matris enixus: secundum traditionem Patrum confitemur et credimus, eum factum ex muliere, factum sub lege, non genere esse filium Dei sed adoptione; neque natura sed gratia, idipsum eodem Domino attestante qui ait: "Pater major me est." (Jo. xiv. 28. Further Luc. i. 80. Jo. i. 14.)- Cap. 9: Credimus igitur et confitemur Deum Dei filium, lumen de lumine, Deum verum ex Deo vero, ex Patre Unigenitum sine adoptione; Primogenitum vero in fine temporis, verum hominem assumendo de Virgine in carnis adoptione: Unigenitum in natura; Primogenitum in adoptione et gratia. Proofs from Rom. viii. 29 (primogenitus in multis fratribus). Ps. xxii. 23. Unde fratres, nisi de sola carnis adoptione, per quod fratres habere dignatus est? Especially 1 Joh. iii. 2 (similes ei erimus): Similes utique in carnis adoptione, non similes ei in Divinitate. For the Filius unigenitus were cited Ps. cx. 4. (Ex utero ante Luciferum genui te) xliv. 2. Jes. xlv. 23. Prov. viii. 25, for the Filius primogenitus et adoptivus Deut. xviii. 15. (Prophetam suscitabit Dominus Deus de fratribus vestris) Matth. xvii. 5. Ps. lxxxix. 27 seq. Ps. ii. 8. Jes. xlv. 2, 3, Mich. vi. 7, etc. Cap. 10: (credimus) in uno eodemque Dei et hominis filio in una persona; duabus quoque naturis plenis atque perfectis, Dei et hominis, domini et servi, visibilis atque invisibilis, tribus quoque substantiis, verbi scilicet, animæ et carnis. - Felix (ap. Alcuin. contra Felicem lib. IV. c. 2): Secundo autem modo nuncupative Deus dicitur, sicut superius dictum est de sanctis prædicatoribus, de quibus Salvator Judæis ait; "Si enim illos dixit deos, ad quos Dei sermo factus" (Jo. x. 35): qui tamen non natura ut Deus, sed per Dei gratiam ab eo, qui verus est Deus, deificati dii sunt sub illo vocati in hoc quippe ordine Dei filius dominus et redemtor noster juxta humanitatem, sicut in natura ita et in nomine, quamvis excellentius cunctis electus, verissime tamen cum illis communicat, sicut et in ceteris omnibus i. e. in prædestinatione, in electione, in gratia, in susceptione, in adsumtione nominis servi atque applicatione, seu cetera his similia, ut idem qui essentialiter cum Patre et Spiritu Sancto in unitate Deitatis verus est Deus, ipse in forma humanitatis cum electis suis per adoptionis gratiam deificatus fieret, et nuncupative Deus.

Called in the Epist. Episc. Hisp. ad Episc. Galliæ, etc. c. 17: Casianorum et Salibanorum [Sabellianorum] Magister. An Epist. Elipandi ad Migetium is found in the Espanna sagrada by Henr. Florez (Madrid. 1754 -76. 31 Th. 4to.) T. V. p. 543. ♦ First contradicted by Beatus and Etherius — which then called forth Elipandi

6

to spread in France, so that Charlemagne thought it necessary for him to interfere. Felix was forced to retract, first at Ratisbon (A. D. 792) and then at Rome.5 Elipand having complained to the emperor of this treatment, a synod was held at Frankfort (A. D. 794), at which Adoptianism was condemned anew. After many fruitless attempts by various writers, of whom Alcuin was the most important,8 to convince the Adoptians of their error, Felix was

epist. ad Fidelem Abbatem A. D. 785 (preserved in the answer, best edited in Alcuini Opp. ed. Froben. T. II. p. 587). On the other side Beati et Etherii adv. Elipandum libb. II. (best in Canisii lectt. antt. ed. Basnage T. II. P. I. p. 269 and Gallandius T. XIII. p. 290, though many corrections might still be made from the Codd. Toletanis cf. Gregor. Majans in Alcuini Opp ed. Froben T. II. p. 592 seq.)- Vid. Hadriani P. I. epist. ad Episcopos per universam Spaniam commorantes in the Cod. Carol. no. 97, in Mansi T. XII p. 814. Doubts of the genuineness Walch's Ketzerhist. Bd. 9, S. 747.

5 In the Acts of the Synod of Narbonne A. D. 788 (ed. Baluz. ad de Marca concord. Sac. et Imp. lib. VI. c. 25. Mansi T. XIII. p. 821) the introduction and the signatures, which have reference to this subject, are probably spurious. Walch, 1. c. S. 687 f. 749 f. — Concerning the Synods at Ratisbonne and Rome, see the accounts: Alcuinus adv. Elipandum lib. I. c. 16. Acta Conc. Rom. ann. 799 (vid. Mansi T. XIII. p. 1031) and all the Frank annals.

6 Epist. Episcop. Hispaniæ ad Carol. M. (prim. ed. H. Florez in Espanna sagrada T. V. p. 558. Walch. hist. Adopt. p. 154. Amended in Opp. Alcuini ed. Froben T. II. p. 567). Epist. Episcop. Hispaniæ ad Episc. Galliæ, Aquitaniæ et Austria (prim. ed. Froben ex Cod. Tolet. 1. c. p. 568 seq.).

7 Acta Conc. Francofordiensis (Mansi T. XIII. p. 863). Also: Epist. Hadriani P. I. ad Episc. Hispaniæ (ib. p. 865), Libellus Episcoporum Italiæ contra Elipandum or Paullini Aquilej. libellus sacrosyllabus (ib. p. 873, and in the works of Paullinus), Synodica Concilii ab Episc. Galliæ et Germaniæ ad Præsules Hispaniæ missa (ib. p. 883), then Can. Francof. I. (ib. p. 909), and lastly Caroli M. Epist. ad Elipandum et ceteros episcc. Hispaniæ (ib. p. 899).

8 First Alcuini libellus adv. hæresin Felicis ad Abbates et Monachos Gothiæ missus (prim. ed. Froben ex Cod. Vatic. in Opp. Alcuini T. I. p. 759 seq.) and Epist. ad Felicem (prim. ed. Froben ex. cod. Salisburg, 1. c. p. 783 seq.). Against this last Felicis libellus contra Alcuinum, of which there remain only fragments in the works on the other side. Of this work Alcuini epist. 68. ad Domnum Regem : Hujus vero libri, vel magis erroris responsio multa diligentia et pluribus adjutoribus est consideranda. Ego solus non sufficio ad responsionem. Prævideat vero tua sancta Pietas huic operi tam arduo, et necessario adjutores idoneos, etc. Ejusd. Epist. 69. ad eund.: De libello vero Infelicis non magistri sed subversoris placet mihi valde, quod vestra sanctissima voluntas et devotio habet curam respondendi ad defensionem fidei catholicæ. Sed obsecro, si vestræ placeat pietati, ut exemplarium illius libelli Domno dirigatur Apostolico, aliud quoque Paulino Patriarchæ, similiter Richbono, et Teudulfo Episcopis, Doctoribus et Magistris, ut singuli pro se respondeant. Flaccus vero tuus tecum laborat in reddenda ratione catholicæ fidei. Tantum detur ei spatium, ut quiete et diligenter liceat illi cum pueris suis considerare Patrum sensus; quid unusquisque diceret de sententiis, quas posuit præfatus subversor in suo libello, Et tempore præfinito a vobis, ferantur vestræ auctoritati singulorum responsa. This was followed by the Concil. Roman. ann. 799, at which Leo III. pronounced an anathema against Felix, Mansi T. XIII. p. 1029. The writings of Paulini Aquilej. libb. III. adv. Felicem Orgelitanum (best ed. in Paulini Opp. ed, J. F. Madrisi Venet. 1737. p. 95 seq.) and Alcuini libb. VII. adv. Felicem (ed. Froben T. I. p. 788) first appeared after the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle.

The great reproach cast on the Adoptians was always that of Nestorianism. e. g. Alcuinus contra Felicem lib. I. c. 11: Sicut Nestoriana impietas in duas Christum dividit personas propter duas naturas; — ita et vestra indocta temeritas in duos eum dividit filios, unum proprium, alterum adoptivum. Si vero Christus est proprius filius Dei Patris et adoptivus: ergo est alter et alter. Similiter si in divinitate

at last persuaded by Alcuin to yield at a synod at Aix A. D. 799.10 Elipand, however, resisted the persuasions of Alcuin with great bitterness.11 After the death of Felix, indeed, at Lyons (A. D. 818), proofs were found that he had by no means entirely abandoned his opinions; 12 but having lost their leaders the Adoptians soon sank into oblivion.13

$15.

CONTROVERSIES OF PASCHASIUS RADBERTUS.

Paschasius Radbertus, a monk, and from A. D. 844-851 abbot,

Deus verus est, et in humanitate Deus nuncupativus, alter et alter est, et nullaténus sic sentientes potestis vobis evitare impietatem Nestorianæ doctrinæ : quia quem ille in duas personas dividit propter duas naturas, hunc vos dividitis in duos filios, et in duos Deos per adoptionis nomen et nuncupationis. Lib. IV. c. 5: Nam si duas personas in uno Christo propter apertam blasphemiam timeas fateri, tamen omnia, quæ duabus personis inesse necesse est, in tua confessione confirmare non metuis. On the other hand Lib. II. c. 12: Adsumsit namque sibi Dei filius carnem ex virgine, et non amisit proprietatem, quam habuit in Filii nomine; sed quamquam duas habuisset post nativitatem ex virgine naturas, tamen unam proprietatem in filii persona firmiter tenuit. Accessit humanitas in unitatem personæ Filii Dei, et mansit eadem proprietas in duabus naturis in Filii nomine, quæ ante fuit in una substantia. In adsumtione namque carnis a Deo persona perit hominis, non natura. In nobis est persona adoptionis, non in Filio Dei: quia singulariter ille unus homo ex Deo conceptus et in Deum adsumtus habet proprietatem Filius Dei esse, quod omnes Sancti habent per adoptionem gratiæ Dei. Nec in illa adsumtione alius est Deus, alius homo, vel alius Filius Dei, et alius Filius Virginis: sed idem est Filius Dei, qui et Filius Virginis; - ut sit unus Filius etiam proprius et perfectus in duabus naturis Dei et hominis.

10 See Confessio fidei Felicis, Orgelitanæ sedis Episcopi, quam ipse post spretum errorem suum in conspectu concilii edidit, et eis, qui in ipso errore ei dudum consentientes fuerant, direxit (Mansi T. XIII. p. 1035 seq. and in Alcuini opp. ed. Froben T. I. p. 917 seq.) and Alcuinus adv. Elipandum lib. I. c. 16.

11 First Epist. Alcuini ad Elipandum (Alcuini Opp. ed. Froben T. I. p. 863), and Epist. Elipandi ad Alcuinum (ib. p. 868), both A. D. 799. The last begins: Reverentissimo fratri Albino Diacono, non Christi ministro, sed Antiphrasii Beati fætidissimi discipulo, tempore gloriosi Principis in finibus Austriæ exorto, novo Arrio, sanctorum venerabilium Patrum Ambrosii, Augustini, Isidori, Hieronymi doctrinis contrario, si se converterit ab errore viæ suæ, a Domino æternam salutem : et si noluerit, æternam damnationem. After this Alcuini adv. Elipantum libb. IV. (ib. p. 876 seq.)

12 See a posthumous work of his extracted and refuted in Agobardi liber adv. dogma Felicis Episc. Urgellensis ad Ludovicum Pium Imp.

13 In the middle ages Folmar (about 1160) defended the Adoptian notions (Walch hist. Adopt. p. 247); and Duns Scotus (1300) and Durandus a S. Porciano (1320) admit the expression filius adoptivus in a certain sense (Walch, 1. c. p. 253). In later times the Adoptians have been defended among the Catholics by the Jesuit Gabr. Vasquez commentar. in Thomam (Ingolst. 1606. fol.) in P. III. diss. 89, c. 7, amongst the Protestants by G. Calixtus (Helmstädter Weihnachtsprogr. A. D. 1643. reprinted in Ejusd. de persona Christi dissertationum fasciculus ed F. U. Calixtus. Helmst. 1663. p. 96) and others (Walch, I. c. p. 256 seq.).

The views prevalent in the time immediately preceding that of Radbertus (Beda, Alcuin, Charlemagne) may be found in Cramer's Fortsetzung von Bossuet, Disc. sur l'Histoire Univ. Bd. 1. S. 222.