_(a.)_ "If Christ, as man, is not the _adopted_ Son of G.o.d, then must His Manhood be derived from the essence of G.o.d 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 G.o.d, and Christ is also G.o.d, then is G.o.d the adopted Son of G.o.d?"[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 G.o.d. 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 (G.o.d and man) is called Son of G.o.d."[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 G.o.d over and above the voluntary submission which He owed to His Father as G.o.d.[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 pa.s.sages of the Koran which speak of Christ as a servant, as, "Christ doth not proudly disdain to be a servant unto G.o.d,"[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 G.o.d, Felix appeals to Luke xviii. 19, "Why callest thou Me good? There is none good, save one, even G.o.d;" Mark xiii. 32, "Of that day, or that hour, knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." Texts such as these can only be met by a reference to other texts, such as John iii. 16, where G.o.d is said to have given His only begotten Son to suffer death upon the Cross.

[1] Alcuin contra Felicem, ii. sec. 12.

[2] Alcuin (_ibid.,_ i. sec. 13) also answers: "If Christ be the adopted Son of G.o.d, because as man, he could not be of G.o.d's substance: then must he also be Mary's adopted son in respect to his Deity. But then Mary cannot be the mother of G.o.d." But this Alcuin thinks an impious conclusion. Cp. also Contra Felic., vii. sec. 2.

[3] Contra Felic, iii. sec. 2.

[4] Cp. 1 Corinth, xi. 3, "The Head of Christ is G.o.d." This position of dependence was due, says Felix, "ad ign.o.bilitatem beatae Virginis, quae se ancillam Dei humili voce protestatur."

[5] Cp. Elipandus' "Confession of Faith": "... per istum Dei simul et hominis Filium, adoptivum humanitate et nequaquam adoptivum Divinitate ... qui est Deus inter Deos (John x. 35) ... quia, si conformes sunt omnes sancti huic Filio Dei secundum gratiam, profecto et c.u.m adoptione (sunt) adoptivi, et c.u.m advocato advocati, et c.u.m Christo Christi, et _c.u.m servo servi_."

[6] Cf. Acts iii. 13.

[7] Koran, iv. v. 170.

[8] Koran, xliii. v. 59.

Conceiving, then, that it was logically necessary to speak of Christ the Man as Son of G.o.d by adoption, Felix yet admits that this adoption, though the same in kind[1] as that which enables _us_ to cry Abba, Father, yet was more excellent in degree, and even perhaps specifically higher. It differed also from man's adoption in not being entered into at baptism, since Christ's baptism was only the point at which His adoption was outwardly made manifest by signs of miraculous power, which continued till the resurrection. Christ's adoption--according to Felix, was a.s.sumed at His conception, "His humanity developing in accordance with its own laws, but in union with the Logos."[2] It will be seen that though Felix wished to keep clear the distinction between Christ as G.o.d, and as Man, yet he did not carry this separation so far as to acknowledge two persons in Christ. "The Adoptionists acknowledged the unity of Persons, but meant by this a juxtaposition of two distinct personal beings in such a way that the Son of G.o.d should be recognised as the vehicle for all predicates, but not in so close a manner as to amount to an absorption of the human personality into the Divine Person."[3] The two natures of Christ had been a.s.serted by the Church against the Monophysites, and the two wills against the Monothelites, but the Church never went on to admit the two Persons.[4] With regard to the contention of Felix, we are consequently driven to the conclusion that either the personality ascribed to Christ was "a mere abstraction, a metaphysical link joining two essentially incompatible natures,"[5] or that the dispute was only about names, and that by adopted son Felix and the others meant nothing really different from the orthodox doctrine.[6]

[1] See John x. 35. Cp. Neander, v. p. 222.

[2] Neander (l.l.) Blunt, Art. on Adopt., puts this differently: "There were (according to Felix) two births in our Lord's life--(a) the a.s.sumption of man at the conception; (_b_) the adoption of that man at baptism. Cp. Contra Felic., iii.

16: "Qui est Secundus Adam, accepit has geminas generationes; primam quae secundum carnem est, secundum vero spiritatem, quae per adoptionem fit, idem redemptor noster secundum hominem complexus, in semet ipso continet, primam videlicet, quam suscepit ex virgine nascendo, secundam vero quam initiavit in lavacro [ ] a mortuis resurgendo."

[3] Blunt, article on Adopt.

[4] Cp. Paschasius: "In Christo gemina substantia, non gemina persona est, quia persona personam consumere potest, substantia vero substantiam non potest, siquidem persona res iuris est, substantia res naturae."

[5] Blunt, _ibid._ Cp. also Alcuin contra Felic., iv. 5, where he says that Felix, although he shrank from a.s.serting the dual personality of Christ, yet insisted on points which involved it.

[6] So Walchius.

The first mention of the new theory appears in a letter of Elipandus to the Abbot Fidelis, written in 783,[1] but it did not attract notice till a little later. The pope Adrian, in his letter to the orthodox bishops of Spain (785), speaks of the melancholy news of the heresy having reached him--a heresy, he remarks, never before propounded, unless by Nestorius. Together with Elipandus, he mentions Ascarius,[2]

Bishop of Braga, whom Elipandus had won over to his views. The new doctrine seems to have made its way quickly over a great part of Spain,[3] while Felix propagated it with considerable success in Septimania. The champions of the orthodox party in Spain were Beatus and Etherius, whom we have mentioned above, and Theudula, Bishop of Seville; while beyond its borders Alcuin, Paulinus of Aquileia, and Agobard of Lyons, under the direction of Charles the Great and the Pope, defended the orthodox position.

[1] See Migne, 96 p. 848.

[2] Fleury, v. 236, mentions a letter of his to Elipandus, asking the latter's opinion on some doubtful points in the new doctrine.

[3] Jonas of Orleans, in his work against Claudius, says: "Hac virulenta doctrina uterque Hispaniam magna ex parte infecit."

Felix, being bishop in a province of which Charles claimed the overlordship, was amenable to his ecclesiastical superiors, and suffered for his opinions at their hands; but Elipandus, living under a Mohammedan government, could only be reached by letters or messages. He seems even to have received something more than a mere negative support from the Arabs, if we are right in so interpreting a pa.s.sage in the letter of Beatus and Etherius.[1] But it is hard to believe that Elipandus was on such friendly terms with the Arab authorities; indeed, from pa.s.sages in his writings, we should infer that the opposite was rather the case.[2] Neander suggests that it may have been a Gothic king in Galicia who supported Elipandus, but this seems even more unlikely than the other supposition.

The first council called to consider this question was held by the suggestion of the Emperor and the Pope at Narbonne in 788, when the heresy was condemned by twenty-five bishops of Gaul.[3]

A similar provincial council was held by Paulinus at Friuli in 791, with the same results.[4] But in the following year the heresy was formally condemned at a full council held at Ratisbon, under the presidency of the Emperor. Here Felix abjured his error, and was sent to Rome to be further condemned by the Pope, that the whole Western Church might take action in the matter. Felix was there induced to write a book condemning his own errors, but in spite of this he was not restored to his see.[5]

On his return, however, to Spain, Felix relapsed into his old heresy, which he had never really abjured.[6]

[1] I. sec. 13. "Et episcopus metropolita.n.u.s et princeps terrae pari certamine schismata haereticorum, unus verbi gladio, alter virga regiminis ulciscens, de terra vestra funditus auferantur." See on this pa.s.sage Neander, v. 227, and cp. sec.

65, "haereticus tamen scripturarum non facit rationem, sed c.u.m potentibus saeculi ecclesiam vincere quaerit."

[2] Elip. ad. Albinum, sec. 7--"Oppressione gentis afflicti non possumus tibi rescribere cuncta;" also, Ad Felic. "quotidiana dispendia quibus duramus potius quam vivimus."

[3] There are some doubts about this council.

[4] Fleury, v. 236. Hefele dates it 796.

[5] See letter of Spanish bishops to Charles, asking for Felix's restoration (794).

[6] Leo III. said of him, at a council held in Rome (799): "_Fugiens ad paganos consentaneos_ perjuratus effectus est."

See Froben, "Dissert," sec. 24; apud Migne, ci, pp. 305-336.

In 792 Alcuin was summoned from England to come and defend the orthodox position. He wrote at once to Felix a kindly letter, admonishing him of his errors, and acknowledging that all his previous utterances on theology had been sound and true. Felix answered this letter, but his reply is not preserved. To the same, or following, year belongs the letter of Elipandus and the bishops of Spain to Charles and the bishops of Gaul, defending their doctrine, and asking for the restoration of Felix.

In 794 was held another council at Frankfurt, at which Alcuin and other English clergy were present. Felix was summoned to attend, and heard his heresy again condemned and anathematised, the decree to this effect being sent to Elipandus.[1] Alcuin's book was read by Charles, and sent into Septimania by the hands of the abbot Benedict.

The next council was held at Rome in 798 to confirm the one at Frankfurt.[2] In 799 came out Felix's answer to Alcuin, sent by him first to Elipandus, and, after being shewn to the Cordovan clergy, sent on to Charles. Alcuin is charged to answer it, with Paulinus and the Pope as his coadjutors.

In the same year another council was held at Aix, where Alcuin argued for a week with Felix, and apparently convinced him, for Felix again recanted, and even wrote a confession of faith discarding the word adoption, but still preserving the distinction of predicates belonging to the two natures.[3] Alcuin's book, after being revised by Charles, was published 800 A.D. Previously to this he had written to Elipandus, who answered in no measured terms, accusing Alcuin, among other things, of enormous wealth. This letter was sent through Felix, and, in answer, Alcuin wrote the book against Elipandus, which we now have, and which was the means of converting twenty thousand heretics in Gothic Gaul.[4]

But in spite of Emperor or Pope, of the books of Alcuin, or the anathemas of the councils, neither Felix nor Elipandus really gave up his new doctrines, and even the former continued to make converts.

Elipandus, though very old[5] at this time (800 A.D.), lived ten years longer, and Felix survived him eight years;[6] and they both died persisting in their error.[7]

[1] Fleury, v. 243, says there was no anathema; but Migne, xcvi. 858, gives us the canon: "Anathematizata esto impia ac 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 Julia.n.u.s. 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 G.o.d, which sounded so offensive to Mohammedan ears, would so far bring the Christian creed nearer to the Mohammedan's acceptance, by a.s.similating 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: