adored in our hearts. O unfortunate memory, which can realize the presence of Christ only by means of a picture drawn in sensuous colors. The Council of Nicæa committed a great wrong in condemning those who do not worship images.

The author of the Caroline books, however, falls into the same inconsistency as the Eastern iconoclasts, by making an exception in favor of the sign of the cross and the relics of saints. The cross is called a banner which puts the enemy to flight, and the honoring of the relics is declared to be a great means of promoting piety, since the saints reign with Christ in heaven, and their bones will be raised to glory; while images are made by men's hands and return to dust.

A Synod in Frankfort, A. D. 794, the most important held during the reign of Charlemagne, and representing the churches of France and Germany, in the presence of two papal legates (Theophylactus and Stephanus), endorsed the doctrine of the Libri Carolini, unanimously condemned the worship of images in any form, and rejected the seventh oecumenical council.1 According to an old tradition, the English church agreed with this decision.2

The Synod is often called universalis, and condemned Adoptionism (see Hefele, III. 678 sqq.). The decision against images see in Mansi, XIII. 909. The chief passage is: “Sanctissimi Patres nostri omnimodis et adorationem et servitutem eis [sc. imaginibus Sanctorum] renuentes contemserunt atque consentientes condemnaverunt." Einhard made the following entry in his Annals ad A.D. 794 (in Pertz, Monum. I. 181, and Gieseler II. 67): "Synodus etiam, quæ ante paucos annos in Constantinopoli [where the Nicene Synod was closed] sub Herena [Irene] et Constantino filio ejus congregata, et ab ipsis non solum septima, verum etiam universalis est appellata, ut nec septima nec universalis haberetur dicereturve, quasi supervacua in totum ab omnibus [the bishops assembled at Frankfort] abdicata est." Baronius, Bellarmin, and even Hefele (III. 689), charge this Synod with misrepresenting the Council of Nicæa, which sanctioned the worship (in a wider sense), but not the adoration, of images. But the Latin version, which the pope sent to Charlemagne, rendered #pookývnos uniformly by adoratio, and Anastasius, the papal librarian, did the same in his improved translation, thus giving double sanction to the confusion.

2 This rests partly on the probable share which the Anglo-Saxon Alcuin had in the composition of the Caroline Books, partly on the testimony of Simeon of Durham (about 1100). See Twysden's Hist. Angl. Scriptores decem

Charlemagne sent a copy of his book, or more probably an extract from it (85 Capitula or Capitulare de Imaginibus) through Angilbert, his son-in-law, to his friend Pope Hadrian, who in a long answer tried to defend the Eastern orthodoxy of Nicea with due respect for his Western protector, but failed to satisfy the Frankish church, and died soon afterwards (Dec. 25, 795).1

A Synod of Paris, held under the reign of Charlemagne's son and successor, Louis the Pious, in the year 825, renewed the protest of the Frankfort Synod against image-worship and the authority of the second council of Nicæa, in reply to an embassy of the Emperor Michael Balbus, and added a slight rebuke to the pope.2

NOTES.

The Caroline Books, if not written by Charlemagne, are at all events issued in his name; for the author repeatedly calls Pepin his father, and speaks of having undertaken the work with the consent of the priests in his dominion (conniventia sacerdotum in regno a Deo nobis concesso). The book is first mentioned by Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims in the ninth century, as directed against the pseudo-Synodus Græcorum (the second Nicene Council), and he quotes a passage from a copy which he saw in the royal palace. The second mention and quotation was made by the

I, III; Mon. Hist. Brit., p. 667; Wilkin's Conc. Magn. Brit., I. 73; Gieseler, II. 67, note 6, and Hardwick's Church Hist. of the Middle Age, p. 78, note 3.

1 There is a difference of opinion whether Charlemagne sent to the pope his whole book, or only an abridgement, and whether he sent Angilbert before or after the Frankfort synod to Rome. Hefele (III. 713) decides that the Capitula (85) were an extract of the Libri Carolini (121 chs.), and that Angilbert was twice in Rome, A. D. 792 and 794. Hadrian's answer must have been written at all events before Dec. 25, 795. It is printed in Mansi, XIII. 759-810, and Migne, Opera Car. M. II. fol. 1247–1292. It is full of glaring blunders. Bishop Hefele (p. 716) divides the responsibility between the (fallible) pope, the emperor, and the copyists.

* Mansi, XIV. 415 sqq.; Walch, XI. 95 sqq.; Gieseler, II. 68; Hefele, IV. 41 sqq. (second ed. 1879). Walch says (p. 98) that the Roman church played comedy with the acts of this Synod. Mansi was the first to publish them, but he did it with an excuse, and added as indispensable the refutation of Bellarmin in the appendix to his tract De Cultu Imaginum. Hefele and Hergenröther represent this synod as being guilty of the same injustice to the Nicene Council as the Synod of Frankfort; but this does not alter the fact.

papal librarian Augustin Steuchus (d. 1550) from a very old copy in the Bibliotheca Palatina. As soon as it appeared in print, Flavius and other Protestant polemics used it against Rome. Baronius, Bellarmin, and other Romanists denied the genuineness, and ascribed the book to certain heretics in the age of Charlemagne, who sent it to Rome to be condemned; some declared it even a fabrication of the radical reformer Carlstadt! But Sirmond and Natalis Alexander convincingly proved the genuineness. More recently Dr. Floss (R. C.) of Bonn, revived the doubts (1860), but they are permanently removed since Professor Reifferscheid (1866) discovered a new MS. from the tenth century in the Vatican library which differs from the one of Steuchus, and was probably made in the Cistercian Convent at Marienfeld in Westphalia. "Therefore," writes Bishop Hefele in 1877 (III. 698), “the genuineness of the Libri Carolini is hereafter no longer to be questioned (nicht mehr zu beanstanden).”

§ 105. Evangelical Reformers. Agobardus of Lyons, and Claudius of Turin.

I. AGOBARDUS: Contra eorum superstitionem qui picturis et imaginibus SS. adorationis obsequium deferendum putant. Opera ed. Baluzius Par. 1666, 2 vols., and Migne, "Patrol. Lat." vol. 104, fol. 29–351.— Histoire litter. de la France, IV. 567 sqq. C. B. HUNDESHAGEN: De Agobardi vita et scriptis. Pars I. Giessæ 1831; and his article in Herzog I. 212 sq. BAHR: Gesch. der röm. Lit. im Karoling. Zeitalter, p. 383-393. BLUEGEL: De Agobardi archiep. Lugd. vita et scriptis. Hal. 1865. SIMSON: Jahrbücher des fränkischen Reichs unter Ludwig dem Frommen. Leipz. 1874 and '76. C. DEEDES in Smith and Wace, I. 63-64.

LICHTENBERGER, I. 119.

II. CLAUDIUS: Opera in Migne's "Patrol. Lat." vol. 104, fol. 609–927. Commentaries on Kings, Gal., Ephes., etc., Eulogium Augustini, and Apologeticum. Some of his works are still unpublished. RUDELBACH: Claudii Tur. Ep. ineditorum operum specimina, præmissa de ejus doctrina scriptisque dissert. Havnia 1824. C. SCHMIDT: Claudius v. Turin in Illgen's "Zeitschrift f. die hist. Theol." 1843. II. 39; and his art. in Herzog, III. 243–245.

III. NEANDER, III. 428-439 (very full and discriminating on Claudius); GIESELER, II. 69-73 (with judicious extracts); REUTER: Geschichte der Aufklärung im Mittelalter, vol. I. (Berlin 1875), 16–20 and 24–41.

The opposition to image-worship and other superstitious practices continued in the Frankish church during the ninth century.

Two eminent bishops took the lead in the advocacy of a more

spiritual and evangelical type of religion. In this they differed from the rationalistic and destructive iconoclasts of the East. They were influenced by the writings of Paul and Augustin, those inspirers of all evangelical movements in, church history; with this difference, however, that Paul stands high above parties and schools, and that Augustin, with all his anti-Pelagian principles, was a strong advocate of the Catholic theory of the church and church-order.

AGOBARD (in Lyonese dialect Agobaud or Aguebaud), a native of Spain, but of Gallic parents, and archbishop of Lyons (816-841), figures prominently in the political and ecclesiastical history of France during the reign of Louis the Pious. He is known to us already as an opponent of the ordeal, the judicial duel and other heathen customs. His character presents singular contrasts. He was a rigid ecclesiastic and sacerdotalist, and thoroughly orthodox in dogma (except that he denied the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures); but, on the other hand, a sworn enemy of all superstition, and advocate of liberal views in matters of worship." He took part in the rebellion of Lothaire against his father Louis in 833, which deprived him of his bishopric and left a serious stain on his character, but he was afterwards reconciled to Louis and recovered the bishopric. He opposed Adoptionism as a milder form of the Nestorian heresy. He attacked the Jews, who flocked to Lyons in large numbers, and charges them with insolent conduct towards the Christians. In this he shared the intolerance of his age. But, on the other hand, he wrote a book against image-worship. He goes back to the root of the difficulty, the worship of saints. He can find no authority for such worship. The saints themselves decline it. It is a cunning device of Satan to smuggle heathen idolatry into the church under pretext of showing honor to saints. He

1 See & 79, p. 347.

2 Reuter (I. 24) calls him "the clearest head of the ninth century," and "the systematizer of the Aufklärung" (i. e. of Rationalism in the middle age). De Imaginibus Sanctorum, in Migne, vol. 104, fol. 199-228.

thus draws men away from a spiritual to a sensual worship. God alone should be adored; to him alone must we present the sacrifice of a broken and contrite heart. Angels and holy men who are crowned with victory, and help us by their intercessions, may be loved and honored, but not worshiped. "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man" (Jer. 17: 5). We may look with pleasure on their pictures, but it is better to be satisfied with the simple symbol of the cross (as if this were not liable to the same abuse). Agobart approves the canon of Elvira, which forbade images altogether. He says in conclusion: "Since no man is essentially God, save Jesus our Saviour, so we, as the Scripture commands, shall bow our knees to his name alone, lest by giving this honor to another we may be estranged from God, and left to follow the doctrines and traditions of men according to the inclinations of our hearts."1

Agobard was not disturbed in his position, and even honored as a saint in Lyons after his death, though his saintship is disputed. His works were lost, until Papirius Masson discovered a MS. copy and rescued it from a bookbinder's hands in Lyons (1605).

CLAUDIUS, bishop of Turin (814-839), was a native of Spain, but spent three years as chaplain at the court of Louis the Pious and was sent by him to the diocese of Turin. He wrote practical commentaries on nearly all the books of the Bible, at the request of the emperor, for the education of the clergy. They were mostly extracted from the writings of Augustin, Jerome,

1 Cap. 35 (in Migne, fol. 227): "Flectamus genu in nomine solius Jesu, quod est super omne nomen; ne si alteri hunc honorem tribuimus, alieni judicemur a Deo. et dimittamur secundum desideria cordis nostri ire in adinventionibus nostris." Gieseler directs attention to the verbal agreement between Agobart and Claudius in several sentences.

2 See Acta SS. Jun. II. 748, and the Elogia de S. Agobardo in Migne, fol. 13-16. The Bollandists honor him with a place in their work, because Masson, the first editor, allows him the title saint, and because he is commonly called St. Aguebaud in the church of Lyons, and is included in the local martyrologies. A rite of nine lessons is assigned to him in the Breviarium Lugdunense.