and other Latin fathers. Only fragments remain. He was a great admirer of Augustin, but destitute of his wisdom and moderation.'

He found the Italian churches full of pictures and pictureworshipers. He was told that the people did not mean to worship the images, but the saints. He replied that the heathen on the same ground defend the worship of their idols, and may become Christians by merely changing the name. He traced image-worship and saint-worship to a Pelagian tendency, and met it with the Augustinian view of the sovereignty of divine grace. Paul, he says, overthrows human merits, in which the monks now most glory, and exalts the grace of God. We are saved by grace, not by works. We must worship the Creator, not the creature. "Whoever seeks from any creature in heaven or on earth the salvation which he should seek from God alone, is an idolater." The departed saints themselves do not wish to be worshipped by us, and cannot help us. While we live, we may aid each other by prayers, but not after death. He attacked also the superstitious use of the sign of the cross, going beyond Charlemagne and Agobard. He met the defence by carrying it to absurd conclusions. If we worship the cross, he says, because Christ suffered on it, we might also worship every virgin because he was born of a virgin, every manger because he was laid in a manger, every ship because he taught from a ship, yea, every ass because he rode on an ass into Jerusalem. We should bear the cross, not adore it. He banished the pictures, crosses and crucifixes from the churches, as the only

In his comments on Paul's Epistles (in Migne, 104 f. 927 sq.), he eulogizes Augustin as "amantissimus Domini sanctissimus Augustinus, calamus Trinitatis lingua Spiritus Sancti, terrenus homo, sed cœlestis angelus, in quæstionibus solvendis acutus, in revincendis hæreticis circumspectus, in explicandis Scripturis canonicis cautus." In the same place, he says of Paul that his epistles are wholly given to destroy man's merits and to exalt God's grace ("ut merita hominum tollat, unde maxime nunc monachi gloriantur, et gratiam Dei commendet”). On his Augustinianism, see the judicious remarks of Neander. Reuter (I. 20) calls him both a biblical reformer and a critical rationalist.

way to kill superstition. He also strongly opposed the pilgrimages. He had no appreciation of religious symbolism, and went in his Puritanic zeal to a fanatical extreme.

Claudius was not disturbed in his seat; but, as he says himself, he found no sympathy with the people, and became "an object of scorn to his neighbors," who pointed at him as "a frightful spectre." He was censured by Pope Paschalis I. (817– 824), and opposed by his old friend, the Abbot Theodemir of the diocese of Nismes, to whom he had dedicated his lost commentary on Leviticus (823), by Dungal (of Scotland or Ireland, about 827), and by Bishop Jonas of Orleans (840), who unjustly charged him with the Adoptionist and even the Arian heresy. Some writers have endeavored, without proof, to trace a connection between him and the Waldenses in Piedmont, who are of much later date.1

Jonas of Orleans, Hincmar of Rheims, and Wallafrid Strabo still maintained substantially the moderate attitude of the Caroline books between the extremes of iconoclasm and image-worship. But the all-powerful influence of the popes, the sensuous tendency and credulity of the age, the ignorance of the clergy, and the grosser ignorance of the people combined to secure the ultimate triumph of image-worship even in France. The rising sun of the Carolingian age was obscured by the darkness of the tenth century.

2

1 C. Schmidt in Herzog III. 245 says of this view: "Diese, sehr spät, in dogmatischem Interesse aufgenommene Ansicht, die sich bei Léger und andern, ja selbst noch bei Hahn findet, hat keinen historischen Grund und ist von allen gründlichen Kennern der Waldensergeschichte längst aufgegeben. Dabei soll nicht geleugnet werden, dass die Tendenzen des Claudius sich noch eine zeitlang in Italien erhalten haben; es ist soeben bemerkt worden, dass, nach dem Zeugniss des Jonas von Orléans, man um 840 versuchte, sie von neuem zu verbreiten. Dass sie sich aber bis zum Auftreten des Peter Waldus und speciell in den piemontesischen Thälern fortgepflanzt, davon ist nicht die geringste Spur vorhanden.”

CHAPTER XI.

DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES.

§ 106. General Survey.

OUR period is far behind the preceding patristic and the succeeding scholastic in doctrinal importance, but it mediates between them by carrying the ideas of the fathers over to the acute analysis of the schoolmen, and marks a progress in the development of the Catholic system. It was agitated by seven theological controversies of considerable interest.

1. The controversy about the single or double Procession of the Holy Spirit. This belongs to the doctrine of the Trinity and was not settled, but divides to this day the Greek and Latin churches.

2. The Monotheletic controversy is a continuation of the Eutychian and Monophysitic controversies of the preceding period. It ended with the condemnation of Monotheletism and an addition to the Chalcedonian Christology, namely, the doctrine that Christ has two wills as well as two natures.

3. The Adoptionist controversy is a continuation of the Nestorian. Adoptionism was condemned as inconsistent with the personal union of the two natures in Christ.

4 and 5. Two Eucharistic controversies resulted in the general prevalence of the doctrine of transubstantiation.

6. The Predestinarian controversy between Gottschalk and Hincmar tended to weaken the influence of the Augustinian system, and to promote semi-Pelagian views and practices.

7. The Image-controversy belongs to the history of worship

rather than theology, and has been discussed in the preceding chapter.1

The first, second, and seventh controversies affected the East and the West; the Adoptionist, the two Eucharistic, and the Predestinarian controversies were exclusively carried on in the West, and ignored in the East.

§ 107. The Controversy on the Procession of the Holy Spirit. See the Lit. in 8 67, p. 304 sq. The arguments for both sides of the question were fully discussed in the Union Synod of Ferrara-Florence, 1438-39; see HEFELE: Conciliengesch. VII. P. II. p. 683 sqq.; 706 sqq.; 712 sqq.

The FILIOQUE-Controversy relates to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, and is a continuation of the trinitarian controversies of the Nicene age. It marks the chief and almost the only important dogmatic difference between the Greek and Latin churches. It belongs to metaphysical theology, and has far less practical value than the regenerating and sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men. But it figures very largely in history, and has occasioned, deepened, and perpetuated the greatest schism in Christendom. The single word Filioque keeps the oldest, largest, and most nearly related churches divided since the ninth century, and still forbids a reunion. The Eastern church regards the doctrine of the single procession as the corner-stone of orthodoxy, and the doctrine of the double procession as the mother of all heresies. She has held most tenaciously to her view since the fourth century, and is not likely ever to give it up. Nor can the Roman church change her doctrine of the double procession without sacrificing the principle of infallibility.

The Protestant Confessions agree with the Latin dogma, while on the much more vital question of the papacy they agree with the Eastern church, though from a different point of view. The church of England has introduced the double procession

1 See ch. X. 3 100-104.

of the Spirit even into her litany.' It should be remembered, however, that this dogma was not a controverted question in the time of the Reformation, and was received from the mediæval church without investigation. Protestantism is at

perfect liberty to go back to the original form of the Nicene Creed if it should be found to be more in accordance with the Scripture. But the main thing for Christians of all creeds is to produce "the fruit of the Spirit, which is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, selfcontrol."

Let us first glance at the external history of the controversy.

1. The New Testament. The exegetical starting-point and foundation of the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit is the word of our Lord in the farewell address to his disciples: "When the Paraclete (the Advocate) is come, whom I will send

1"O God the Holy Ghost, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, have mercy upon us miserable sinners." No orthodox Greek or Russian Christian could join an Anglican in this prayer without treason to his church. It is to be understood, however, that some of the leading divines of the church of England condemn the insertion of the Filioque in the Creed. Dr. Neale (Introduction to the History of the Holy Eastern Church, vol. II. p. 1168) concludes that this insertion "in the inviolable Creed was an act utterly unjustifiable, and throws on the Roman church the chief guilt in the horrible schism of 1054. It was done in the teeth of the veto passed in the sixth session of the Council of Ephesus, in the fifth of Chalcedon, in the sixth collation of the second of Constantinople, and in the seventh of the third of Constantinople. It was done against the express command of a most holy Pope, himself a believer in the double Procession, who is now with God. No true union-experience has shown it-can take place between the churches till the Filioque be omitted from the Creed, even if a truly œcumenical Synod should afterwards proclaim the truth of the doctrine." Bishop Pearson was of the same opinion as to the insertion, but approved of the Latin doctrine. He says (in his Exposition of the Creed, Art. VIII): "Now although the addition of the words to the formal Creed without the consent, and against the protestation of the Oriental Church, be not justifiable; yet that which was added, is nevertheless certainly a truth, and may be so used in that Creed by them who believe the same to be a truth; so long as they pretend it not to be a definition of that Council, but an addition or explication inserted, and condemn not those who, out of a greater respect to such synodical determinations, will admit of no such insertion, nor speak any other language than the Scriptures and their fathers spake."