ESTRUCTURA Y COMPOSICIÓN DEL GRANO

SACRAMENTUM OF BAPTISM

Baptism provided Alcuin with a useful organizational concept for Christian forma- tion, especially for coordinating his reflections on faith and morality. At the end of the eighth and beginning of the ninth century, Alcuin wrote a number of works in which he expanded his ideas, using the sacramentum of baptism to explore the moral implications of Christian doctrine. He used his celebrity to advocate his position and disseminate his thoughts across Europe to people in different states, clerical and lay, through different genres, from saints’ vitae to moral specula, and for different purposes—polemical, didactic, hortatory—across the Carolingian World.

During the winter of 797/798, Alcuin composed his Contra haeresim Felicis, the first of his several treatises against the Adoptionist heresy.133 _{Felix was the} bishop of Urgel, part of the Carolingian Spanish March from 789. He was a pop- ular preacher and vocal advocate of Elipandus of Toledo’s (Adoptionist) Chris- tological teachings. Felix was summoned to court at Regensburg in 792 to defend

131 _{Alcuin, Epistola 134, p. 203. “Sic corpore et sanguine dominico confirmatur, ut illius sit capitis} membrum, qui pro eo passus est et resurrexit.” Alcuin, Epistola 137, p. 215. “Sic corpore et sanguine dominico confirmatur, ut illius sit membrum, qui pro eo passus est et resurrexit.”

132 _{Alcuin, Epistola 134, p. 203. “Novissime per inpositionem manus a summo sacerdote septi-} formis gratiae spiritum accipit, ut roboretur per Spiritum sanctum ad praedicandum aliis, qui fuit in baptismo per gratiam vitae donatus aeternae.”

133 _{See the discussion of Frankfurt in Chapter Two. The most recent edition of Alcuin’s work is}

Gary Blumenshine, Liber Alcuini Contra Haeresim Felicis, Edition with an Introduction (Vatican: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1980) pp. 55–99. The work survives in a unique manuscript, Vati- can, BAV Pal. Lat. 290, a mid-ninth century work from Lorsch, see Bernhard Bischoff, Lorsch im

his theology, then again at Frankfurt (794) and at Aachen (799). A long and— notably—cordial debate between Felix and Alcuin lasted through the 790s. He wrote the work with the benefit of the library of St. Martin of Tours, where he “retired” as abbot in 796. In the Contra haeresim Felicis, Alcuin developed a the- ologically sophisticated assault on Adoptionism driven by his reading of a Latin translation of the synodal acta of the Council of Ephesus (431).134 _{His polemic} associated Adoptionism with Nestorian Christology. The work consisted largely of a dossier of patristic texts which treated the language of Adoptionism, organ- ized, edited, and explained by Alcuin so as to undermine the premises of Span- ish Adoptionist Christology. Alcuin circulated at least three copies of the work. In March 798, he sent a copy to Charlemagne.135 _{After the work met with Char-} lemagne’s approval, he sent copies to Theodulf of Orléans and Benedict of Ani- ane in order to aid them in the struggle against the Adoptionists across southern Gaul.136 _{The Lorsch manuscript in which the work survives may testify to even} wider circulation. Though the manuscript is likely a mid-ninth-century copy, it may indicate an early history at the abbey. Ricbod, abbot of Lorsch (784–804) and bishop of Trier (791–804) was Alcuin’s student and a court intimate, earning a nickname drawn from early Christianity monasticism, Macarius.137 _{And in a} surviving letter, Alcuin identifies Ricbod, along with Paulinus of Aquileia and Theodulf of Orléans, as a principal participant in the discussion of Adoption- ism.138 _{The letter concerning this copy was sent to Benedict and “all the abbots,} brothers and sons who are in the regions of Gothia,” which indicates a circular letter-type distribution similar to one of his letters containing Primo paganus.139

Baptism served as the point of departure for Alcuin’s Christology and his anti-Adoptionist polemics.140 _{Sifting through earlier Christian writings for his}

134 _{Blumenshine, Contra Haeresim Felicis, p. 17. The manuscript copy of the acta (Paris, BN Lat.}

1572) has been described in Bernhard Bischoff, “Aus Alkuins Erdentagen” Mittelalterliche Studien, Vol. 2 (Stuttgart: A. Hiersemann, 1967) pp. 12–19.

135 _{Alcuin mentions this copy in Alcuin, Epistola 145, pp. 233–4.}

136 _{See Alcuin, Epistola 160, p. 259 and Alcuin, Epistola 205, p. 340, respectively.} 137 _{Garrison, “The Social World of Alcuin,” p. 61.}

138 _{See Alcuin, Epistola 149, p. 243. For discussion on this point, see Blumenshine, Contra} Haeresim Felicis, pp. 42–6.

139 _{Alcuin, Epistola 205, p. 340. “. . . omnibus abbatibus fratribus et filiis, qui sunt Gothiae partibus . . .”} 140 _{For a brief overview of the Adoptionist dispute, see David Ganz, “Theology and the Organi-}

zation of Thought” pp. 762–6. The foundational study of the Adoptionist debate is found in Wil- helm Heil, Alkuinstudien I. Zur Chronologie und Bedeutung des Adoptianismusstreites (Düsseldorf: L. Schwann, 1970). See also, Wilhelm Heil, “Der Adoptianismus, Alcuin, und Spanien” Karl der

Grosse. Bd. II Das geistige Leben, ed. B. Bischoff (Düsseldorf: L. Schwann, 1965) pp. 95–155. For a

full treatment of the contested theological issues, see John C. Cavadini, The Last Christology of the

West: Adoptionism in Spain and Gaul 785–820 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,

1993) pp. 88–102; James B. Williams, The Adoptive Son of God, the Pregnant Virgin, and the For- tification of the True Faith: Heterodoxy, the Cult of the Virgin Mary, and Benedict of Aniane in the Carolingian Age (Ph.D. Diss., Purdue University, 2009); Florence Close, Uniformiser la foi pour

unifier l’empire: contribution à l’histoire de la pensée politico–théologique de Charlemagne (Brux-

Contra haeresim Felicis, Alcuin looked for treatments of Jesus’ baptism in the

Jordan. At that baptism Alcuin saw an unambiguous statement about the dis- tinction of persons in the Trinity. In a paragraph of very basic framing for the longer patristic excerpts he compiled, Alcuin wrote

Let us believe the testimony of the Lord God the Father when he testified over his baptized Son in a splendid voice, saying: This is my beloved Son (Mt. 3:17). And lest anyone doubt something was said about the other person, the presence of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove confirms that this is the Son of God who was baptized by John in the Jordan.141

To this introductory note, Alcuin appended selections on Jesus’ baptism from Hilary of Poitiers’ De Trinitate which offered language critical of Felix’s posi- tion. He identified Jesus Christ as the Son of God “not by name, but by nature, and not by adoption, but by birth.”142 _{Alcuin developed his interpretation of the} Gospel accounts of Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan and offered an analysis of Jesus’ relationship to God the Father.

Soon after Alcuin circulated his Contra haeresim Felicis, Felix composed his own treatise defending Adoptionist Christology. Although the text does not survive, selections are preserved in Alcuin’s spirited rebuttal, Contra Felicem

Urgellitanum, written during the winter of 798–99.143 _{Longer and more syn-} thetic, this work again concentrated on Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan. Alcuin explored God’s declaration from heaven—“This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased (Mt 3:17)”—twice in the first book and again in the second of his seven book effort.144 _{As earlier, Alcuin emphasized that the Father’s voice} should be taken at face value. He adopted the same interpretive perspective as in his earlier work, but with greater specificity and nuance. He indicated not only the true sonship of Jesus, but laid out an orthodox vocabulary of humanity and divinity, two natures in one person, with which to discuss Christ and explore his sonship. In Book Two Alcuin wrote

141 _{Blumenshine, Contra Haeresim Felicis, p. 56. “Credamus domini dei patris testimonio ubi} super baptizatum filium magnifica uoce testatur dicens, Hic est filius meus dilectus. Et ne quis de altero dici dubitaret, etiam sancti spiritus in specie columbae praesentia conprobatur hunc esse fili- um dei qui a Iohanne in Iordane baptizatur.”

142 _{Blumenshine, Contra Haeresim Felicis, p. 59. For Hilary’s text and the original context con-}

sult Hilaire de Poitiers, La Trinité, Vol. 2 (livres iv–viii), ed. P. Smulders, SC 448 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2000) p. 234. Alcuin’s creation of a tradition of Hilary interpretation at just this point is con- sidered in John C. Cavadini, “A Carolingian Hilary” The Study of the Bible in the Carolingian Era, eds. Celia Chazelle and Burton Van Name Edwards (Turnhout: Brepols, 2003) pp. 133–40. Espe- cially important is Alcuin’s selective citation of Hilary, including the editing out of passages seem- ing to support Adoptionist vocabulary.

143 _{The most recent edition is that printed in Migne’s Patrologia Latina 101, which is a reprint}

from Alcuinus, Opera Omnia, ed. Frobenius Forster (Regensburg, 1777). For more on the trans- mission history of Alcuin’s works, consult Michael Gorman, “Alcuin Before Migne” Revue Béné-

dictine 112 (2002) pp. 101–30. On the theology of the work see, especially, Cavadini, Last Christology, pp. 81–2, 88–102.

144 _{Alcuin, Contra Felicem Urgellitanum libri septem I.12, PL 101.0138; I.20, PL 101.0145; and}

In the hearing of John the Baptist, that voice testified on behalf of Christ after he was baptized, proclaiming ‘this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased’ (Mt. 3:17). We have already commented on this passage a great deal above. At present we wish only to ask if the paternal voice referred to the one person of Christ. If so, then that one person to whom this voice was addressed is the whole beloved Son of God, although in two natures. If the voice referred only to the divinity, then it was the divinity that was baptized there, and not the humanity, because this voice was produced over the one who was baptized. But then it was the newly baptized man, upon whom the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove, who was proclaimed by God to be the Son of God. The paternal voice and the descent of the Holy Spirit both indicated that the very same one who was baptized was the Son of God.145

As Alcuin himself noted, he commented on this passage a great deal. Alcuin’s interest in how this Gospel passage worked against the Adoptionists was wide- spread and consistent beyond Contra Felicem Urgellitanum. It is found, for example, in the letter to the monks of Septimania which contained Primo

paganus.146

In addition to his doctrinal interests, Alcuin saw these accounts as an oppor- tunity to lay out the moral stakes of rightly understanding Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan. Alcuin’s mature analysis used scripture to explain the theology of Christ’s nature, but then turned to the liturgy to tease out the moral and escha- tological stakes. As his argument moved forward, Alcuin carefully distinguished the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan from the baptism subsequently celebrated by Christians. Alcuin signalled where he was headed when he introduced his dis- cussion with the distinction between what occurred in the Gospel and what happened in his own day. “Why until now, O remarkable Doctor [Felix], do you place the name of adoption on Christ? You do it so that in addition he requires the washing of baptism, and a second birth, just as we sinners who are now born through carnal generation as sons of wrath?”147 _{So, after completing his analysis} of the Trinitarian teaching implied by the baptism at the Jordan, he looked to the Christian sacramentum to complete his thought. Alcuin observed that because Jesus was God’s Son and was sinless, he could not have needed Christian

145 _{Alcuin, Contra Felicem Urgellitanum libri septem II.15, PL 101.157. “. . . audiente beato Bap-} tista Joanne, perhibuit hujusmodi, clamans: Hic est Filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi bene compla-

cui. De quo testimonio supra plenius diximus. Nunc tantum in hoc loco interrogare libet, si haec vox

paterna ad unam Christi personam pertineret? Si ad unam: ergo illa una persona, ad quam haec vox facta est, tota est Filius Dei dilectus, licet in duabus naturis. Si ad divinitatem tantum, ergo divinitas baptizata est ibi, et non humanitas: quia super baptizatum haec vox facta est. Homo siquidem, qui baptizatus est, Dei Filius a Deo Patre praedicatur, super quem et Spiritus sanctus in specie columbae descendit. Quatenus paterna vox et sancti Spiritus descensio eumdem esse Dei Filium demonstraret, qui baptizatus est.”

146 _{Alcuin, Epistola 137, p. 211.}

147 _{Alcuin, Contra Felicem Urgellitanum libri septem II.15, PL 101.0157. “Quid adhuc, o doctor} mirabilis, adoptionis nomen Christo imponis? quem insuper lavacro indiguisse baptismatis, et secunda generatione, sicut nos peccatores jam nati per generationem carnalem in filios irae.”

baptism because Christian baptism removed sins and made people sons of God: “we with the whole Church of Christ cry out that Christ had no sin to be expi- ated and needed no second birth, since he is true God and true Son of God, conceived and born of the Holy Spirit. For if Christ needed a second birth, he was—certainly—a sinner!”148 _{Alcuin hammered on the difference between the} baptism of Jesus in the Jordan and the Christian sacramentum. It is the sacra-

mentum, not the Incarnation, which made sons of God by adoption. Alcuin

reiterated his point by contrasting biblical with liturgical exegesis. This decision formed the lynchpin of his contention that Jesus was not an adopted son of God. “If the prince of this world, that is the devil, does not have anything in him, why did he need to be reborn? We indeed are not born sons of God, but we are reborn. That one was conceived and born the Son of God: and therefore he who was born the Son of God did not need adoption to be the Son of God.”149

Alcuin’s explanation of the baptism in the Jordan addressed his doctrinal concerns, but at the same time raised a liturgical one. How did the baptism of Jesus relate to Christian baptism? Alcuin’s willingness to attack this issue revealed his larger agenda. He developed his answer through a moral interpre- tation of baptism’s significance. Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan was theologically illuminating and morally instructive. Jesus allowed himself to be baptised not in order to purge his own sins, but in order to provide an example to others. Specifically, through his own baptism, Jesus taught the virtue of humility. “But that Jesus Christ conceived and born without sin rather came to baptism to show an example of humility, and to sanctify the water by his baptism; not to be sanctified in the water, who in himself had nothing of sin, from which he need- ed to be cleansed through baptism.”150 _{Alcuin’s perspective on Jesus’ baptism} extended to other works. In his study of the Trinity, De fide sanctae trinitatis, written early in the ninth century, Alcuin followed the same logic in his analy- sis of Jesus’ baptism.151 _{“Therefore Christ was baptized, not to wash away any}

148 _{Alcuin, Contra Felicem Urgellitanum libri septem II.20, PL 101.0162. “Sed nos libera voce} clamamus cum tota Ecclesia Christi, Christum nec peccatum habuisse, quod expiaretur; nec secunda indiguisse generatione, qui Deus verus et verus Dei Filius de Spiritu sancto conceptus est et natus. Nam si Christus secunda indiguit generatione, utique peccator fuit.”

149 _{Alcuin, Contra Felicem Urgellitanum libri septem II.20, PL 101.0162. “Si quidquam in eo non} habuit princeps mundi hujus, id est, diabolus, cur eguit renasci? Nos vero non Filii Dei nascimur, sed renascimur. Ille mox Dei Filius conceptus est et natus: et ideo adoptione non eguit ut Filius Dei esset, qui Filius Dei natus est.”

150 _{Alcuin, Contra Felicem Urgellitanum libri septem II.17, PL 101.0158–0158.“Quin potius} Christus Jesus absque omni peccato conceptus et natus venit ad baptismum, exemplum humilitatis ostendere, et aquas suo sanctificare baptismo; non ut sanctificaretur in aquis, qui nihil habuit in se peccati, a quo mundari debuisset per baptismum.”

151 _{See also the earlier John Cavadini, “The Sources and Theology of Alcuin’s ‘De Fide Sanctae}

et Individuae Trinitatis’ ” Traditio 46 (1991) pp. 123–46; John Cavadini, “Alcuin and Augustine: ‘De Trinitate’ ” Augustinian Studies 12 (1981) pp. 11–18. Cavadini emphasized the creativity and vision Alcuin displayed in reworking, rewriting, and reimagining Augustine’s work for applica- tion to the contemporary scene.

iniquity of his, who had none at all, but to hold up his great humility.”152 Although Alcuin addressed many of the same doctrinal themes in the De Fide as he did in his anti-Adoptionist works, there is no reason to think that he imagined or disseminated it as a polemical effort. It was rather part of his larg- er and more general effort to establish an imperium christianum, to catechize Carolingian Europe. In a letter from 802, Alcuin commended the text to Char- lemagne as a sermon to aid in the emperor’s preaching. “Lest the zeal of my devotion in the Lord grow lethargic in leisure and become lacking in support for your preaching of the Catholic Faith, I have directed to your most holy authority a discussion, under the guise of a little manual, De fide sanctae et

individuae Trinitatis, so that the praise and faith of wisdom may be approved

by the judgment of the most wise of men.”153 _{Also from 802, a letter to Arn,} now archbishop of Salzburg, clarified the more generally catechetical, as opposed to strictly anti-Adoptionist, purpose of the work. He invited Arn to read a book “which I recently wrote concerning the Catholic Faith and direct- ed to our Lord Emperor through this boy (who ferried correspondence). In no way let this little book slip from your hands, but by all means make a copy so that you have one, because it is very necessary to know willingly the Catholic faith in which the highest things of our salvation consist.”154 _{The emphasis on} preaching and willing acceptance of Christian teachings connected the work to Alcuin’s broader efforts at renewal. The early manuscript tradition of the work bears out this interpretation. De fide circulated in ninth-century manu- scripts not with works against Felix and Elipandus, but with instructional materials, especially a Creed, a treatise on the soul, and a question-and-answer text.155 _{Both conceptually and specifically, De fide was closely related to Alcuin’s} teaching on baptism. It fleshed out the basic instructions and interpretations Alcuin gave to the baptismal rite. The work was designed as text for preachers, one which summarized and explained the Creed in such a way that drew very basic and fundamental distinctions that clarified the “inner logic” of the

153 _{Alcuin, Epistola 257, pp. 414–15. “Ne vero meae in Domino devotionis studium otio torpens,} vestro in praedicatione catholicae fidei defuisset adiutorio, direxi sanctissimae auctoritati vestrae de fide sanctae et individuae Trinitatis, sub specie manualis libelli, sermonem, ut divinae laus et fides sapientiae sapientissimi hominum probaretur iudicio.”

154 _{Alcuin, Epistola 258, p. 416. “. . . quem noviter scripsi de catholica fide, et domno imperatori} per hunc puerum direxi. Qui libellus nullatenus vestras effugiat manus, sed omnimodis scribatur, ut habeatis, quia necessarius est valde fidem volentibus scire catholicam, in qua summa salutis nostrae consistit.”

155 _{E. Ann Matter, “A Carolingian Schoolbook? The Manuscript Tradition of Alcuin’s De fide}

and Related Treatises” The Whole Book: Cultural Perspectives on the Medieval Miscellany, eds. Stephen G. Nichols and Siegfried Wenzel (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996) pp. 145–52.

152 _{Alcuin, De fide sanctae trinitatis et de incarnatione Christi, III.17, ed. Eric Knibbs and}

E. Ann Matter, CCCM 249 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012) p. 120. “Baptizatus est ergo Christus non ut eius

faith.156 _{It proposed a social and ecclesiastical structure that precluded one}