I am trying to do some research on the Council of Frankfurt (794) and the origin and development of eucharistic adoration and related topics. Here is an excerpt from “Letter from the Bishops of Spain to the Bishops of France (792-93)”:
His exceptis, que de immenso
scripturarum pelago iuxta nostrarum virium fortitudinem et sensus nostri
tenuitatem decerpere potuimus, in nostra defensione obposuimus et rite
custodienda docemus. Superest, ut quisquis ille adoptionem . . . Christi esse denegat,
sine dubio verum hominem ex matre natum nequaquam adfirmet fuisse . . ;
adtendat igitur unaquaeque anima fidelis in Christo cum caritatis affectu: si
contrarium est aut blasphemum dicere filium Dei secundum formam servi
adobtibum, procul dubio, quod dici nefas est, et illut blasphemum erit, quod
aliquando leo, aliquando catulus leonis, aliquando vitulus, aliquando ovis sive
agnus, victima, hostia, sacrificium, olocaustum, pro diversa varietate
causarum princeps et sacerdos, homo et propheta, virga et flos et radix, iudex
et rex, iustus et iustitia, apostolus et episcopus, brachium, servus,
unguentum, pastor, puer, primogenitus, ostium, angelus, sagitta, aquila,
vultur, lapis angularis, petra et cetera huiusmodi in Christo filio Dei
nomina², pro salvatione humani generis ab eo suscepta, sicut predictum est,
quod absit, hec omnia erunt blasfemia plena. Sed absit hoc a fidelium
cordibus, ut dicere pabeant, quod sanctorum scripturarum testimonia nobis
adobtivum pronunciare non formidant.
Set cui similem dixerimus
Antifrasium Beatum, os fetidum et omni spurcitia saginatum, de cuius lateribus
arvina dependet, Nabuzardan principem cocorum, murorum Iherusalem destructorem,
id est sanctorum scripturarum prevaricatorem, nisi Fausto Maniceo, qui
patriarcas nundinarios asserebat, de quo beatus Agustinus inquiens ait: Pius³
homo Faustus dolet Christum maledictum fuisse a Moisen, eo quod dicat:
Maledictus omnis, qui pependit in ligno. Faustus dolet Christum maledictum,
nefandus Beatus dolet Christum secundum formam servi quempiam dicere adobtibum,
contrarius apostolo Iohanni et evangeliste, qui Dei filium, deitate exinanita,
dicere non pabet advocatum, id est adobtatum, et in forma servi gratia plenum,
et iterum contrarius Hilario, Ambrosio, Isidoro, Iheronimo et ceteris
doctoribus, qui nobis predicant in humanitate, non in divinitate adobitibum. (p.
118)
With these things set aside, those things which from
the immense sea of Scripture we have been able to draw out according to the
strength of our powers and the weakness of our understanding, we have set forth
in our defense and teach to be duly guarded. There remains this: whoever denies
that there is an “adoption” of Christ, without doubt denies that the true man
born from a mother was in fact such. Let every faithful soul in Christ
therefore pay attention with love: if it is contrary, or blasphemous, to say
that the Son of God, according to the form of a servant, is adopted, then
beyond doubt—what must not even be said—this too will be blasphemous: that he
is sometimes a lion, sometimes a lion’s cub, sometimes a calf, sometimes a
sheep or lamb, a victim, a sacrifice, a burnt offering; and, according to the
different variety of reasons, prince and priest, man and prophet, rod and
flower and root, judge and king, righteous man and righteousness, apostle and
bishop, arm, servant, anointing, shepherd, child, firstborn, door, angel,
arrow, eagle, vulture, cornerstone, stone, and other such names of the Son of
God in Christ, assumed for the salvation of the human race, as has been said
above. God forbid that all these things should be full of blasphemy. But far be
this from the hearts of the faithful, so that they should say that the
testimonies of Holy Scripture do not hesitate to proclaim him as adopted.
To whom then shall we compare the “Antiphrasius
Beatus,” a foul mouth stuffed with all filth, from whose sides fat drips, the
Nebuzaradan, chief of the cooks, the destroyer of the walls of Jerusalem—that
is, the violator of Holy Scripture—except to Faustus the Manichean, who
maintained that the patriarchs were peddlers? About him blessed Augustine says:
“The pious man Faustus laments that Christ was cursed by Moses, because he
says, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.’” Faustus laments that Christ was
cursed; this impious Beatus laments to say that Christ, according to the form
of a servant, was in any way adopted—contrary to the apostle John and the
evangelist, who, with the Son of God’s divinity emptied out, does not hesitate
to call him advocate, that is, adopted, and in the form of a servant full of
grace—and likewise contrary to Hilary, Ambrose, Isidore, Jerome, and the other
doctors, who preach to us that he was adopted in humanity, not in divinity.
