[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 Julianus.  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 God, which sounded so offensive to Mohammedan ears, would so far bring the Christian creed nearer to the Mohammedan’s acceptance, by assimilating 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: 

(c.) That the application of the term Servant to Christ, besides being authorised by texts from Scripture, is countenanced in two passages from the Koran: 

(d.) That Leo III., speaking of, Felix’s return to Spain, and his relapse into error, implies that it was due to his renewed contact with infidels who held similar views: 

(e.) That in a passage, quoted by Enhueber, Elipandus is said to have lost his hold on the truth in consequence of his close intercourse with the Arabs: