that both the Scriptures and the Fathers by precept and example allow of the consecration of children,
and in relation to the second point he rejoins: As if the service of Christ deprived a man of his
liberty and nobility!"^1249 But the real objection to Gottschalk’s second argument was the latter’s
assertion that Frankish testimony could not be received. This roused Raban’s patriotism and incited
his eloquence. "Who does not know," he says, "that the Franks were Christians long before the
Saxons? Yet the latter, contrary to all human and divine law, arrogate to themselves the right to
reject Frankish testimony."^1250 Having thus answered Gottschalk, he proves by the Bible his third
argument, that a vow to God must not be broken. His final point is that monasticism is a divine
institution. In this treatise he does not name Gottschalk, but the reference is unmistakeable. His
whole conduct towards the unfortunate Gottschalk was intolerant.
(2) The reverence of children to their parents, and of subjects to their king.^1251 This was
addressed to Louis the Pious after his deposition and imprisonment in the year 833. By Biblical
quotations he shows that God has commanded children to honor their parents and subjects their
kings, and has put his curse upon those who do not. Then coming directly to the point he makes
the application to the existing circumstances, and calls the sons of Louis to obedience. He defends
Louis against the charge of homicide in executing Bernard; and finally addressing the emperor he
comforts him in his sorrow and counsels him to exercise clemency when he is restored to power.
The whole treatise does great credit to Raban’s head and heart.
(3) On the degrees of relationship within which marriage is permissible.^1252
(4) Magic arts.^1253 Raban was singularly free from the superstitions of his time, for in the
second part of this tract, written in 842, he takes strong ground against necromancy in all its forms,
of which he gives an interesting catalogue, and while explaining the appearance of ghosts, evil
spirits and similar supposed existences on the ground of demoniac influence, he yet admits the
possibility that the senses may be deceived. Curiously enough, he cites in point the appearance of
Samuel to Saul. He denies the reality of Samuel’s appearance and holds that Saul was deceived by
the devil; for two reasons, (1) the real Samuel, the man of God, would not have permitted the
worship which Saul paid to the supposed Samuel; (2) the real Samuel was in Abraham’s bosom;
he would, therefore, not say to the impious king, "To-morrow thou shalt be with me."^1254
(4) A Response to certain Canonical Questions of the Suffragan Bishop Reginald.^1255
(5) Whether it is permissible for a suffragan bishop to ordain priests and deacons with theconsent of his bishop.^1256 He replies in the affirmative.
(^1249) Quasi illi libertatem ac nobilitatem generis sui perdant qui servitium Christi profitentur. CVII. col. 431.
(^1250) Ibid. col. 432.
(^1251) De reverentia filiorum erga patres et subditorum erga reges. Cf. Ebert, l.c. 139, 140.
(^1252) De consanguineorum nuptiis et de magorum praegtigiis falsisque divinationibus tractatus, CX. col. 1087-1110.
(^1253) De consanguineorum nuptiis et de magorum praegtigiis falsisque divinationibus tractatus, CX. col. 1087-1110.
(^1254) CX. col. 1100.
(^1255) Responsa canonica super quibusdam interrogationibus Reginbaldi chorepiscopi, ibid. col. 1187-1196.
(^1256) Si liceat chorepiscopis presbyteros et diaconos ordinare cum consensu episcopi sui ibid. col. 1195-1206.