Frankfurt, Concordat of. See Concordat.
Frankfurt, Council of (Concilium Franco- FORDiexse), a synod of great importance in Church history, held at Frankfurt -on -the -Main, A.D. 794. Some Roman writers deny the authenticity of the acts of tlie Council of Frankfurt (e. g. Barruel, Du Rum. Piipe, Paris, 1803, ii, 402), but Baronius (Annales, A.D. 79i) admits it, and Labbe publishes the canons enact- ed at it (Concil. vii, 1057). Mansi publishes but two of the canons (Concil. xii, 909), referring to Capit. Reg. Franc, (ed. Baluz. i, 2G3) for tlie rest. Dupin holds that it was considered in France to be a general coun- cil, and that three hundred bishops attended it (Eccles. Hid. cent. viii). Tliey came from Germany, Gaul, Spain, Italy, and England, and there wei'e two dele- gates from the pojjc.
The occasion of tlie council was as follows. After the close of the second Council of Nicaa, A.D. 787, the pope sent a copy of its acts to Charlemagne, seek- ing the approval of tlie French bishops, which they declined on the ground that the worship of images, sanctioned at Nicwa, was unauthorized in the Church, and unlawful. The Lihri Carolini (see Caroline Books) were composed, under the name of Charle- magne, and b}"- his order, to refute the canons of Ni- caea. "Nothing can be stronger than the opjiosition which they offer to ever)' act of or appearance of wor- ship as paid to images, even to bowing the head and burning lights before them. Romanists pretend that the Galilean bishops, as well as the author of these books, were deceived by a false translation of the acts of the second Council of Nicasa, which, they say, led them to fancy that the council had inculcated the pay- ing divine honor and worship to images, and that it was this false notion which induced them to condemn the council; but this is evidently untrue, since it is an historical fact that authentic copies of the acts of the council were sent into France hy the pope, as also that Charlemagne received another copy direct from Constantinople" (Palmer, On the Church, pt. iv, ch. x, § 4). Roger de Hoveden has the following: " In the j'ear 792, Charles, king of the Franks, sent into Brit- ain" [to (Tfta, king of the Mercians] "a s^'nodal book, sent to him from Constantinople, in which, alas ! were
found many things inconvenient, and contrary to the true fiilh, especially in this, that it was established by unanimous consent of almost all the doctors and bishops of the East, no less than three hundred, that images ought to be worshipped" [imagines adorari debere], "which the Church of God doth altogether abominate" [execratur]. "Against which Albinus" [Alcuinus] " wrote an epistle, fortilied with the au- thority of the holy Scriptures." Matthew of West- minster, anno 793, gives a similar account.
Finally, Charlemagne called the Council of Frank- furt for A.D. 794, to consider this question, and also that of the Adoptianist heresy (q. v.). Fifty-six can- ons were passed at the council, of which the following are the most important : Canon 1. Condemning Felix and Elipandus, the propagators of the Adoptian here- sy. 2. Condemning the second Council of Nica^a, and all worship of images. "Allata est in medium quaes- tio de nova Grecorum Synodo, quam de adorandis iniaginibus Constantinopoli fecerunt, in qua scriptuni habebatur ut qui iniaginibus sanctorum, ita ut deificiB Trinitati, servitium aut adorationem non impenderent, anathema judicarentur. Qui supra sanctissimi patres nostri omnimodis adorationem et servitutem renuentes contempserunt atque consentientes condeninaverunt." 6. Ordering that bishops shall see justice done to the clergy of their diocese ; if the clergy are not satisfied with their judgment, they may appeal to the metro- politan in sj'nod. 11. Ordering all monks to abstain from business and all secular employments. IG. For- bidding to take money for the ordination of monks. — See, besides the authorities already cited, Gieseler, Church Ilistorg, period iii, § 12 ; Landon, Manual of Councils, s. v. ; Inett, History of the English Church, pt. i, chap, xiii ; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte , iii, 635 sq. ; Harduin, Concil. iv, 904 ; Schrockh, Kirchvngeschicht^ XX, 598 ; and the article Image Worship.
Frankfurter, INIoses ben-Simeon, a distinguish- ed printer and Hebraist, lived at Amsterdam between 1700 and 1762. His reputation as a scholar chiefly rests on the "Great Rabbinic Bible" (called r|n^ tld'a, the Congregation of Moses, Amsterd. 1724-1727, 4 vols, fob), which he edited, and to which he gave the greatest part of his life and fortune. This work con- stitutes in itself a library of Biblical literature and ex- egesis, and is indispensable to every critical expositor of the O. T. Besides giving the text in Hebrew and Chaldee by Onkelos, it contains-the Massora, the com- mentaries by Rashi, Aben-Ezra, Kimchi, Levi I). Ger- shon, Jacob b. Asher, Samuel b. Laniado, Ibn Jachjo, Duran, Saadia, Chaskuni, Sephorno, a number of other rabbis, and by the editor, Frankfurter. Not less note- worthy are his Index Rerum, the difterent Introductions written either by himself or by distinguished rabbis; his Index to all the chapters and sections of the 0. T., giving the commencement of the verses ; a treatise on the design of the law by Obadiah Sephorno ; the Great Massora; the various readings of the Eastern and Western Codd. ; a treatise upon the Accents ; and last, but not least, the difi"crences in text between Ben- Naphthali and Ben-Asher, to the latter of Avhom so great prominence is given by jMaimonides, who, in his treatise upon the sacred Scriptures, regards Ben-Ash- cr's revision as the most correct, and adopts it himself as a model. It is from this revision of the text that the Hebrew Bibles of the present day arc printed. Frankfurter wrote also glosses on the difterent jjortions of the Bible, entitled rr.'^p nn:'2 (a small o^'ering) ; n^llX i-irZ'2 (the great ojiring) ; n^"n tTnfZ (the evening ojycriw r/).—Kitto, Cychimdia rfEib. Lit. ii, ."7: Etheridge, Iritrod. to Heb. Liter. 101 ; FiJrst, EihUoth. Jud. i, 295. Sec Rabbinical Bibles. (J. H. W.)