of the elements is strongly reprobated and rejected, and the assertion of Paschasius that the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Sacrament is the same body which was born of the Virgin is carefully and elaborately condemned. 'It is the Body of 'Christ indeed, yet not corporeal but spiritual. It is the Blood 'of Christ, yet not corporeal but spiritual. Nothing is here 'to be understood, corporeally but spiritually. The Body which 'Christ took of the Virgin Mary, which suffered and was buried ' and rose again, was His true body, that is, it remained such as 'might be seen and felt; but the Body, which is called the 'Mystery of God, is not corporeal but spiritual, and if spiritual 'then it can neither be seen nor handled. . . . I would not have 'it thought that the Lord's Body and Blood are not received 'by the faithful in the holy mysteries, for faith receives not that 'which the eye beholds, but that which itself believes. It is 'spiritual meat and spiritual drink, spiritually feeding the soul, and affording a life of eternal satisfaction, as our Saviour himself, commending the mystery, speaks: "It is the Spirit which 'quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing." Thus in obedience to your Majesty's command, I in my humble fashion have adven"tured to dispute touching points of no small moment, not 'following any presumptuous opinion of my own, but having a constant regard to the authority of the ancients.' Such, as we contend, was the Catholic and Scriptural teaching, upon this sacred subject, of this philosophic doctor who has been hastily and unfairly described as a Pantheist and an infidel. The misrepresentations to which John Scot has been perseveringly subjected, are indeed in great measure due to the Benedictines, who have attacked him with extreme malignity. We proceed to notice two or three points in connexion with what has been already said, in which their unfair accounts have been duly followed by Dr. Floss, his latest editor.

6

Of the prelates of the ninth century none was more deservedly famous for learning, candour, and ability than Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims. Could it be shown that he had pronounced an express and deliberate censure of the teaching of John Scot on the Eucharist, great weight might fairly be claimed for his opinion. But can this be shown? We think not. Nevertheless, in the Benedictine account of Erigena, as well as in the preface of Dr. Floss, he is quoted as having severely condemned his opinions. On what ground? Simply because a passage is to be found in the writings of Hincmar, in which he speaks against an opinion prevalent in his day, that the Sacrament of the Altar was only memoria veri corporis et sanguinis ejus. But he does not impute this opinion to John Scot, and it is only by the ingenious assumptions of the

་

Benedictines that it is made to refer to him. That is to say, the authors of the Literary History first settle, quite groundlessly, what John Scot's views were, and then, because Hincmar condemns these views, quote him as condemning John Scot. This is all duly transferred to Dr. Floss's Preface with a Satis apertè Joanni Scotigenæ imputat.' We can only say that if the learned German is satisfied with the Benedictine implications, we are not. On the contrary, if it can be proved, as we think it has been proved, that John Scot taught the Real Presence, the words of Hincmar do not and cannot apply to him. Again, after exhibiting their views of the doctrine of Erigena on the Eucharist, the Benedictines add that these views were combated (and of course overthrown) by one Adrevald, a monk of Fleury, who inscribed his book, Contra ineptias Joannis Scoti?' This again is transferred to the Preface of the new edition, and duly appears in all the accounts of John Scot. But is it true? But is it true? Certainly, at the head of the short treatise ascribed to this writer, which is printed in the 'Spicilegium,' of D'Achery, the words Contra ineptias Joannis Scoti occur; but examine the treatise itself. There is not, we undertake to say, one word of John Scot in it, nor the slightest allusion to his work. The treatise contains a number of quotations from Jerome, Augustine, Gregory, &c., which set forth the greatness of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and magnify the reverence due to it, and the danger of receiving it unworthily. There are no precise doctrinal state

1 As it has been again and again asserted that Hincmar condemns John Scot as holding the 'mere memorial' view of the Eucharist, we will give the passage on which this extraordinary assumption is founded. In the Treatise of Hincmar, 'De Prædestinatione' (c. 31), after having mentioned certain Capitula which had been published, containing, as he alleges, divers erroneous opinions on this subject, he goes on: "The authors of these, or rather the self-contradictory propounders, are hinted by many to be the Bishop Prudentius and John the Irishman. But we are not willing either to assent to, or dissent from, this, inasmuch as we have no certain evidence to prove it either way. We do not, however, wish to mix ourselves up in the contradictions of those men, whoever they are, until we perceive more clearly what they are aiming at. There are also other things, which, delighting in using new terms in order to get vain reports circulated about them, they say against the truth of the Catholic faith, namely, that the Deity is Threefold, that the sacrament of the altar is not the true Body and true Blood of the Lord, that angels are corporeal in their nature, that the soul of man is not in his body, that the punishments of hell are nothing else than the tormenting memory and consciousness of sins.' Hincmar, Opera, i. 232 (Paris, 1645). Now, it is evident from this passage that those whom the Archbishop is condemning for their new opinions are not Prudentius and Scotus, but those who had put forward the capitula. It may fairly be inferred from his words that when his opponents in the Predestination controversy grounded themselves on these authorities, he did not believe that they were justified in doing so. He declines, however, to enter further into this question, but, by way of disposing of his antagonists, brings against them the charges of false doctrine which follow. Not the slightest ground is there for asserting that he charges either Prudentius or Scotus with these or any other false opinions.

ments to be found, nor any definitions bearing on this controversy. Some passages would rather imply that the writer favoured the spiritual view, as for instance: That which we 'receive every day is food, so far as it is seen, but a Sacra'ment is one thing, the virtue of a Sacrament quite another 'thing' But as the Benedictine historians are the great authority for all writers of this period, and as modern views are too often formed from their dicta without examination and consideration, we will mention in passing another point on which their accuracy does not seem unimpeachable. Writing with apparent candour, concerning the Treatise of Paschasius, they declare that four writers opposed his views. Of these one is an anonymous writer, a mere fragment of whose composition is preserved. 2 A second is Heriger, abbot of Laubes, towards the end of the tenth century. Now here the good fathers have made a somewhat absurd mistake, and have quoted a man as writing against the views of Paschasius, who actually wrote in their favour. It appears that this abbot compiled a treatise consisting of extracts from the Fathers, and in most of the copies of Sigebert he is said to have done this contra Ratbertum. The learned Fabricius, however, shows that the true reading is contra Ratherium, and that Heriger did not write against Paschasius Ratbertus, but against Ratherius, a Bishop of Verona, and rather to defend the Transubstantiation view, than to impugn it.3 We have said that the candour of the Benedictines is only apparent, and that their kind concession of four opposers of Paschasius, one of whom is entirely insignificant, and another turns out to have written the other way, is nothing to be thankful for. We claim to be able to show far more and more distinguished opponents of the materialistic theory than they are willing to allow. We claim to be able to show that John Scot, in opposing the sentiments of the monk of Corbey, did only set forth the sentiments of the best and most learned men of his time. We take first the well-known name of the Archbishop of Mayence. Raban, surnamed the Moor, perhaps from the darkness of his complexion, was a promising pupil of the famous Alcuin, at Tours, and quitted that seminary of learning about 830, to carry his acquirements to Fulda, the great Abbeyschool of the Diocese of Mayence. Promoted from the monastery to the Archbishopric, Raban distinguished himself by his sanctity and his learned labours. He became the Venerable

1 Dacherii Spicilegium, xii. 32.

2 Vide Dacherii Spicilegium, xii. 39.

3 See the whole question investigated in Fabricius (Art. Heriger) The anonymous treatise published by Cellotius, and ascribed by Dom Mabillon to Heriger, is thought by Fabricius to be the production of another writer.

Bede of Germany, producing for the instruction of his countrymen digests and commentaries taken from the works of the great Fathers of the Church, but skilfully adapted for the use of the unlearned, and showing deep appreciation of Christian doctrine. In one of these treatises which professes to give the instruction meet for clerks (De Institutione Clericorum) Raban treats on the subject of the Eucharist. The Sacrament,' says he, 'is one thing, the virtue of the Sacrament is another. For

6

the Sacrament is taken in the mouth, but by the virtue of the 'Sacrament the inner man is satisfied. The Sacrament becomes 'the nourishment of the body, but by the virtue of the Sacra'ment the dignity of eternal life is gained. In the Sacrament all the faithful communicants join in a bond of fellowship and peace, but in the virtue of the Sacrament all the members being joined and united to their head rejoice in eternal bright6 ness. As then the Sacrament is converted into us when we eat it or drink it, so are we converted into the body of Christ so long as we live obediently and piously.

We

use the word Sacrifice as equivalent to making holy, and this is done when by mystical prayer that which is offered is conse'crated into a Memorial of the Lord's Passion. Hence, according to his commandment, it is consecrated into the 'Body and Blood of Christ; for though this be part of the 'fruits of the ground, it is nevertheless sanctified and made a Sacrament by the visible operations of the Spirit of 'God, which Sacrament the Greeks call the Eucharist. Here the effect of the consecration of the Bread and Wine is not asserted to be the production of the Lord's material Body, but the Sacramentum or sacred pledge of it. In this the Lord is present, not corporeally but virtute, giving spiritual power and strength. Nor did the teaching of Hincmar himself on this subject essentially differ from that of Raban. "The whole 'process,' writes he, in this oblation of the Lord's Body and 'Blood is a mystery. One thing is seen, another thing is under'stood. That which is seen has corporeal form. That which is ' understood has spiritual fruit. The oblation of that bread and 'that cup is the commemoration and declaration of the death of Christ, which is done not so much by words, as by the mysteries themselves by which that precious death is more deeply and 'strongly commended to our minds.' 2 The idea here prevalent in the mind of the writer is certainly a spiritual view. One thing is seen, another is understood. The effect contemplated is not the magical power of a certain material substance, but a

1 Rabani Mauri Opera, vi. 11.

2 Hincmari Opuscula, ii. 92.

spiritual effect. Nor are the opposers of the Transubstantiation theory in the ninth century limited to these.

Amalarius thus writes: These things that are done in the 'celebration of divine service, are done in the Sacrament of the 'Passion of the Lord as He himself commanded. Therefore the 'priest offering the bread and the wine in the Sacrament doth it in the stead of Christ, and the bread and wine and water in 'the Sacrament represents the Flesh and the Blood of Christ. For Sacraments are somewhat to resemble those things of 'which they are the Sacraments. Therefore let the priest be like unto Christ, as the bread and liquors are like the Body of 'Christ. Such is in some manner the immolation which the ' priest makes on the altar, as was that of Christ on the Cross. The Sacrament of the Body of Christ is in a certain manner 'the Body of Christ. For Sacraments would not be Sacraments if in some things they had not the likeness of that whereof they ' are Sacraments. Now by reason of this mutual likeness, they ' oftentimes are called by the name of that which they represent.' This testimony is quoted by Bishop Cosin, in his book on Transubstantiation, where he also quotes that of Walafridus Strabo, a German abbot, who wrote about the year 860. He says: Therefore, in that Last Supper, whereat Christ was with His disciples before He was betrayed, after the solemnities of 'the ancient Passover, He gave to His disciples the Sacrament ' of His Body and Blood in the substance of bread and wine, and 'instructed us to pass from carnal to spiritual things, from earthly to heavenly things, and from shadows to the substance.'1 In the face of these extracts, it may fairly be asked, whether the Benedictines do, or do not, give a fair statement of the case when they tell us of their four obscure writers opposing Paschasius, as though these represented the whole of the teaching to be found at that period in antagonism to his views. It is evident that the materialistic doctrine broached by him, was not the accepted and universal teaching of the Church on this subject. Suited as his views were to the gross conceptions of the men of his day, there were yet found among his contemporaries writers of judgment and power, to raise their voices against this great perversion of the truth at the first moment of its utterance. And happy was it for the cause of truth that this was so. The century which followed the commencement of the Eucharistic controversy was one so sterile in literary talent, so hostile in many ways to any sort of doctrinal exposition, that had the heresy of Paschasius appeared at somewhat a later date, scarce one feeble protest might have been put forth against it, until the

1 Cosin on Transubstantiation, pp. 86, 89 (ed. 1676).