1

ments to be found, nor any definitions bearing on this controSome 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. 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.

'ness.

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 '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 brightAs 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 repre'sent.' 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. was it for the cause of truth that this was so. 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

And happy The century

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

pre

lapse of time had lent it some of the respect due to ancient scription. And if there had been no John Scot or Raban, there might have been no Berengar, and the grossest materialism might have passed current through all the Middle Age as the orthodox exposition of the Christian faith.

We have thus endeavoured to establish for the learned Irishman of the ninth century a claim upon the gratitude and respect of theologians as the author of the most valuable treatise on the Holy Eucharist which is furnished by the Middle Ages. This book, as Chancellor Massingberd well observes, is of 'high in'terest to English Churchmen. By means of it, Ridley first, ' and from him, Cranmer became persuaded that the then received 'doctrine on the Sacrament was not the original doctrine of the 'Church. The first English edition, in black letter, was pub'lished in 1560, by Augustus Bernherd, the faithful friend and ' attendant of Latimer, in accordance with the last injunction of Ridley, as related in the Martyr's Letters.'1 In addition to this, it may be noted, that the book was of still earlier cherished value in the Church of England. In the Easter Homily of the Abbot Ælfric, in the tenth century, there occur considerable passages translated almost word for word from this treatise, which is a strong and satisfactory proof that the Church of England at that period, as it confessedly excelled the continental churches in learning and acquirement, so it excelled them also in purity of doctrine and the faithful enunciation of Catholic truth.

1 Massing berd's Hist. of Reformation. Preface to Fourth Edition, p. 12.

103

ART. IV.—1. The Fathers of Greek Philosophy. By R. D. HAMPDEN, D.D., Bishop of Hereford. Edinburgh: Adam

and Charles Black.

2. Ancient Philosophy: A Treatise of Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy anterior to the Christian Era. By the Rev. FREDERICK DENISON MAURICE, M. A. Fourth Edition. London: Griffin, Bohn, and Co. 1861.

BISHOP HAMPDEN'S Fathers of Greek Philosophy' is hardly so well known as it deserves. As an introduction to the study of Aristotle and Plato it is, to say the least, one of the best. Clear and close in thought, though obscure sometimes in language, the author is well fitted to initiate into the mysteries of ancient philosophy those-and none other are worthy-who are willing to give their attention in earnest; while his judicial impartiality and calmness amid the controversies which have vexed generation after generation, enable him to speak with authority, when, as he does on occasion indeed, but not often, he applies the ancient philosophy to questions of our own day. In the excellences as well as in the deficiencies of his book Bishop Hampden resembles his illustrious predecessor on the episcopal bench to whom we owe the 'Analogy.' In both writers, especially in Bishop Butler, the absence of embellishment and the redundance of a too prosaic phraseology render the ideas of the writer far less effective than they would have been in a warmer, terser style. But there are passages in The Fathers of Ancient Philosophy' which stand out in brilliant contrast to the too sober colouring of other portions; passages which, by their compressed energy and by their measured stateliness of diction, seem as if they might be pages of Bishop Thirlwall's 'History of Greece.' The following extract is a just and eloquent estimate of Paganism at Athens or Rome:

'This intimate connexion of Theology with Metaphysics in the Ancient Philosophy was a natural consequence of the separation which heathenism established between Theology and Religion. In the civilized states of

antiquity religion was pursued only as a matter of public policy, and not as a rule of life to the individual. Whatever was the established creed of the state it was the recognised duty of the good citizen to support as established. Not involving any question of truth or falsehood in the particular creed adopted, it readily admitted of any additions of super