of materialistic miracles, in which the hidden reality was made to appear in the form of the divine infant or as a bleeding limb of flesh. As against all rationalistic objections Paschasius exults in the divine power which can do all it will, the originative power which can produce this new creation, according to the plain word and promise of the very Truth Himself, Jesus Christ. So far Paschasius speaks the language of transubstantiation in its full force, but he still regards the body and blood of the eucharist as purely spiritual, and thus-unlike the later opponents of Berengar and some of his own contemporaries 1— repudiates any attempt to bring it into connexion with the physical process of digestion, though it is uncertain whether he regards the bread and wine as retaining enough physical reality to admit of their being digested: moreover, he is still so far under the influence of Augustine as to use hesitating language on the question whether the wicked receive the spiritual realities in the holy communion.

The following passages will illustrate the above statement (de Corp. et Sang. Domini, Patr. Lat. cxx. p. 1269):

Patet igitur quod nihil extra vel contra Dei voluntatem potest, sed cedunt illi omnia omnino. Et ideo nullus moveatur de hoc corpore Christi et sanguine, quod in mysterio vera sit caro et verus sit sanguis, dum sic voluit ille qui creavit; omnia enim quaecunque voluit fecit in caelo et

1 E. g. Rabanus Maurus (Ep. ad Heribald. Episc. Antissiodor. 33 apud Mabillon, Vetera Analecta, Paris 1723, p. 17, P. L. cx. p. 192; Gieseler, l. c. ii. p. 285 n. 5) replies to the inquiry, ' utrum eucharistia, postquam consumitur et in secessum emittitur more aliorum ciborum, iterum redeat in naturam pristinam quam habuerat antequam in altari consecraretur?' Cf. Paschasius' own reference to the 'apocryphal book' quoted above.

in terra; et quia voluit, licet in figura panis et vini maneat, haec sic esse omnino nihilque aliud quam caro Christi et sanguis post consecrationem credenda sunt; unde ipsa veritas ad discipulos, haec, inquit, caro est mea pro mundi vita, et, ut mirabilius loquar, non alia plane quam quae nata est de Maria et passa in cruce et resurrexit de sepulchro.'

'Veritas autem Deus est, et si Deus veritas est, quicquid Christus promisit in hoc mysterio utique verum est. Et ideo vera Christi caro et sanguis, quam qui manducat et bibit digne habet vitam aeternam in se manentem ; sed visu corporeo et gustu propterea non demutantur, quatenus fides exerceatur ad iustitiam et ob meritum fidei merces in eo iustitiae consequatur' (i. 2, 5).

That after consecration there is nihil aliud quam corpus et sanguis Domini' is often repeated1, and expressions are used such as 'corpus Christi et sanguis virtute Spiritus in verbo ipsius ex panis vinique substantia efficitur' (iv. 1). After consecration the bread and wine may only typically be so called as Christ is the Bread of Life (xvi). The act of consecration is regarded as a new creative act of God (xv. 1), of which the priest is only the minister. The reasons for the 'figura' of bread and wine remaining are stated as above, and also (x. 1) because otherwise 'durius esset contra consuetudinem humanam licet carnem salutis tamen carnem hominis Christi in speciem et colorem ipsius mutatam et vinum in cruorem conversum accipere'; cf. xiii. 2'si carnis species in his visibilis appareret, iam non fides esset aut mysterium sed fieret miraculum; quo aut fides nobis daretur, aut a perfidis exsecratio communi

1 See ii. 6, viii. 2, xi. 2, xii. 1, xvi, xx. 3.

cantibus importunior grassaretur.' The record of miracles follows in ch. xiv. Of Paschasius' more spiritual language the following is an example: 'Frivolum est ergo, sicut in eodem apocrypho libro legitur, in hoc mysterio cogitare de stercore, ne commisceatur in digestione alterius cibi. Denique ubi spiritualis esca et potus sumitur ... quid commistionis habere poterit' (xx. 3). On the reception by the wicked see vi. 21.

But Paschasius' doctrine met with decided opposition. Rabanus Maurus, writing in 853, emphatically denies that the body of the eucharist is the same body as that in which Christ lived and died 2. He himself asserts an objective spiritual transformation in the elements in

'Paschasius' language about the relation of the eucharistic act to Christ's sacrifice is well worth study, cap. xi. But we are not here concerned with the doctrine of the eucharistic sacrifice.

2 Ep. ad Heribald. 1. c. 'Nam quidam nuper de ipso sacramento corporis et sanguinis Domini non rite sentientes dixerunt, hoc ipsum esse corpus et sanguinem Domini quod de Maria virgine natum est et in quo ipse Dominus passus est in cruce et resurrexit de sepulchro. Cui errori quantum potuimus ad Eigilum abbatem scribentes, de corpore ipso quid vere credendum sit aperuimus.' (This letter is possibly that in Migne, P. L. cxii. p. 1510; see c. 2.) The opinion that the 'body' of the eucharist is different from Christ's mortal body we shall see to have been held by Ratramn also.

Among older fathers cf. the language of Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 2. 19 διττὸν δὲ τὸ αἷμα τοῦ κυρίου· τὸ μὲν γάρ ἐστιν αὐτοῦ σαρκικὸν ᾧ τῆς φθορᾶς λελυτρώμεθα, τὸ δὲ πνευματικόν, τουτέστιν ᾧ κεχρίσμεθα· καὶ τοῦτ ̓ ἔστι πιεῖν τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τῆς κυριακῆς μεταλαβεῖν ἀφθαρσίας· ἰσχὺς δὲ τοῦ λόγου tò nveûμa, ŵs aîμа σарrós. Jerome in Ephes. i. 7 (ed. Vallars. vii. p. 553) 'Dupliciter vero sanguis Christi et caro intelligitur: vel spiritualis illa atque divina de qua ipse dixit caro mea vere est cibus et sanguis meus vere est potus, et nisi manducaveritis carnem meam et sanguinem meam biberitis non habebitis vitam aeternam; vel caro et sanguis quae crucifixa est et qui militis effusus est lancea. Iuxta hanc divisionem et in sanctis eius diversitas sanguinis et carnis accipitur; ut alia sit caro quae visura est salutare Dei, alia caro et sanguis quae regnum Dei non queant possidere.'

Liber de Sacris Ordinibus etc. (P. L. cxii. p. 1185) 'Quis unquam crederet quod panis in carnem potuisset converti vel vinum in sanguinem,

virtue of consecration, so that they become the body and blood of Christ in a true and real sense: but he does not appear to distinguish between the res and the virtus sacramenti1; and, in a word, he is still under the dominant influence of Augustine, whose words he repeats.

But the main opponent of Paschasius' doctrine was Ratramn, a monk of his own convent. The emperor Charles had addressed two questions to Ratramn, presumably in common with other theologians2: (1) Whether nisi ipse Salvator diceret, qui panem et vinum creavit et omnia ex nihilo fecit.' Dr. Hebert in his Lord's Supper: uninspired teaching (Seeley & Co., 1879) i. p. 614, quotes from Rabanus as follows- panem communem accepit [Christus], sed benedicendo in longe aliud quam fuerat transmutat ut veraciter diceret sic, hoc est corpus meum :' but his reference is, as so often, wrong and I cannot discover the passage.

1 De Instit. Cler. 1. 31 (P. L. cvii. p. 317) Huius rei sacramentum, id est veritas corporis et sanguinis Christi, de mensa dominica assumitur quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium: res vero ipsa omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium: quia aliud est sacramentum, aliud virtus sacramenti.' Again Dr. Hebert quotes 'neque indignitas [indigne sumentis] dignitatem tantae consecrationis evacuare poterit: sed rem sacramenti non attingit [indignus] . . . idcirco nec effectus consequitur eiusdem sacramenti.' But I cannot verify the reference.

2 It has been supposed that John Scotus Erigena was consulted and wrote a work on the eucharist. But this does not appear to be the case. The work ascribed to him by Berengar and the men of his period is in fact Ratramn's work: see Praefatio of H. J. Floss in P. L. cxxii. p. xxi. Adrevaldus indeed, a contemporary, wrote a treatise (of which a fragment remains) de Corpore et Sanguine Christi contra ineptias Ioannis Scoti; but this is sufficiently accounted for by what is still to be found in Erigena's writings and what must have been found in the commentary on St. John vi, when it was entire.

Erigena held that Christ in heaven was still man, in the sense that in His one substance He still possessed the natura and ratio of humanity, but transmuted into the Godhead and with it ubiquitous. Under these circumstances he might have anticipated the Lutheran doctrine of the eucharist and held that, in whatever sense He has a body at all, He is present with the same body in the eucharist. But in fact he held a very 'symbolical' view of the eucharist, cf. Expos. super Hierarch. Cael. S. Dionys. i. 3, where he inveighs against those 'qui visibilem eucharistiam

the body and blood are present in the eucharist in veritate or in mysterio? that is, as Ratramn explains it, whether there is in the eucharist a reality apparent only to faith, hidden under earthly veils, or whether the divine reality is there without veils? (2) Whether the sacramental body is the very body born of Mary and now in heaven? It does not appear whether these questions were addressed to theologians as a result of the presentation of Paschasius' treatise or no. Certainly the first question is not suggested by his position. But Ratramn's own view, as distinct from Paschasius', becomes quite plain in the process of his answer to both questions. He replies, like Paschasius, that the body and blood of Christ are present in the sacrament in mystery,' not 'in truth,' i.e. under veils of sense, not in unveiled manifestation. But, unlike Paschasius, he argues from this in a sense opposed to transubstantiation. The elements by consecration are 'changed for the better'; they become what they were not, the veils of the body and blood. But this spiritual transformation does not affect their physical reality. In that respect they are not changed; they remain what they were. They symbolize in their natural reality the heavenly gift which they contain. The same

nihil aliud significare praeter se ipsam volunt asserere [i. e. presumably those who said the consecrated elements were really the body and blood in themselves and not typical of something else] dum clarissime praefata tuba [sc. Dionysius] clamat non illa sacramenta visibilia colenda neque pro veritate amplexanda quia significativa veritatis sunt.'

His doctrine of Christ's humanity can be found stated with great clearness in de Div. Nat. ii. 11, v. 38. He held that there underlies each man's earthly body a secret ratio (or essence) of his corporeity which is to be his 'spiritual body' like that of the angels.

R