ed in 845 to Charles the Bald; and it principally gave occasion to the warm and important controversy that ensued. The doctrine of Paschasius amounted, in general, to the two following propositions: first, that, after the consecration of the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, nothing remained of these symbols but the outward figure, under which the body and blood of Christ were really and locally present; and, secondly, that the body of Christ thus present in the eucharist was the same body that was born of the Virgin, that suffered upon the cross, and was raised from the dead. This new doctrine, and more especially the second proposition now mentioned, excited, as might well be expected, the astonishment of many. Accordingly it was opposed by Rabanus Maurus, Heribald, and others, though they did not all refute it in the same method, or on the same principles. Charles the Bald, on this occasion, ordered the famous Ratram and Johannes Scotus to draw up a clear and rational explication of that important doctrine which Radbert seemed to have so egregiously corrupted'. These learned divines executed with zeal and diligence the orders of the emperor. The treatise of Scotus perished in the ruins of time; but that of Ratram is still extant ", which furnished ample matter of dispute, both in the last and present century ".

m

large by Mabillon, in his Acta Sanctor. Ord. Benedict. Sec. iv, part II. 126, and by the Jesuits, in the Acta SS. Antwerp. ad d. xxvi. Aprilis.

For an account of Ratram, or Bertram, and his famous book which made so much noise in the world, see the Biblioth. Lat. of Fabricius, tom. i. p. 1661.

m A new English translation of the book of Bertram, (who was a priest and monk of Corbey) concerning the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament, was published at Dublin in 1752: to which is prefixed a very learned and judicious historical dissertation respecting this famous author and his works, in which both are ably defended against the calumnies and fictions of the Roman catholic writers.

n There is an account, but a partial one, of this controversy in Mabillon's Præf. ad Sæc. iv. part ii. Benedict. p. viii. which the curious reader will therefore do well to compare with Basnage's Histoire de l'Eglise, tom, i. 909.

CENT. IX.

CENT. IX.

on by his

adversary Bertram.

XX. It is remarkable that in this controversy each and carried of the contending parties were almost as much divided among themselves as they were at variance with their adversaries. Radbert, who began the dispute, contradicts himself in many places, departs from his own principles, and maintains, in one part of his book, conclusions that he had disavowed in another. His principal adversary Bertram, or Ratram, seems in some respects liable to the same charge; he appears to follow in general the doctrine of those, who deny that the body and blood of Christ are really present in the holy sacrament, and to affirm on the contrary that they are only represented by the bread and wine as their signs or symbols. There are, however, several passages in his book which seem inconsistent with this just and rational notion of the eucharist, or at least are susceptible of different interpretations, and have therefore given rise to various disputes. Johannes Scotus, whose philosophical genius rendered him more accurate, and shed through his writings that logical precision so much wanted, and so highly desirable in polemical productions, was the only disputant in this contest who expressed his sentiments with perspicuity, method, and consistency, and declared plainly that the bread and wine were the signs and symbols of the absent body and blood of Christ. All the other theologians of his time fluctuate and waver in their opinions, express themselves with ambiguity, and embrace and reject the same tenets at different times, as if they had no fixed or permanent principles on this subject. Hence it evidently appears, that there was not yet in the Latin church any fixed or universally-received opinion concerning the manner in which the body and blood of Christ are present in the eucharist.

XXI. The disputants in this controversy charged each other reciprocally with the most odious doctrines, which each party drew by way of consequences from the tenets they opposed,-a method of proceeding as

unjust, as it is common in all kinds of debate. Hence CENT. IX. arose the imaginary heresy, that, on the triumphant progress of the doctrine of transubstantiation in the eleventh century, was branded with the title of Stercoranism, and of which the true origin was as follows: They who, embracing the opinion of Paschasius Radbert, believed that the bread and wine in the sacrament were substantially changed after the consecration, and preserved only their external figure, drew a most unjust conclusion from the opinion of their adversaries, who maintained on the contrary, that the bread and wine preserved their substance, and that Christ's body and blood were only figuratively, and not really, present in the eucharist. They alleged that the doctrine of the latter implied, that the body of Christ was digested in the stomach, and was thrown out with the other excrements. But this consequence was quickly retorted upon those that imagined it; for they who denied the conversion of the bread and wine into the real body and blood of Christ, charged the saine enormous consequence upon their antagonists who believed this transmutation; and the charge certainly was much more applicable to the latter than to the former. The truth is, that it was neither truly applicable to one nor to the other; and their mutual reproaches, most wretchedly founded, shew rather a spirit of invective, than a zeal for the truth. The charge of Stercoranism is but a malignant invention; it can never, without the most absurd impudence, be brought against those who deny the transmutation of the bread into the body of Christ; it may indeed be charged upon such as allow this transmutation, though it be a consequence that none of them, except those whose intellects were unsound, perhaps ever avowed o.

• For an account of the Stercoranists, see Mabillon, Præf. ad Sæc. iv. Benedict. part ii. p. 21.-J. Basnage, Histoire de l'Eglise, tom. i. p. 926, and a Treatise of the learned Dr. Pfaff, published at Tubingen in 1750.

CENT. IX.

A new con

concerning

tion and grace.

XXII. While this controversy was at its greatest height, another of a quite different kind, and of much troversy greater importance, arose, whose unhappy consepredestina- quences are yet felt in the reformed churches. The subject of this new contest was the doctrine of predestination and divine grace, and its rise is universally attributed to Godeschalcus, an illustrious Saxon, who had entered involuntarily into the monastic order in the convent of Fulda, whence he removed to the monastery of Orbais, in the diocese of Soissons, where he prosecuted his theological studies, not only with great assiduity, but also with an insatiable desire of sounding the deepest mysteries, and of being wise ' above what is written.' This eminent ecclesiastic, upon his return from Rome in 847, took up his lodging for some time with count Eberald, one of the principal noblemen at the court of the emperor Lothaire, where he discoursed largely of the intricate doctrine of predestination in the presence of Nothingus, bishop of Verona, and maintained that God, from all eternity, had pre-ordained some to everlasting life, and others to everlasting punishment and misery. Rabanus Maurus, who was by no means his friend, being informed of the propagation of this doctrine, opposed him with great vigor. To render his opposition more successful, he began by representing Godeschalcus as a corrupter of the true religion, and a forger of monstrous heresies, in some letters addressed to count Eberald and to the bishop of Verona; and when the accused monk came from Italy into Germany to justify himself against these clamors, and for that purpose appeared at Mentz, of which Rabanus his accuser was archbishop, he was condemned in a council assembled by the latter in that city, in 848, and sent thence to Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, in whose diocese he had received the order of priesthood. Hincmar, who was devoted to the interests of Rabanus, assembled a council at Quiercy in 849, in which Godeschalcus was condemned a second time, and was also treated in a manner

equally repugnant to the principles of religion and CENT. IX. the dictates of humanity. Because he was firm in maintaining his doctrine, which he affirmed, and indeed with truth, to be the doctrine of St. Augustine, the imperious Hincmar degraded him from the priesthood, and was so barbarous as to order him to be scourged with the utmost severity, until the force of his pain overpowering his constancy obliged him, according to the commands of his reverend executioners, to burn with his own hands that justification of his opinions which he had presented to the council of Mentz. After these barbarous proceedings, the unfortunate monk was cast into prison in the monastery of Hautvilliers, where he ended his misery and his days in 868, or the following year, maintaining with his last breath the doctrine for which he had suffered.

test.

XXIII. While Godeschalcus lay in prison, his The history doctrine gained him followers; his sufferings excited of this concompassion; and both together produced a considerable schism in the Latin church. Ratram, monk of Corbey, Prudentius, bishop of Troyes, Loup, or Lupus, abbot of Ferrieres, Florus, deacon of Lyons, Remi, archbishop of the same city, with his whole church, and many other ecclesiastics, whom it would be tedious to mention, pleaded with the utmost zeal and vehemence, both in their writings and in their discourse, the cause of this unhappy monk, and of his condemned opinions. Some, indeed, confined themselves principally to the defence of his person and conduct, while others went farther, and employed all their zeal, and all their labor, in the vindication of his doctrine. On the opposite side of the question were Hincmar, his unrighteous judge, Amalarius, the celebrated Johannes Scotus, and others, who all maintained, that Godeschalcus and his opinions had received the treatment they deserved. As the spirit of controversy ran high between these contending parties, and grew more vehement from day to day, Charles the Bald summoned a new council, or synod,