a defender of orthodoxy in that age.* He wrote a treatise, de Prædestinatione. The solution of the question is derived from the principles of his philosophical and theological system; but as this treatise is, in many points, not fully developed, it must be taken in connexion with his principal work. His opinion is-we can only speak in an improper or figurative sense of a divine foreknowledge and predestination; since for God there is no time; consciousness and knowledge, in a proper sense, can never be ascribed to him. All this belongs to the θεολογία καταφατική. For God there is no Evil; he is only the cause of Good. When all things are viewed in connexion, everything is necessary for the harmony of the whole. Evil only arises through detached contemplation. It carries its own punishment along with it; hence it lies in every sin, in this life it is still hidden, but manifest in the life to come. Proper punishment consists in estrangement from God-all punishment is grounded in this. Accordingly, in his treatise, de divisione naturæ, he maintains that everything which the Bible says of Hell, is only a figurative description of spiritual suffering. In the other

* Mauguin, i. 1, 103. Opp. ed. Floss, p. 347.

+ De Prædestin. ix. 5.-Eodem modo Deus vidit, prævidit, scivit, præscivit omnia facienda, priusquam fierent, quo videt et scit eadem, postquam facta sunt, quoniam sicut ipse semper æternus est, ita universitas quam fecit, semper in ipso æterna est. 6. Quo jure potest dici prædestinatio, i. e. præparatio in eo, qui nullo temporis intervallo præcessit, quo disponeret ea, quæ facturus esset, cujus operationem non præcedit præparatio. Non enim aliud ei est præparare et operari. Quo modo autem facturus esset aliquid, qui omnia semel et simul fecit?-Nec tamen in illo fuerunt, nec futura sunt, sed tantummodo sunt et omnia unum sunt. Proinde, quoniam aliter sub illo sunt ea, quæ per illum facta sunt, aliter in eo sunt ea, quæ ipse est in eis quæ sub illo sunt, quia locis temporibusque suis et creata et ordinata sunt, proprie fiunt verba locorum temporumque significativa, in eis vero, quæ eterna liber in illo sunt, translative proferri possunt.-[JACOBI.]

C. x. 4. Quis non videat, nisi qui sensu caret, totum, quod dicitur peccatum, ejusque consequentias in morte atque miseria constitutas, nihil aliud esse, quam integræ vitæ beatæque corruptiones? ita ut singula singulis opponantur, integritati quidem peccatum, vitæ mors, beatitudini miseria. Illa sunt, ista penitus non sunt; illa sursum versus appetunt unum omnium principium, ista deserunt, deorsumque in nihilum bona, quæ corrumpunt, redere contendunt; illorum causa Deus est, utorum nulla; illa intra terminos naturalium formarum intelliguntur, ista in eorum defectu atque privatione nesciendo utuntur. [JACOBI,]

work he adheres more closely to the Church doctrine; he is willing to allow that a sensible fire is meant, but this, in itself, is not the cause of suffering; only in virtue of the subjective character of the ungodly is it the ground of their sufferings. All Evil is a stage in the development of good, and hence the last end of the development is the return of all to God. "If the visible fire," he says, "wherever it is kindled, always tends upwards, and can be kept down by nothing, how can the spiritual flame of the rational nature in man be kept down for ever?" His doctrine, therefore, leads to an universal predestination. In his doctrine of Grace, he does not deviate from the Augustinian system, to which the connexion of his own doctrine is related by a neces sary process of development. Verbally, he aims at main taining Free Will; he distinguishes for this purpose the idea of power and of freedom. As a man in the thickest darkness still retains the power of seeing, but does not really see till the light comes from without, so the Will of Man always has the power of being good, though corrupted by original sin and his own sin, and surrounded by darkness; but he cannot attain to the exercise of this power till the light of grace cures the infirm will. He calls natural freedom the desire for happiness implanted in the rational nature (appetitus beatitudinis naturaliter insitus), which can find its satisfaction in God alone.

By such a development little assistance was rendered to HINKMAR. New opponents came forward and took advantage of these weak points. In order to call in the aid of ecclesiastical authority he held, A.D. 853, a second synod at CHIERSY, at which four propositions were drawn up against the doctrine of GOTTSCHALK.* HINKMAR set out from the Augustinian doctrine, that by Adam's sin men were become a massa perditionis, that the ground on which some attained salvation, and others not, was simply to be sought for in the divine predestination. He maintained that God in consequence of his justice had predestined punishment to sinners, but he would not say with GOTTSCHALK that God has predestined them to punishment. So far he controverts the doctrine of the prædestinatio duplex. The principal difference lay in his asserting that God wills that all men should be saved;—that Hincmar. De Prædestinatione, c. 2.

some will be saved, is the gift of divine grace-that others are lost is owing to their demerit; Christ suffered for all; whoever does not appropriate these sufferings has himself to blame. To this milder representation the stricter Party presented in opposition six doctrinal articles at the Council of VALENCE. They maintained the twofold Predestination, but guarded against God's being the author of Sin or predestinating any one to Evil. The doctrine of general Redemption was rejected; redemption, indeed, applied to all the baptized, yet only some of these attained to salvation, because through the grace of God they remained faithful in their redemption. Yet this party endeavoured to avoid what would violate the moral feelings. They might indeed have been well agreed had they not been so ready to lose sight of thoughts, while occupied about formulas, and if they had got over the want of clearness, caused by defect of dialectic skill. The difference was not settled, and so both phases of doctrine passed over into the following Age.

As JOHN SCOTUS enlarged the extent of Redemption to the length of universal Restoration, some other isolated traces were to be found of this opinion. It was reached from two points. The thought suggested itself to Missionaries of Christianity among the Heathen, How could it consist with the love of God and Redemption that all these heathen should be lost? That CLEMENT, who came into Germany from an Irish monastery and was opposed by BONIFACE, must have maintained, as he was charged by him, that Christ in the descensus ad inferos had redeemed not merely the Old Testament Saints, but also others. Or the revived study of the classical authors might have led them to reflect on this question. SERVATUS LUPUS speaks of one PROBUS who taught Grammar in the monastery at Fulda, and broached the opinion that CICERO, VIRGIL, and all the better heathens were taken into the fellowship of the elect, since Christ had not shed his blood in vain.‡

* Mansi, xv. 1.

+ Bonifacii, Epp. 135; Serrar. 39, Würdtw.-Qui contra fidem sanctorum contendit dicens: quod Christus filius Dei descendens ad inferos, omnes quos inferni carcer detinuit, inde liberasset, credulos et 'incredulos, laudatores Dei simul et cultores idolorum; et multa alia horribilia de prædestinatione Dei contraria fidei catholicæ affirmat. Neander's Ch. Hist. vi. 362.

d. THE DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER AND THE

CONTROVERSIES RESPECTING IT.

WE have already remarked, that, up to this period, various shades of sentiment on the relation of the Body and Blood of Christ to the outward signs might co-exist, but that by this time the predominant sensuous realistic element operated with increasing force on the development of this doctrine. Under this influence, and because the religious consciousness directed itself only to the supernatural presence of Christ, the representation of the miracle of Transubstantiation was formed.

THE ORIENTAL CHURCH.

The antagonism of spiritual tendencies, which traversed one another in the controversy on Images, could also exert its influence on the doctrine of the Supper. Had the opponents of Images proceeded to greater lengths they would have come into open collision with the doctrine of the Church. At a council held by this class of persons under CONSTANTINE COPRONYMUS, a statement was also made regarding the Supper; for the Image which Christ made of himself in the Supper and had instituted as a means of keeping him in remembrance, was set in opposition to all other images. A distinction was made between the Image and the proper Body of Christ. The Image instituted by Christ himself corresponded to the natural Body of Christ, since in virtue of its consecration it became like that, a Bearer of Divine Life. It is difficult to obtain distinct ideas from such tumid phraseology; yet this thought appears to be at the basis of it, that as the Body of Christ had life through the indwelling fulness of the divine Logos, so a divine power is imparted to the bread by the immediate operation of the Logos. The party of the Image-worshippers opposed this representation. At the SECOND NICENE COUNCIL,* A.D. 787, it was expressly denied that the Bread could be called an Image of the Body, for after consecration it was no mere Image, but rather in a proper sense the Body of Christ.f JOHN of DAMASCus expresses himself, in agreement with them, having been guided in his views by a passage already quoted from GREGORY of NYSSA. The Bread and Wine are not + Actio 6.

* Mansi, xii., xiii.

merely an Image of the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is that which was born of the Virgin Mary; not that it descended from Heaven, but the bread and wine were changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. The immediate miraculous operation of the Logos here produces the body of Christ in a new mode. As Christ partook of food while on earth, and nourishment by such means became changed into his body, so this now takes place in believers by an immediate miracle. He thus expresses himself:-One nature is not here, but two, which may mean that there are two substances, the Bread and Wine, and the Body and Blood of Christ. But he really meant to say, that the divine Logos is connected not immediately with the Bread and Wine, but mediately through the Body of Christ.*

THE WESTERN CHURCH.

Here the different views held on this subject appear with greater decision. PASCHASIUS RADBERT, abbot of the monastery of Corbie, was an adherent of the strictest Supranaturalism. He had already proved himself to be such in a dispute with RATRAMNUST on the birth of Christ. His fundamental principle is,—that as the Will of God is the cause of the whole Creation, so also it continues to be the only cause of all the changes in it. In this light he presents the doctrine of the Supper. He sees in it the culmination of miracles. He impugns those who say that by this Sacrament only the soul is nourished, that there is only a spiritual communion with Christ, and maintains on the contrary, that Christ comes into corporeal connexion with our Body which he has also redeemed. By means of the consecration of the Priest, God, through his all-powerful Word, creates the true body and blood of Christ out of the substance of the bread and wine. The change goes on in secret, in order not to alarm our senses, and the colour and taste of bread and wine remain, although the substance is changed. This was connected with RADBERT's scheme that he regarded the religious point of view in the Lord's Supper not only subjectively but also objectively as alone valid. The Natural was supposed to vanish entirely, since it was of no value for the religious feeling. Not merely internally was the * ἔκθεσις, 4, 13. + D'Achery, Spicilegium, part 1. De Sacramento Corporis et Sanguinis Christi.