in a rude ? udifem? stem. The above refers to the introduction of the doctrine into the Greek Church. 4. In the ?i_?th confur F a warm contest arose in the church concern- ing the manner in which the body and blood of Christ were present in the 8am'ernest, The sentiments of Christians on this point were vari* cue and contradictory, nor had any council determined it with preci- sion. Both reason and folly were hitherto left free in this matter, nor had say unpenous mode of faith su.?pended the exercise of the one or restrained the extravagance of the other. In the year 831, Paschesius, a Benedictine monk, afterward abbot of Corbie, in France, published a treatise, "Concerning the Body Blood of Christ," which he presented fifteen years after, carefully re- visor and augmented, to Charles the Bald. The doctrine advanced by Paschasius may be expressed by the two foliowhig propositions: Tint after t/? cen?e?rat/on of t/2 br?u/and ,?/ne in Lie Lord's nothing romaintd of fiche simpbols but ?i? out?oard j?gure, un&r ?ola?A tb bady and blood of Clout ? locally pre?ent. Secondly, Tibet tJw body and blood of Ci?ri?t, tl? I resent in t?e eu�I?rist, ? ti? sar,? bod? t?at ? born of tl? Virgin, that ru;gered on tl? cro?s, and ms rai?d from t/? &.ed. This new doctrine, especially the second proposition, ex- cited the aztonishment of many. Accordingly it was opposed by Rs- Imam, Herabald, and others, though not in the same manner, nor upon the same principles. Charles the Bald, upon this occasion, ordere{I the famous Bertram and Johannes Scorns, of Ireland, to draw up clear and rational explication of that doctrine which Paschasius had so egregiously corrupted. In this controversy the parties were as much divided among themselves a8 they were at variance with their advermu'ies. The opinions of Bertram are very confused, although he maintained that bread and wine, as symbols or signs, represented the body and blood of Christ. Scotus, however, maintained uniformly' that the bread and wine were the s{gns and symbols of the absent body and blood of Christ. All the other theologians seemed to have no fixed opinions on these points. One thing is certain, however; that none of them were properly inducted into the then unknown doctrine of transubstantiation, as the unn, ship of the elements was not mentioned, much less contended for, by any of the disputants. It waz an extra- vagsaco of superstition too gross for even the ninth century. Bertram and tho?e of his sentiments allowed no material, but sacramental change in the elements. Christ's body and blood were present effect- ' and really, but not bodily and substantially, or lve]y I transubstantially, as the Romsaists hold; and in this sense it is that we Protestants to the res//wes?We - ot Christ in the sacrament, though we deny trsn- substantiation. :.At this time, tlto, no one maintailted. that the ?ou/and d/v/'?ty of ,?*ist ?//er'-?' oontam"? in the e?a?ris?,? which i5"?other proof that the-Roman novelty had ? then any rea'l ? existence. The testimony of Raban'?aurus, archbishop o'o?'Monts, in t?'6 year 847, is worthy of a place here, and is a8 follows: "Some persons, of late, not entertaining a sound opinion respecting the sacrament of the bod?r blood of our Lord, have actually ventured to declare that this is the identical body a?d blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; the identical body, to wit, which was' 5ore of the Virgin Mary, in which (?hrist suffer?[
�
