3 126. THE THEORY OF PASCHASIUS RADBERTUS. 547
the Body and Blood of the Lord," composed for his disciple Placidus of New Corbie in the year 831, and afterwards reedited it in a more popular form, and dedicated it to the Empe ror Charles the Bald, as a Christmas gift (844). He did not employ the term transiibstantiationy which came not into use till two centuries later; but he taught the thing, namely, that "the substance of bread and wine is effectually changed (cfficaciter interim commutator} into the flesh and blood of Christ," so that after the priestly consecration there is " nothing else in the eucharist but the flesh and blood of Christ," although "the figure of bread and wine remain" to the senses of sight, touch, and taste. The change is brought about by a miracle of the Holy Spirit, who created the body of Christ in the womb of the Vir gin without cohabitation, and who by the same almighty power creates from day to day, wherever the mass is celebrated, the same body and blood out of the substance of bread and wine. He emphasizes the identity of the eucharistic body with the body which was born of the Virgin, suffered on the cross, rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven ; yet on the other hand he represents the sacramental eating and drinking as a spiritual process by faith.1 He therefore combines the sensuous and spiritual conceptions.2 He assumes that the soul of the believer
1 He denies the grossly Capernaitic conception ('' Christum rorari fas dentilms non est") and the conversion of the body and blood of Christ into our flesh and blood. He confines the spiritual fruition to believers (" iste cucharistiw cibus non nisi jiliorum Dei est"). The unworthy communicants, whom lie compares to Judas, receive the sacramental "mystery" to their judgment, but not the ;' virtue of the mystery" to their benefit. He seems not to have clearly seen that his premises lead to the inevitable conclusion that all communicants alike receive the same substance of the body and blood of Christ, though with oppo site effects. But Dr. Ebrard i* certainly wrong when he claims Radbert rather for the Augustinian view, and denies that he was the author of the theory of transubstantiation. See his Dogma v. heil. Abendmahl I. 406, and his Christl. Kirclicn- und DogmcngeRch. II. 27 and 33.
2 See Steitz on Radbert, and also Reuter (I. 43), who says: "Die Radbcrtixche Doctrin icar das synkrctistische Gfbilde, in welchcm die spiritualistische Lehre Augustin's mit dcr nralten AnKchaniing von der rcalcn Gcgcnwart des Leibcs und des Blutes Christi, aber in Analogic mit dem religiosen Materialismus der Periode
548 FOURTH PERIOD. A. D. 590-1049.
communes with Christ, and that his body receives an imperish able principle of life which culminates at last in the resurrection. He thus understood, like several of the ancient fathers, the words of our Saviour : " He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day "(John 6: 54).
He supports his doctrine by the words of institution in their literal sense, and by the sixth chapter of John. He appealed also to marvellous stories of the visible appearances of the body and blood of Christ for the removal of doubts or the satisfaction of the pious desire of saints. The bread on the altar, he reports, was often seen in the shape of a lamb or a little child, and when the priest stretched out his hand to break the bread, an angel descended from heaven with a knife, slaughtered the lamb or the child, and let his blood run into a cup ! l
Such stories were readily believed by the people, and helped to strengthen the doctrine of transubstantiation ; as the stories of the appearances of departed souls from purgatory confirmed the belief in purgatory.
The book of Radbert created a great sensation in the West, which was not yet prepared to accept the doctrine of transub stantiation without a vigorous struggle. Radbert himself ad mits that some of his contemporaries believed only in a spiritual communion of the soul with Christ, and substituted the mere virtue of his body and blood for the real body and blood, i. e., as he thinks, the figure for the verity, the shadow for the sub stance.2
combinirt wurde; die gegnerische Theorie der Protest gegen das Recht dieser Com bination."
1 See several such examples in ch. 14 (Opera, ed. Migne, col. 1316 sqq.).
2 He clearly contrasts the two theories, probably with reference to Ratramnus, in his comments on the words of institution, Matt. 26: 26 (Expos, in Matt., ed. Migne, col. 890 sq.) : " N-que itaque dixit cum fregit et dedit eis panem, 'hoc est, vel in hoc mysterio est virtus vel figura corporis mei,' sed ait non ficte, 'Hoc est corpus meum.' Ubi Lucas addidit, ( Quod pro vobis tradetur,' vel sicut alii codices habent, ' datur.' Sed et Joannes ex persona Domini, ' Panis,' in-quit, ' quern ego