I 127. THE TIIEOKY OF RATRAMXUS. 551
It is consistent with this view that Ratramnus regarded the sacrifice of the mass not as an actual (though unbloody) repe tition, but only as a commemorative celebration of Christ's sacrifice whereby Christians are assured of their redemption. When we shall behold Christ face to face, we shall no longer need such instruments of remembrance.
John Scotus Erigeua is also reported to have written a book against Radbert at the request of Charles the Bald. Ilincmar of Rheims mentions among his errors this, that in the sac rament of the altar the true body and blood of Christ were not present, but only a memorial of them.1 The report may have arisen from a confusion, since the tract of Ratramnus was at a later period ascribed to Scotus Erigena.2 But he expresses his view incidentally in other writings from which it appears that he agreed with Ratramnus and regarded the eucharist only as a typical representation of a spiritual communion with Christ.3 In his book De Divisione Naturce, he teaches a mystic ubiquity of Christ's glorified humanity or its elevation above the limitations of space. Neander infers from this that he held the eucharistic bread and wine to be simply symbols of the deified, omnipresent humanity of Christ which communicates itself, in a real manner, to believing souls.4 At all events the hypothesis of ubiquity excludes a miraculous change of the elements, and gives the real
1 De PrmJ., c. 31.
2 See Lanfe, Ueber die fur verloren gehaKene Schrift des Johannes Scotus Erigena von dcr Eucharistic, in the " Stud i en und Kritiken" of Ullmann and Umbreit, 1828, p. 755 sqq. Laufs denies that Erigena wrote on the Eucharist.
3 In his newly discovered Expositions on the Celestial, and on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of St. Dionysius, and the fragments of a Com. on St. John. See Op. ed Floss in Migne, 122 (col. 126-350); Christlieb, Scotus Er.t p. 68-81, and in Herzog2 XIII. 790 sq., and Huber, Sc. Erig., p. 98 sqq.
4 Dr. Baur is of the same opinion (Dogmengetch. II. 173): "Scotus Erigena dachte sich (De Div. Nat. V. 38) eine Ubiquitat der vergeistigten und vergottlichten Natur, die die Annahme einer specieHen Gegemcart in den Elementen des Abcndmahls nicht zuliess, sondern dieselben nur als Symbole zu nrhmen gestattete. Brod und Wcm konntcn ihm daher nur als Symbole jener Ubiquitat dcr verhcrrlichtcn menschlichen Natur gelten; er hat sich aber hicriiber nicht ndher erkldrt."
552 FOURTH PERIOD. A. D. 590-1049.
presence a christo-pantheistic aspect. The Lutheran divines used this hypothesis in a modified form (multipresence, or multivolipresence, dependent on the will of Christ) as a dogmatic support for their doctrine of the real presence.
Among the divines of the Carol ingian age who held the Augustinian view and rejected that of Radbert, as an error, were Kabanus Maurus, Walafrid Strabo, Christian Druthmar, and Florus Magister. They recognized only a dynamic and spiritual, not a visible and corporeal presence, of the body of Christ, in the sacrament.1
On the other hand, the theory of Radbert was accepted by Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims, Bishop Haimo of Halberstadt, and other leading ecclesiastics. It became more and more popu lar during the dark post-Carolingian period. Bishop Ratherius of Verona (about 950), who, however, repelled all curious questions about the mode of the change, and even the learned and liberal-minded Gerbert (afterwards Pope Sylvester II., from 999 to 1003), defended the miraculous transformation of the eucharistic elements by the priestly consecration. It is charac teristic of the grossly sensuous character of the theology of the tenth century that the chief point of dispute was the revolting and indecent question whether the consecrated elements pass from the communicant in the ordinary way of nature. The opponents of transubstantiation affirmed this, the advocates indignantly denied it, and fastened upon the former the new heretical name of " Stercorianists." Gerbert called stercorianism a diabolical blasphemy, and invented the theory that the eucha ristic body and blood of Christ do not pass in noxios et superfluos hvmores, but are preserved hi the flesh for the final resur rection.2
Radbertus was canonized, and his memory is celebrated since
1 " Corpus Christi esse non in specie visibili, sed in virtute spirituali," etc. See Baur, II. 166, 172, and the notes in Gieseler, II. 80 and 82.
2 De Corpore et Sanguini Domini, edited by Fez, in " Thes. nov. Anecd." I., Pars II. 133 sqq.