ism and Origenism, and censured for substituting philosophy for theology, and sophistical subtleties for sound arguments from Scripture and tradition. Remigius thought him insane. Florus Magister likewise wrote against him, and rejected as blasphemous the doctrine that sin and evil were nonentities, and therefore could not be the subjects of divine foreknowledge and foreordination. The Synod of Valence (855) rejected his nineteen syllogisms as absurdities, and his whole book as a "commentum diaboli potius quam argumentum fidei." His most important work, which gives his whole system, was also condemned by a provincial Synod of Sens, and afterwards by Pope Honorius III. in 1225, who characterized it as a book "teeming with the vermin of heretical depravity," and ordered all copies to be burned. But, fortunately, a few copies survived for the study of later ages.

§ 124. The Eucharistic Controversies. Literature.

The general Lit. on the history of the doctrine of the Eucharist, see in vol. I., ¿ 55, p. 472, and II. 241.

Add the following Roman Catholic works on the general subject: Card. JO. DE LUGO (d. 1660): Tractatus de venerabili Eucharistiæ Sacramento, in Migne's "Cursus Theol. Completus," XXIII. Card. WISEMAN: Lectures on the Real Presence. Lond., 1836 and 1842. OSWALD: Die dogmat. Lehre von den heil. Sacramenten der katholischen Kirche. Münster, 3rd ed., 1870, vol. I. 375–427.

On the Protestant side: T. K. MEIER: Versuch einer Gesch. der Transsubstantiationslehre. Heilbronn, 1832. EBRARD: Das Dogma v. heil. Abendmahl und seine Gesch. Frankf. a. M., 1845 and '46, 2 vols. STEITZ: Arts. on Radbert, Ratramnus, and Transubstantiation in Herzog. SCHAFF: Transubstantiation in "Rel. Encycl." III. 2385. Special Lit. on the eucharistic controversies in the ninth and eleventh centuries.

I. Controversy between Ratramnus and Paschasius Radbertus. (1) PASCHASIUS RADBERTUS: Liber de Corpore et Sanguine Domini, dedicated to Marinus, abbot of New Corbie, 831, second ed., 844, presented to Charles the Bald; first genuine ed. by Nic. Mameranus, Colon. 1550; best ed. by Martene and Durand in "Veter. Script. et Monum. amplissima Collectio," IX. 367.-Comm. in Matth. (26: 26); Epistola ad Frudegardum, and treatise De Partu Virginis. See S. PASCH. RADB.: Opera omnia in Tom. 120 of Migne's "Patrol. Lat.," Par. 1852.

HAIMO: Tract. de Corp. et Sang. Dom. (a fragment of a Com. on 1 Cor.), in D'Achery, "Spicil." I. 42, and in Migne, "P. L.," Tom. 118, col. 815-817. HINCMAR: Ep. ad Carol. Calv. de cavendis vitiis et virtutibus exercendis, c. 9. In Migne, T. 125, col. 915 sqq.

(2) RATRAMNUS: De Corpore et Sanguine Domini liber ad Carolum Calvum Reg. Colon., 1532 (under the name of Bertram), often publ. by Reformed divines in the original and in translations (from 1532 to 1717 at Zürich, Geneva, London, Oxford, Amsterdam), and by Jac. Boileau, Par., 1712, with a vindication of the catholic orthodoxy of Ratramnus. See RATRAMNI Opera in Migne, “P. L.,” Tom. 121,

col. 10-346. RABANUS MAURUS: Poenitentiale, cap. 33. Migne, "P. L." Tom. 110, col. 492, 493. WALAFRID STRABO: De Rebus Eccles., c. 16, 17. See extracts in Gieseler, II. 80-82.

(3) Discussions of historians: NATALIS ALEXANDER, H. Eccl. IX. and X., Dissert. X. and XIII. NEANDER, IV. 458-475, Germ. ed., or III. 495-501, Engl. transl., Bost. ed. GIESELER, II. 79–84, N. Y. ed. BAUR: Vorlesungen über Dogmengesch. II. 161–175.

II. Controversy between Berengar and Lanfranc.

(1) LANFRANCUS: De Eucharistic Sacramento contra Berengarium lib., Basil., 1528, often publ., also in "Bibl. PP. Lugd.,” XVIII. 763, and in Migne, "Patrol. Lat.," Tom. 150 (1854), col. 407-442. (2) BERENGARIUS: De Sacra Cœna adv. Lanfrancum liber posterior, first publ. by A. F. & F. Th. Vischer. Berol., 1834 (from the MS. in Wolfenbüttel, now in Göttingen. Comp. LESSING: Berengarius Turon. oder Ankündigung eines wichtigen Werkes desselben. Braunschweig, 1770). H. SUDENDORF: Berengarius Turonensis oder eine Sammlung ihn betreffender Briefe. Hamburg and Gotha, 1850. Contains twenty-two new documents, and a full list of the older sources.

(3) NEANDER: III. 502–530 (E. Tr. Bost. ed.; or IV. 476-534 Germ. ed.). GIESELER: II. 163–173 (E. Tr. N. York ed.). BAUR: II. 175–198. HARDWICK: Middle Age, 169-173 (third ed. by Stubbs). MILMAN: III. 258 sqq. ROBERTSON: II. 609 sqq. (small ed., IV. 351-367). JACOBI: Berengar, in Herzog2 II. 305–311. REUTER: Gesch. der relig. Aufklärung im Mittelalter (1875), I. 91 sqq. HEFELE: IV. 740 sqq. (ed. 1879).

§ 125. The Two Theories of the Lord's Supper.

The doctrine of the Lord's Supper became the subject of two controversies in the Western church, especially in France. The first took place in the middle of the ninth century between Paschasius Radbertus and Ratramnus, the other in the middle of the eleventh century between Berengar and Lanfranc. In

the second, Pope Hildebrand was implicated, as mediator between Berengar and the orthodox party.

In both cases the conflict was between a materialistic and a spiritualistic conception of the sacrament and its effect. The one was based on a literal, the other on a figurative interpretation of the words of institution, and of the mysterious discourse in the sixth chapter of St. John. The contending parties agreed in the belief that Christ is present in the eucharist as the bread of life to believers; but they differed widely in their conception of the mode of that presence: the one held that Christ was literally and corporeally present and communicated to all communicants through the mouth; the other, that he was spiritually present and spiritually communicated to believers through faith. The transubstantiationists (if we may coin this term) believed that the eucharistic body of Christ was identical with his historical body, and was miraculously created by the priestly consecration of the elements in every sacrifice of the mass; their opponents denied this identity, and regarded the eucharistic. body as a symbolical exhibition of his real body once sacrificed on the cross and now glorified in heaven, yet present to the believer with its life-giving virtue and saving power.

We find both these views among the ancient fathers. The realistic and mystical view fell in more easily with the excessive supernaturalism and superstitious piety of the middle age, and triumphed at last both in the Greek and Latin churches; for there is no material difference between them on this dogma.' The spiritual theory was backed by the all-powerful authority of St. Augustin in the West, and ably advocated by Ratramnus and Berengar, but had to give way to the prevailing belief in transubstantiation until, in the sixteenth century, the controversy was revived by the Reformers, and resulted in the establish

1 The Greek fathers do not, indeed, define the real presence as transubstantiatio or μerovoíwots, but Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and John of Damascus use similar terms which imply a miraculous change of the elements.

ment of three theories: 1) the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation, re-asserted by the Council of Trent; 2) the Lutheran theory of the real presence in the elements, retaining their substance; and 3) the Reformed (Calvinistic) theory of a spiritual real or dynamic presence for believers. In the Roman church (and herein the Greek church fully agrees with her), the doctrine of transubstantiation is closely connected with the doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass, which forms the centre of worship.

It is humiliating to reflect that the commemorative feast of Christ's dying love, which should be the closest bond of union between believers, innocently gave rise to the most violent controversies. But the same was the case with the still more important doctrine of Christ's Person. Fortunately, the spiritual benefit of the sacrament does not depend upon any particular human theory of the mode of Christ's presence, who is ever ready to bless all who love him.

§ 126. The Theory of Paschasius Radbertus.

PASCHASIUS RADBERTUS (from 800 to about 865), a learned, devout and superstitious monk, and afterwards abbot of Corbie or Corvey in France,2 is the first who clearly taught the doctrine of transubstantiation as then believed by many, and afterwards adopted by the Roman Catholic church. He wrote a book “on

1 The Lutheran theory, as formulated by the Formula of Concord, is usually and conveniently styled consubstantiation, in distinction from transubstantiation; but Lutheran divines disown the term, because they confine the real presence to the time and act of the sacramental fruition, and hence reject the adoration of the consecrated elements.

2 Corbie, Corvey, Corbeia (also called Corbeia aurea or vetus), was a famous Benedictine Convent in the diocese of Amiens, founded by King Clotar and his mother Bathilde in 664, in honor of Peter and Paul and the Protomartyr Stephen. It boasted of many distinguished men, as St. Ansgarius (the Apostle of the Danes), Radbert, Ratramnus, Druthmar. New Corbie (Nova Corbeia) was a colony of the former, founded in 822, near Höxter on the Weser in Germany, and became the centre for the christianization of the Saxons. See Gallia Christiana, X.; Wiegand, Gesch. v. Corvey, Höxter, 1819; Klippel, Cor vey, in Herzog III. 365-370.

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 Emperor Charles the Bald, as a Christmas gift (844). He did not employ the term transubstantiation, 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 (efficaciter interius commutatur) 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 Virgin 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.' He therefore combines the sensuous and spiritual conceptions. He assumes that the soul of the believer

'He denies the grossly Capernaitic conception (" Christum vorari fas dentibus 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 eucharistiæ cibus non nisi filiorum Dei est"). The unworthy communicants, whom he 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 opposite effects. But Dr. Ebrard is 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. Kirchen- und Dogmengesch. II. 27 and 33.

2 See Steitz on Radbert, and also Reuter (I. 43), who says: "Die Radbertische Doctrin war das synkretistische Gebilde, in welchem die spiritualistische Lehre Augustin's mit der uralten Anschauung von der realen Gegenwart des Leibes und des Blutes Christi, aber in Analogie mit dem religiösen Materialismus der Periode