The chief opponent of transubstantiation was Ratramnus,^709 a contemporary monk at Corbie,
and a man of considerable literary reputation. He was the first to give the symbolical theory a
scientific expression. At the request of King Charles the Bald he wrote a eucharistic tract against
Radbert, his superior, but did not name him.^710 He answered two questions, whether the consecrated
elements are called body and blood of Christ after a sacramental manner (in mysterio), or in the
literal sense; and whether the eucharistic body is identical with the historical body which died and
rose again. He denied this identity which Radbert had strongly asserted; and herein lies the gist of
the difference. He concluded that the elements remain in reality as well as for the sensual perception
what they were before the consecration, and that they are the body and blood of Christ only in a
spiritual sense to the faith of believers.^711 He calls the consecrated bread and wine figures and
pledges of the body and blood of Christ. They are visible tokens of the Lord’s death, that,
remembering his passion, we may become partakers of its effect. He appealed to the discourse in
the sixth chapter of John, as well as Radbert; but, like Augustin, his chief authority, he found the
key to the whole chapter in John 6:63, which points from the letter to the spirit and from the carnal
to the spiritual understanding.^712 The souls of believers are nourished in the communion by the
Word of God (the Logos), which dwells in the natural body of Christ, and which dwells after an
invisible manner in the sacrament. Unbelievers cannot receive Christ, as they lack the spiritual
organ. He refers to the analogy of baptism, which is justly called a fount of life. Viewed by the
senses, it is simply a fluid element; but by the consecration of the priest the regenerating power of
the Holy Spirit is added to it, so that what properly is corruptible water becomes figuratively or in
mystery a healing virtue.^713
It is consistent with this view that Ratramnus regarded the sacrifice of the mass not as an
actual (though unbloody) repetition, 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 Erigena is also reported to have written a book against Radbert at the request
of Charles the Bald. Hincmar of Rheims mentions among his errors this, that in the sacrament of
the altar the true body and blood of Christ were not present, but only a memorial of them.^714 The
report may have arisen from a confusion, since the tract of Ratramnus was at a later period ascribed
(^709) In the middle ages and during the Reformation he was known by a writing error under the name of Bertram.
(^710) De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, in Migne 121, col. 103-170, to which is added the Dissertation of Boileau, 171-222.
The tract of Ratramnus, together with Bullinger’s tract on the same subject and the personal influence of Ridley, Peter Martyr,
and Bucer, produced a change in Archbishop Cranmer, who was successively a believer in transubstantiation, consubstantiation,
and a symbolic presence. See Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, I. 601.
(^711) Cap. 88 (col. 164): "Quapropter corpus et sanguis, quod in ecclesia geritur, differt ab illo corpore et sanquine, quod
in Christi corpore per resurrectionem jam glorificatum cognoscitur. Et hoc corpus pignus est et species, illud vero ipsa
veritas."—"Videmus itaque multa differentia separari mysterium sanguinis et corporis Christi, quod nunc a fidelibus sumitur
in ecclesia, et illud, quod natum est de Maria Virgine, quod passum, quod sepultum, quod resurrexit, quod ad caelos ascendit,
quod ad dexteram Patris sedet." Cap. 89, col. 165.
(^712) Cap. 78-83 (col. 160-162).
(^713) Cap. 17 and 18 (col. 135 sq. ): "Consideremus sacri fontem baptismatis, qui fons vitae non immerito nuncupatur. ...
Si consideretur solummodo, quod corporeus aspicit sensus, elementum fluidum conspicitur ... Sed accessit Sancti Spiritus per
sacerdotis consecrationem virtus et efficax facta est non solum corpora, verum etiam animas diluere. ... Igitur in proprietate
humor corruptibilis, in mysterio vero virtus sanabilis.
(^714) De Praed., c. 31.