to Scotus Erigena.^715 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.^716 In his book De Divisione Naturae, 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 soul.^717 At all events
the hypothesis of ubiquity excludes a miraculous change of the elements, and gives the real 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 Carolingian age who held the Augustinian view and rejected that
of Radbert, as an error, were Rabanus 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.^718
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 popular
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 characteristic 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 eucharistic body and blood
of Christ do not pass in noxios et superfluos humores, but are preserved in the flesh for the final
resurrection.^719
Radbertus was canonized, and his memory, is celebrated since 1073, on the 26th of April
in the diocese of Soissons.^720 The book of Ratramnus, under the supposed authorship of Scotus
(^715) See Laufs,Ueber die für verloren gehaltene Schrift des Johannes Scotus Erigena von der Eucharistic, in the ’Studien
und Kritiken" of Ullmann and Umbreit, 1828, p. 755 sqq. Laufs denies that Erigena wrote on the Eucharist.
(^716) 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. 126-356); Christlieb, Scotus Er., p. 68-81, and in
Herzog 2 XIII. 790 sq., and Huber, Sc. Erig., p. 98 sqq.
(^717) Dr. Baur is of the same opinion (Dogmengesch. II. 173): "Scotus Erigena dachte sich(De Div. Nat. V. 38)eine
Ubiquität der vergeistigten und vergöttlichten Natur, die die Annahme einer speciellen Gegenwart in den Elementen des
Abendmahls nicht zuliess, sondern dieselben nur als Symbole zu nehmen gestattete. Brod und Wein konnten ihm daher nur als
Symbolejener Ubiquität der verherrlichten menschlichen Natur gelten; er hat sich aber hierüber nicht näher erklärt."
(^718) "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.
(^719) De Corpore et Sanguini Domini, edited by Pez, in "Thes. nov. Anecd." I., Pars II. 133 sqq.
(^720) See the Acta Sanct Bolland. ad 26 Apr., with the Vita of Pasch. Radb. by Sirmond, and the Martyrol. Bened. with the
Vita by Ménard.