in the elements, retaining their substance;^703 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, andafterwards abbot of Corbie or Corvey in France^704 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 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.^705 He therefore
(^703) 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.
(^704) 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 Rathilde 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. Gallia Christiana, X., Wiegand, Gesch. v. Corvey, Höxter, 1819; Klippel, Corvey, in
Herzog 2 III. 365-370.
(^705) 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 eucharistiae 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 hisChristl. Kirchen- und
Dogmengesch. II. 27 and 33.