No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Erigena’s Conception of the Sacraments
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
Extract
This footnote to the eucharistic debate of the ninth century is perhaps worth attempting for two reasons. In the first place, Erigena the philosopher occupies a highly individual stand-point. As a layman, nullis ecclesiasticæ dignitatis gradibus insignitum, he avoided the influence of the Gallican liturgical tradition in which, as nowhere else at the time, Christ’s real presence was stressed together with an actual change in the consecrated elements. In the second place, the only adequate account of his ideas is that provided by Geiselmann; and even this suffers from a failure to apprehend the full significance of the philosophical background to Erigena’s thought.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1966
References
Page 150 of note 1 Prudentius, De praedest. 3 (PL, 115, 1043A); since Erigena later wrote a homily on the prologue to St John’s Gospel (PL, 122, 283-296), it is possible that he took orders in old age.
Page 150 of note 2 see J. Geiselmann, Die Eucharistielehre der Vorscholastik, Paderborn 1926, 20-24.
Page 150 of note 3 op. cit., 134-41; references given on 136 and 138 are inaccurate.
Page 150 of note 4 Writing in 851, Prudentius says that he had previously felt a familiar affection and peculiar love for Erigena (De praedest. 1, PL, 115, 1012D); if, as seems probable, the bishop of Troyes is to be identified with the Prudentius Magister addressed by Walafrid Strabo (Carm. 5, 61, MGH, Poet. Lat., II 403), Erigena would have been his colleague at the palace school; see M. Cappuyns, Jean Scot Erigène, Louvain 1933, 53-4. In 851-2 Pardulus of Laon mentions (PL, 121, 1052A) ‘Scotum illum qui est in palatio regis.’
Page 151 of note 1 Praefationes Actis SS OSB, 1732, praef. in s. IV, sect. VI, 313-26Google Scholar.
Page 151 of note 2 van den Brink, J. N. Bakhuizen, Ratramnus, Amsterdam 1954, 24 Google Scholar.
Page 151 of note 3 Compare Paschasius, De corp. et sang. Dom. V, 1 Google Scholar (PL, 120, 1280ABC) with Ratramnus, De corp. et sang. Dom. XX to XXVI (ed. Brink 38-40).
Page 151 of note 4 Ratramnus, V (Brink 34).
Page 151 of note 5 Hincmar, De praedest. dissertatio posterior 31 (PL, 125, 296CD); the date (859) is given by the opening of the preface. For the dating of Erigena’s works see Cappuyns, op. cit., at the relevant entries, and for the most recent discussion of his alleged treatise on the Eucharist see Sheldon-Williams, I. P. in JEH XV (1964), 77–80 Google Scholar.
Page 152 of note 1 A. J. Macdonald, Berengar, 1930, 235-6.
Page 152 of note 2 Peltier, H. in DTC, s.v. ‘Radbert’ (XIII, pt ii, 1638)Google Scholar.
Page 152 of note 3 De sacramenti; IV, 16 (CSEL, 73, 53) ‘Ergo tibi ut respondeam, non erat corpus Christi ante consecrationem, sed post consecrationem dico tibi quia iam corpus est Christi. . . Tu ipse eras, sed eras vetus creatura; posteaquam consecratus es, nova creatura essa coepisti. Vis scire, quam nova creatura? Omnis, inquit, in Christo nova creatura.’
Page 152 of note 4 De corp. et sang. Dom. XV, 1 (PL, 120, 1321 C) ‘creatur enim ibidem ex aliquo, non qualiscunque, sed nova salutis creatura, caro et sanguis Christi, veluti in baptismo nomines nova efficiuntur creatura, et corpus Christi.’ A similar interpretation must be given to the other passages (IV, 1; XII, 1 and 3; also Exposit. in Matt. XII, 893D and 895B; Epist. ad Frudegard. 1353C) where these terms are used.
Page 152 of note 5 De corp. et sang. Dom. XII, 1 (1311B); Epist. ad Frudegard (1354D).
Page 152 of note 6 Exposit. in Matt. XII (892B).
Page 152 of note 7 De corp. et sang. Dom. VII (1285B).
Page 152 of note 8 C. W. Dugmore, The Mass and the English Reformers, 1958, 29.
Page 152 of note 9 De div. nat. V, 14 (PL, 122, 886C); the new edition of this work in Scriptores Latini Hiberniœ will enable us to distinguish its various recensions.
Page 153 of note 1 His clearest statement is in the Epist. ad Frudegard (PL, 120, 1354B) ‘invisibilis sacerdos visibiles creaturas in substantiam corporis et sanguinis sui verbo suo secreta potestate convertit.’ In the treatise De corp. et sang. . Dom. I, 2 (1269B; cf. I, 6 and XX, 3) he says that nothing other than the Body and Blood exists in the sacrament.
Page 153 of note 2 De div. nat. I, 3 (PL, 122, 443B) ‘ut ait Dionysius Areopagita, Esse, inquit, omnium est superesse Divinitas’; ib. II, 2 (528B) ‘omnia quae ab eo sunt nil aliud sunt, in quantum sunt, nisi participatio ipsius’; ib. I, 12 (454A) ‘omne quod dicitur bonum esse, ex participatione unius summi boni est bonum, ita omne quod dicitur existere, non in seipso existit, sed participatione vere existentie naturæ existit.’ Many similar quotations could be adduced.
Page 153 of note 3 ib. III, 10 (650D) ‘quod monstrosum aestimabitur’; cf. III, 9 (643B) ‘dum in seipso. . .ab omnibus segregatum subsistit, extendit se in omnia, et ipsa extensio est omnia’; and III, 17 (675C) ‘ut aliud sit ipsa, quia superessentialis est, et aliud quod in se creat.’
Page 153 of note 4 E. Gilson, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages, 1955, 121.
Page 153 of note 5 Hefele-Leclercq, , Histoire des Conciles, V, pt ii, 1304.Google Scholar
Page 153 of note 6 De div. nat. III, 35 (723D).
Page 153 of note 7 ib. III, 23 (690A).
Page 153 of note 8 Comment, in Ioann. Fragm. I (302A).
Page 153 of note 9 De div. nat. I, 7 (446C).
Page 154 of note 1 ib. V, 26 (919C).
Page 154 of note 2 ib. I, 9 (449B).
Page 154 of note 3 ib. II, 20 (559B) ‘cognoscere enim et facere Dei unum est. Nam cognoscendo facit, et faciendo cognoscit. . . Nihil enim est aliud omnium essentia, nisi omnium in divina sapientia cognitio.’
Page 154 of note 4 ib. III, 23 (689B) ‘creatur enim a seipsa in primordialibus causis, ac per hoc seipsam creat, hoc est in suis theophaniis incipit apparere’; cf. I, 13 (455B) ‘ipsius namque creatio, hoc est in aliquo manifestado, omnium existentium profecto est substitutio.’
Page 154 of note 5 ib. V, 3 (866A).
Page 154 of note 6 see G. H. Williams, The Radical Reformation, 1962, 837-8.
Page 154 of note 7 Gilson, op. cit., 120.
Page 154 of note 8 De div. nat. V, 8 (876AB); V, 39 (1020ABC).
Page 155 of note 1 ib. II, 8 (534C); cf. III, 37 (733B).
Page 155 of note 2 ib. V, 25 (912C).
Page 155 of note 3 ib. IV, 9 (780AB).
Page 155 of note 4 ib. IV, 20 (836D); cf. Comment, in Ioann. Fragm. II (326C) ‘propter Ecclesiam venit, ut haberet sponsam venit.’
Page 155 of note 5 Comment, in Ioann. Fragm. I (308C); Fragm. III (345A); in the Exposit. super Ierarch. Caelest. I, 2 (136B) he adds ordination, ‘ceteraque quæ in figura Christi ponuntur.’
Page 155 of note 6 Isidore, Etym. VI, 19, 39 (PL, 82, 255C)Google Scholar; cf. Paschasius, De corp. et sang. Dom. III, 2 (PL, 120, 1275B) and Ratramnus, De corp. et sang. Dom. XLVI (Brink 46).
Page 155 of note 7 Erigena, Comment, in Ioann. Fragm. III (PL, 122, 345A).
Page 155 of note 8 Exposit. super Ierarch. Caelest. I, 3 (140D-141A).
Page 155 of note 9 ib. II (170D-171A).
Page 156 of note 1 Comment, in Ioann. Fragm. I (308BC); this to some extent anticipates Joachim of Fiore, but elsewhere (333BC) Erigena distinguishes eight ages of the world.
Page 156 of note 2 Depraedest. III, 7 (369A).
Page 156 of note 3 ib. XVI, 3 (419D).
Page 156 of note 4 ib. IX, 1 (390B); cf. Homil, in Ioann. (290A) ‘totum genus humanum merito originalis peccati in tenebris erat.’
Page 156 of note 5 Annot, in Marcianum, VIII, 1 (ed. C. E. Lutz 12).
Page 156 of note 6 ib. VIII, 8 (Lutz 13).
Page 156 of note 7 De div. nat. I, 7 (445C).
Page 156 of note 8 ib. II, 23 (575A).
Page 156 of note 9 ib. II, 6 (532B) and IV, 20 (836C).
Page 156 of note 10 Origen (ed. Lommatzsch, VIII, 58) mentions the idea with some hesitation; Erigena, De div. nat. II, 26 (584A) and II, 23 (571D), accepts it fully.
Page 156 of note 11 De div. nat. II, 9 (536BC); this passage seems to imply that the universe would likewise have remained spiritual or intelligible.
Page 157 of note 1 ib. V, 24 (912A).
Page 157 of note 2 ib. V, 38 (1007BC); Homil. in loam. (294C).
Page 157 of note 3 Comment, in Ioann. Fragm. I (310C).
Page 157 of note 4 ib. (307D); Fragm. II (317A).
Page 157 of note 5 ib. Fragm. I (309C).
Page 157 of note 6 ib. Fragm. II (316C).
Page 157 of note 7 De div. nat. II, 33 (611D); cf. Homil, in Ioann. (293B) and Comment, in Ioann. Fragm. I (297C).
Page 157 of note 8 De div. nat. V, 38 (993B-994A).
Page 157 of note 9 ib. II, 11 (538C) and IV, 20 (894C).
Page 157 of note 10 ib. V, 38 (994AB).
Page 157 of note 11 ib. (997B).
Page 157 of note 12 Exposit. super Ierarch. Caelest. I, 3 (140B).
Page 157 of note 13 Eccl. Ierarcb. III (1080A).
Page 158 of note 1 De paschate 61-68 (1226C).
Page 158 of note 2 Comment, in Ioann. Fragm. I (311B) ‘. . .mente non dente comedimus’; cf. Paschasius De corp. et sang. Dom. XVII, 1 (PL, 120, 1325A), where it is stated that the woman with the issue received more of Christ than did the crowd, ‘quia plus eum mente concepit cum fide credidit; idcirco cogitandum est a nobis, non quantum dente premitur, sed quantum fide et dilectione capitur.’ The thought is Augustinian.
Page 158 of note 3 Comment, in Ioann. Fragm. III (PL, 122, 347-348).
Page 158 of note 4 See Cappuyns op. cit. 88-91 and the article of Sheldon-Williams quoted on p. 151, note 5; Alice Gardner was unfortunately wrong when she wrote (Studies in John the Scot, 1900, 93) ‘in this, as in the predestinarian controversy, the ground occupied by John the Scot was beyond the reach of both conflicting parties.’