siolog. Hamb. 1723. T. i. Fasc. i. p. 99 ss. Schröckh xxiii. p. 507 ss. Neander, iv. p. 476 ss.; and Gieseler ii. 1. p. 234 ss. § 29. Sources from which his opinions may be ascertained, are: the Epistola of his school-fellow Adelmann de veritate corp. et sang. Domini ad Berengarium (which he wrote previous to his nomination as Bishop of Brixen in Tyrol, a. D. 1049), edited by J. Coster, Lovan 1551. Biblioth. P. P. T. xviii., and by Schmidt, Brunsv. 1770. 8. Hugonis Lingonensis Lib de corpore et sanguine Dom. (d'Achery in Opp. Lanfranci. Append. p. 68 ss. Biblioth. P. P. T. xviii. p. 417 ss.)-Lanfrancus de Corp. et Sang. Dom. adversus Berengar. Turonens. (which was composed between the years 1063 and 70.), in Opp. ed. L. d'Achery, Lutet. 1648, and Biblioth. P. P. T. xviii. p. 763-777. This work also contains the first treatise which Berengar wrote in opposition to Lanfranc, from which we have to distinguish his second: Liber de sacra cœna advers. Lanfrancum (edited by Stäudlin in 6 programmes. Gött. 1820-29. 4.) Comp. Lessing, Gotth. Ephr., Berengarius Turonensis. Braunschweig 1770. 4. (in the edition of his complete works publ. Berlin, 1825 ss. vol. xii. p. 143 ss.) Stäudlins and Tzschirners Archiv für Kirchengeschichte, vol. ii. part i. p. 1-98. Berengarii Turonensis quæ supersunt tam edita quam inedita, typis expressa, moderante A. Neandro T. i. Berol. 1834. (Berengarii de sacra cœna adv. Lanfrancum liber posterior, e codice Guelferbytano primum ediderunt A. F. et F. Th. Vischer. ibid. 1834.) A more detailed account of the literature is given by Gieseler 1. c. Leading historical facts: The first condemnation of Berengar, A. D. 1050, at Rome, under Pope Leo X., without an opportunity of defence. The repetition of the sentence passed upon him at Vercelli in the same year. Or the supposed council of Paris see Neander 1. c. p. 491.-Council at Tours (A. D. 1054.) Berengar's justification with the assistance of Hildebrand. Another council at Rome (A. D. 1059.)-The violent conduct of Humbert.-The inconstancy manifested by Berengar in this matter. Correspondence with Lanfranc.-Other synods at Rome (A. D. 1078 and 1079.)-Berengar again submitted to sign the confession of faith drawn up by his enemies, but retracted afterwards. The litteræ commendatitiæ of Pope Gregory VII.— Berengar's death on the isle of St Côme near Tours, A. D. 1088.

6 Berengar combated principally the doctrine of an entire

change, in such a manner as to make the bread cease to be bread, and to have nothing left but the accidents, while in reality a portiuncula carnis was eaten instead of bread. In accordance with the earlier Fathers he retained the doctrine of a change from an inferior to a superior, and of the mystical participation of the body of Christ under the figure of bread, p. 67. (Edit. Vischer): Dum enim dicitur: panis et vinum sacramenta sunt, minime panis aufertur et vinum, et nominibus rerum ita natarum significativis aptatur nomen, quod non nata sunt, ut est: sacramentum; simul etiam esse aliud aliquid minime prohibentur, sunt enim, sicut secundum religionem sacramenta, ita secundum aliud alimenta, sustentamenta. The subject, of which anything is predicted, must remain the same, otherwise that which is predicted would have no meaning; p. 71: Dum dicitur: panis in altari consecratur vel panis sanctus, panis sacrosanctus est Christi corpus, omni veritate panis superesse conceditur. Verbi gratia, si enuntias: Socrates justus est, aliquid eum esse constituisti, nec potest justus esse, si contingat, Socratem non esse, p. 76: Sicut enim, | qui dicit: Christus est lapis angularis, non revera Christum lapidem esse constituit, sed propter aliquam similitudinem, quam ad se invicem gerunt, tale nomen ei imponit, eodem modo, cum divina pagina corpus domini panem vocat, sacrata ac mystica locutione id agit. p. 86: Quando autem afferuntur ad altare vel ponuntur in altari, adhuc sunt, ut ait beatus Augustinus contra Faustum, alimenta refectionis, nondum sacramenta religionis, (h)ac per hoc, nondum corpus Christi et sanguis existentia, non tropica, sed propria sunt locutione pendenda. Dicens ergo Humbertus ille tuus, panem, qui ponitur in altari, post consecrationem esse corpus Christi, panem propria locutione, corpus Christi tropica accipiendum esse constituit, et illud quidem recte, quia ex auctoritate scripturarum.―p. 90: Dicitur autem in scripturis panis altaris de pane fieri corpus Christi, sicut servus malus dicitur fieri de malo servo bonus filius, non quia amiserit animæ propriæ naturam aut corporis. p. 91: Unde insanissimum dictu erat et christianæ religioni contumeliosissimum, corpus Christi de pane vel de quocunque confici per generationem subjecti......ut pane absumto per corruptionem subjecti corpus Christi esse incipiat per generationem subjecti, quia nec pro parte, nec pro toto potest incipere nunc esse corpus Christi.-p. 95: Novit autem revera

secundum carnem Christum, qui Christi corpus asserit adhuc esse corruptioni vel generationi obnoxium, vel quarumcunque qualitatum vel collineationum, quas prius non habuerit, susceptivum. -p. 98: Denique verbum caro factum assumsit quod non erat, non amittens quod erat, et panis consecratus in altari amisit vilitatem, amisit inefficaciam, non amisit naturæ proprietatum, cui naturæ quasi loco, quasi fundamento dignitas divinitus augeretur et efficacia. (A comparison is drawn between the change in question, and the change of the name Saul into that of Paul, p. 144.)—p. 161: Est ergo vera procul dubio panis et vini per consecrationem altaris conversio in corpus Christi et sanguinem, sed attendendum, quod dicitur: per consecrationem, quia hic est hujus conversionis modus, etc.........p. 163: Per consecrationem, inquam, quod nemo interpretari poterit: per subjecti corruptionem. p. 167: Sed quomodo manducandus est Christus? Quomodo ipse dicit: qui manducat carnem meam et bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet et ego in co; si in me manet, et ego in illo, tunc manducat, tunc bibit; qui autem non in me manet, nec ego in illo, etsi accipit sacramentum, adquirit magnum tormentum. -p. 171: Apud eruditos enim constat, et eis, qui vicordes non sint, omnino est perceptibile, nulla ratione colorem videri, nisi contingat etiam coloratum videri. Ita enim scribit Lanfrancus, colorem et qualitates portiunculæ carnis Christi, quam sensualiter esse in altari desipit, videri oculis corporis, ut tamen caro illa, cujus color videtur, omnino sit invisibilis, cum constet, omne quod in subjecto est, sicut, ut sit, ita etiam, ut videatur, non a se habere, sed a subjecto, in quo sit, nec visu vel sensuo aliquo corporeo comprehendi colorem vel qualitatem, nisi comprehenso quali et colorato. p. 188: Rerum exteriorum est, panis et vini est, confici, consecrari; hæc incipere possunt esse, quod non erant, corpus Christi et sanguis, sed per consecrationem, non per corruptionem panis et visi et generationem corporis Christi et sanguinis, quæ constat semel potuisse generari.-p. 191:......Verissimum est nec ulla tergiversatione dissimulari potest, aliud esse totum corpus Christi, quod ante mille annos sibi fabricavit in utero virginis sapientia Dei, aliud portiunculam carnis, quam tu tibi facis de pane per corruptionem panis ipsius hodie factam in altari per generationem ipsius carnis.-Further passages are quoted by Gieseler ii. 1. p. 235 ss. Münscher, ed. by Von Cölln, p. 242 ss.

Comp. especially his confession of faith made (though with reservation) at the Synod of Rome (A. D. 1078), in Mansi xix. p. 761. Gieseler p. 250, § 29. note s.: Profiteor, panem altaris post consecrationem esse verum corpus Christi, quod natum est de virgine, quod passum est in cruce, quod sedet ad dexteram Patris, et vinum altaris, postquam consecratum est, esse verum sanguinem, qui manavit de latere Christi. Et sicut ore pronuncio, ita me corde habere confirmo; sic me adjuvet Deus et hæc sacra.

7 According to the confession of faith imposed by Humbert upon Berengar at the Synod of Rome (A. D. 1059), he was to take an oath, in the name of the Holy Trinity, that he believed: panem et vinum, quæ in altari ponuntur, post consecrationem non solum sacramentum, sed etiam verum corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse, et sensualiter, non solum sacramento, sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi et fidelium dentibus atteri; he retracted, however, as soon as he had obtained his liberty.

8 The doctrine of Lanfranc, though propounded in less rigid terms than that of Humbert, was, nevertheless, opposed to the mode of perception adopted by Berengar, and rendered impossible any further attempt at a return to a symbolizing or spiritualizing interpretation. He taught (1. c. c. 18. p. 772, quoted by Münscher, edit. by Von Cölln, p. 244): Credimus terrenas substantius, quæ in mensa dominica per sacerdotale ministerium divinitus sanctificantur, ineffabiliter, incomprehensibiliter, mirabiliter, operante superna potentia, converti in essentiam dominici corporis, reservatis ipsarum rerum speciebus et quibusdam aliis qualitatibus, ne percipientes cruda et cruenta horrerent, et ut credentes fidei præmia ampliori perciperent: ipso tamen dominico corpore existente in cœlestibus ad dexteram Patris, immortali, inviolato, integro, incontaminato, illæso: ut vere dici possit, et ipsum corpus quod de Virgine sumtum est nos sumere, et tamen non ipsum. Ipsum quidem, quantum ad essentiam veræque naturæ proprietatem atque naturam; non ipsum autem, si spectes panis vinique speciem cæteraque superius comprehensa. Hanc fidem tenuit a priscis temporibus et nunc tenet ecclesia, quæ per totum effusa

a Only in so far it may be said that the bread of the Lord's Supper is no bread, as Christ says, My doctrine is not mine, but his who sent me; or Paul: I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. Comp. p. 178.

orbem catholica nominatur. (To this last view Berengar opposed proofs drawn from the writings of Ambrose and Augustine, in the treatise above mentioned. Comp. note 6.)

§ 194.

2. The Scholastic Development of the Doctrine. Transubstantiation. The Sacrifice of the Mass.

A word is often of great consequence! Hilebert of Tours was the first who made use of the high-sounding term "transubstantiatio," while similar phrases, such as transitio, had previously been employed.2 Most of the earlier scholastics, and the disciples of Lanfranc in particular, had defended both the doctrine of the change of the bread into the body of Christ, and that of the accidentia sine subjecto, which were now solemnly confirmed, inasmuch as they were not only inserted (together with the terms referred to) in the Decretum Gratiana, but also made an article of faith by Pope Innocent III.5 Thus nothing was left to the later scholastics, but to answer still more subtle questions, such as: in what respect can it be said that the body of Christ is actually broken together with the bread?6 Do animals partake of the body of Christ, when they happen to swallow a consecrated host?? Is the bread used in the Lord's Supper changed only into the flesh of our Lord, or also into his blood? (the doctrine of what is called concomitance.) Is the bread, in the former case, changed only into the flesh of Christ, or also into his body and soul, or into his divinity itself, or even into the Holy Trinity.9 Does the change take place gradually, or suddenly? 10 Does only one body exist in the multitude of hosts, so that the same Christ is