I 128. THE BERENGAR CONTROVERSY. 555
habits and shared the prevailing respect for monastic life, but saw clearly its danger. " The hermit," he says with as much beauty as truth, in an Exhortatory Discourse to hermits who had asked his advice, " is alone in his cell, but sin loiters about the door with enticing words and seeks admittance. I am thy beloved — says she — whom thou didst court in the world. I was with thee at the table, slept with thee on thy couch ; without me, thou didst nothing. How darest thou think of forsaking me ? I have followed thy every step ; and dost thou expect to hide away from me in thy cell ? I was with thee in the world, when thou didst eat flesh and drink wine ; and shall be with thee in the wilderness, where thou livest only on bread and water. Purple and silk are not the only colors seen in hell, — the monk's cowl is also to be found there. Thou, hermit, hast something of mine. The nature of the flesh, which thou wearest about thee, is my sister, begotten with me, brought up with me. So long as the flesh is flesh, so long shall I be in thy flesh. Dost thou subdue thy flesh by abstinence? — thou becomest proud ; and lo ! sin is there. Art thou overcome by the flesh, and dost thou yield to lust ? sin is there. Perhaps thou hast none of the mere human sins, I mean such as proceed from sense ; beware then of devilish sins. Pride is a sin which be longs in common to evil spirits and to hermits."1
By continued biblical and patristic studies Berengar came between the years 1040 and 1045 to the conclusion that the eueharistic doctrine of Paschasius Radbertus was a vulgar superstition contrary to the Scriptures, to the fathers, and to reason. He divulged his view among his many pupils in France and Germany, and created a great sensation. Eusebius Bruno, bishop of Angers, to whose diocese he belonged, and Proliant, bishop of Senlis, took his part, but the majority was against him. Adelmann, his former fellow-student, then arch-
1 Neander ITT. 504. The Discourse is published in Martene and Durand, The*, nov. Anecdotorum, Tom. I.
556 FOURTH PERIOD. A.D. 590-1049.
deacon at Luttich (Liege), afterwards bishop of Bresci, remon strated with him in two letters of warning (1046 and 1048).
The controversy was fairly opened by Berengar himself in a letter to Lanfranc of Bee, his former fellow-student (1049). He respectfully, yet in a tone of intellectual superiority, perhaps with some feeling of jealousy of the rising fame of Bee, expressed his surprise that Lanfranc, as he had been informed by Ingelram of Chartres, should agree with Paschasius Kadbertus and condemn John Scotus (confounded with Eatramnus) as heretical ; this showed an ignorance of Scripture and involved a con demnation of Ambrose (?), Jerome, and Augustin, not to speak of others. The letter was sent to Rome, where Lanfranc then sojourned, and caused, with his co-operation, the first condemna tion of Berengar by a Roman Synod held under Pope Leo IX. in April, 1050, and attended mostly by Italian bishops. At the same time he was summoned before another Synod which was held at Vercelli in September of the same year ; and as he did not appear,1 he was condemned a second time without a hearing, and the book of Ratramnus on the eucharist was burned. " If we are still in the figure/' asked one member indignantly (probably Peter Damiani), "when shall we have the thing?" A Synod of Paris in October, 1050 or 1051, is said to have confirmed this judgment and threatened Berengar and his friends with the severest punishment, even death; but it is uncertain whether such a Synod was held.2
After a short interval of silence, he was tried before a Synod of Tours in 1054 under Leo IX.,3 but escaped condemnation
1 He was prevented by a violent act of King Henry I. of France, who com mitted him to prison and seized his property.
2 Berengar makes no mention of this Synod. Lessing, Gieseler and Baur (II. 178) doubt whether it was held. Neander, Sudendorf, Robertson and Hefele (IV. 753 sqq.) credit the report of Durandus, but correct his dates.
3 This seems to be the correct date, instead of 1055 under Victor II., accord ing to Lanfranc's account. The difference involves the veracity of Berengar, who assigns the Synod to the pontificate of Leo IX.; but it is safer to assume, with Lessing, Sudendorf (p. 45), and Hefele (IV. 778), that Lanfranc, after a lapse of ten or more years, had forgotten the correct date.