§ 129. Berengar's Theory of the Lord's Supper.
The chief source is Berengar's second book against Lanfranc, already quoted. His first book is lost with the exception of a few fragments in Lanfranc's reply.
Berengar attacked the doctrine of transubstantiation, and used against it nearly every argument: it is not only above reason, but against reason and against the testimony of the senses ; it involves a contradiction between subject and predi cate, and between substance and its qualities, which are insepa rable ; it is inconsistent with the fact of Christ's ascension and presence in heaven ; it virtually assumes either a multiplication or an omnipresence of his body, which contradicts the necessary limitations of corporeality.1 There can be only one body of Christ, and only one sacrifice of Christ. The stories of the appearances of blood on the altar, he treated with scorn, from which some of his enemies inferred that he denied all miracles. He called the doctrine of transubstantiation an absurdity (ineptio) and an insane folly of the populace (vecordia vulgi).
To this notion of a corporeal or material presence on the
1 " Quod diversis in locis eodem momenta sensualiter adsit corpus, corpus non esse constabit." De S. Coma, p. 199.
2 129. BERENGAR'S THEOKY OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 565
altar, he opposed the idea of a spiritual or dynamic presence and participation. His positive view agrees essentially with that of Ratramuus; but he went beyond him, as Calvin went beyond Zwiiigli. He endeavors to save the spiritual reality without the carnal form. He distinguishes, with St. Augustin and Ilatramnus, between the historical and the eucharistic body of Christ, and between the visible symbol or sacr amentum and the thing symbolized or the res sacramenti. He maintains that we cannot literally eat and drink Christ's body and blood, but that nevertheless we may have real spiritual communion by faith with the flesh, that is, with the glorified humanity of Christ in heaven. His theory is substantially the same as that of Calvin.1 The salient points are these :
1) The elements remain in substance as well as in appearance, after the consecration, although they acquire a new significance. Hence the predicate in the words of institution must be taken figuratively, as in many other passages, where Christ is called the lion, the lamb, the door, the vine, the corner-stone, the rock, etc.2 The discourse in the sixth chapter of John is likewise figurative, and does not refer to the sacrament at all, but to the believing reception of Christ's death.3
1 Baur very clearly puts the case (II. 190): "Die Lehre Berengar's schltesst *ich ganz an die des Ratramnus an, ist aber zuyleich eine Fortbildung derselben.
Wie Ratramnus sick eigentlich nur in der Sphare des Verhdltnisses von Bild und Sache bewegt, so sncht dagcgen Berengar zu zeigen, doss ungeachtet keine andere Ansicht rom Abendmahl rnoglich .set', a/s die tymbolische, dem Abendmahl doch seine voile Rcalitdt bleibe, dass, wenn man auch im Abendmahl den Leib und das Blut Christi nicht wirklich geniesse, doch auch so eine reelle Vcrbindung mit, dem Fleisch oder der in den Himmel erhb'hten Menschheit Christi stattfinde. Es ist im Allgemeinen zwischen Ratramnus und Berengar ein analoges Verhdltniss wie spdter zwischen Zwingli und Calvin." Comp. also the exposition of Neander, III. 521- 526, and of Plerzog, in his Kirchengesch. II. 112-114.
2 De S. Ccena, p. 83. B. lays down the hermeneutic principle : " Ubicunque prctdicatur nonprwdicabile, quia tropica locutio est, de non susceplibili, alter propositionis terminitstropice, alter propriecuxipiatur." Zwingli used the same and other examples of figurative speech in his controversy with Lnther. He found the figure in the verb (esti=8igniji£at},QZco\ampSidius in the predicate (corpui*=figura corporis).
8 L. c., p. 165 and 236. He quotes Augustin in his favor, and refers to the
566 FOUETH PERIOD. A. D. 590-1049.
2) Nevertheless bread and wine are not empty symbols, but in some sense the body and blood of Christ which they represent. They are converted by being consecrated ; for whatever is con secrated is lifted to a higher sphere and transformed. They do not lose their substance after consecration ; but they lose their emptiness, and become efficacious to the believer. So water in baptism remains water, but becomes the vehicle of regeneration. Wherever the sacramentum is, there is also the res sacramenti.
3) Christ is spiritually present and is spiritually received by faith. Without faith we can have no real communion with him, nor share in his benefits. " The true body of Christ," he says in a letter to Adelmann, " is placed on the altar, but spirit ually to the inner man and to those only who are members of Christ, for spiritual manducation. This the fathers teach openly, and distinguish between the body and blood of Christ and the sacramental signs of the body and blood. The pious receive both, the sacramental sign (sacramentum) visibly, the sacramental substance (rem sacramenti) invisibly ; while the un godly receive only the sacramental sign to their own judgment."
4) The communion in the Lord's Supper is a communion with the whole undivided person of Christ, and not with flesh and blood as separate elements. As the whole body of Christ was sacrificed in death, so we receive the whole body in a spirit ual manner ; and as Christ's body is now glorified in heaven, we must spiritually ascend to heaven.1
Here again is a strong point of contact with Calvin, who like wise taught such an elevation of the soul to heaven as a neces sary condition of true communion with the life-giving power of Christ's humanity. He meant, of course, no locomotion, but the sursum cor da, which is necessary in every act of prayer. It is
fourth ch. of John, where Christ speaks of drinking the water of Hfe (ver. 14) and eating meat (vers. 32-34), in a spiritual sense.
1 P. 157. The believer receives " totam et integram Domini Dei sui carnem, non autem ccdo devocatam, sed in codo manentem," and he ascends to heaven " cordis ad videndum Deum mundati devotione spatiosissima"