epoch in history wrote a commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, it should have been so entirely
forgotten." Sudendorf, however (p. 186), ascribes the fragment to Pope Hildebrand.
§ 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 predicate, and between substance and its qualities, which are
inseparable; 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.^739 There can be only one body of Christ, and only one sacrifice of Christ.
The stories of the appearances of blood on the altar, be 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 altar, he opposed the idea of a
spiritual or dynamic presence and participation. His positive view agrees essentially with that of
Ratramnus; but he went beyond him, as Calvin went beyond Zwingli. He endeavors to save the
spiritual reality without the carnal form. He distinguishes, with St. Augustin and Ratramnus, between
the historical and the eucharistic body of Christ, and between the visible symbol or sacramentum
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.^740 The salient points are these:
- 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.^741 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.^742
(^739) "Quod diversis in locis eodem momento sensualiter adsit corpus, corpus non esse constabit." De S. Coena, p. 199.
(^740) Baur very clearly puts the case (II. 190): "Die Lehre Berengar’s schliesst sich ganz an die des Ratramnus an, ist aber
zugleich eine Fortbildung derselben. Wie Ratramnus sich eigentlich nur in der Sphäre des Verhältnisses von Bild und Sache
bewegt, so sucht dagegen Berengar zu zeigen, dass ungeachtet keine andere Ansicht vom Abendmahl möglich sei, als die
symbolische, dem Abendmahldoch seine volle Realität bleibe, dass, wenn man auch im Abendmahl den Leib und das Blut Christi
nicht wirklich geniesse, doch auch so eine reelle Verbindung mit den Fleisch oder der in den Himmel erhöchten Menschheit
Christi stattfinde. Es ist im Allgemeinen zwischen Ratramnus und Berengar ein analoges Verhältniss wie später zwischen
Zwingli und Calvin." Comp. also the exposition of Neander, III. 521-526, and of Herzog, in hisKirchengesch. II. 112-114.
(^741) De S. Coena, p. 83. B. lays down the hermeneutic principle: "Ubicunque praedicatur non praedicabile, quia tropica
locutio est, de non susceptibili, alter propositionis terminus tropice, alter proprie accipiatur." Zwingli used the same and other
examples of figurative speech in his controversy with Luther. He found the figure in the verb (esti=significat), OEcolampadius
in the predicate (corpus=figura corporis).
(^742) L.c., p. 165 and 236. He quotes Augustin in his favor, and refers to John 4:14 where Christ speaks of drinking the
water of life and eating meat (4:32-34), in a spiritual sense.