in me manet et ego in eo; 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.-Pag. 171: Apud eruditos enim constat, et eis, qui vecordes non sint, omnino est perceptibile, nulla ratione colorem videri, nisi contingat etiam coloratum videri. Ita enim scribit Lanfrancus, colorem et qualitates portiuncula 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.*-Pag. 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 vini et generationem corporis Christi et sanguinis, quæ constat semel potuisse generari.-Pag. 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. as above, p. 172, sq., 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, ii. § 29: 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.

9

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. [Comp. Neander, Hist. Dogm. 460, sq.]

10 The doctrine of Lanfranc, though propounded in less rigid terms than that of Humbert, was, nevertheless, opposed to the view adopted by Berengar, and rendered impossible any further attempt to return to a symbolising and spiritualising interpretation. He taught (1. c. c. 18, p. 772, quoted by Münscher, edit. by von Cölln, p. 244): Credimus terrenas substantias, 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 ampliora perciperent: ipso tamen

*Only in so far may it 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.

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 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 8.)

$194.

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

A word is often of great consequence! Hildebert of Tours was the first who made use of the full-sounding term "transubstantiatio," though similar expressions, such as transitio, had previously been employed. Most of the earlier scholastics,' and the disciples of Lanfranc in particular, had defended the doctrine of the change of the bread into the body of Chrst, and the doctrine of the accidentia sine subjecto; these were now solemnly confirmed, by being inserted together with the term transubstantiatio into the Decretum Gratiani, and were made an unchangeable article of faith by Pope Innocent III. 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 ? 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 ? Does the change take place gradually, or suddenly ? Is there only one body in the multitude of hosts, so that the same Christ is sacrified at the same time upon all altars, which constitutes the mystery of the mass ?"-By the institution of the Corpus-Christi-day by Pope Urban IV. (A. D. 1264), and Pope Clement V. (A. D. 1311), at the Synod of Vienne, the doctrine in question was expressed in a liturgical form, and its popularity secured." Henceforth the sacrifice of the mass formed more than ever the centre of the catholic ritual," and reflected new glory upon the priesthood. Nevertheless many pious minds found elevation and powerful motives, in the idea of a special presence of the Redeemer, and the daily repetition of his sacrifice, as well as in that of the mystical

8

union with him in the act of communion. Thus here again it became the office of the idealising mystics, by the spirit of inward contemplation, to transform into a heavenly manna, what the scholastics had brought down into the sphere of the external and earthly."

1

1 In Sermo VI. Opp. Col. 689; comp. Sermo V. in Coena Domini, Opp. Col. 422; and De Sacram. Altaris, Opp. Col. 1106, quoted by Münscher, edit. by von Cölln, pp. 249, 250. [In his Sermo VI. Opera, 689: eum profero verba Canonis (sc. Missa), et verbum Transsubstantiationis. In his Sermo V. he defines :-ita ut panis substantia non remaneat......et sub illa specie veram corporis substantiam latere: ne, si in ea qualitate in qua revera est appareret, verum hominis sumere abhorreret.]

Thus by Hugo of St. Victor, see Liebner, p. 455, 88.

Anselm, a disciple of Lanfranc, followed the example of his master in his Tractatus bipartitus de Corpore et Sanguine Domini, sive de Sacramento Altaris. (Disputatio dialectica de grammatico, P. ii.) P. i.......Sicut in mensa nuptiali aqua in vinum mutata solum adfuit vinum, in quod aqua mutata erat: sic in mensa altaris solum corpus Domini, in quod vere mutata est vera panis substantia; nisi, quod de aqua nihil remansit in mutatione illa, de pane vero mutato, ad peragendum sacri institutum mysterii, sola remanet species visibilis. (He expressly condemns the heretical doctrine of Berengar.) Yet we ought not to think of the transaction as something magical: Nihil enim falsum factum putandum est in sacrificio veritatis, sicut fit in magorum præstigiis, ubi delusione quadam falluntur oculi, ut videatur illis esse, quod non est omnino. Sed vera species visibilis panis, quæ fuit in pane, ipsa facta pæter substantiam suam quodammodo in aliena peregrinatur, continente eum, qui fecit eam et ad suum transferente corpus. Quæ tamen translata ad corpus Domini, non eo modo se habet ad illud, quomodo accidens ad substantiam: quia corpus Domini in substantia sua, nec album efficit albedo illa, nec rotundum rotunditas, sicque de reliquis. -Nor ought we to rest satisfied with the mere carnal participation. P. ii. c. 12: Et cum de altari sumimus carnem Jesu, curemus solicite, ne cogitatione remaneamus in carne, et a spiritu non vivificemur; quodsi non vivificamur a spiritu, caro non prodest quicquam, etc. (comp. note 12.) The principles of Lanfranc were also partially adopted by Durandus, Abbas Troarnensis (he died, A. D. 1088), De Corp. et Sang. Domini, c. Bereng. (in Bibl. PP. Max. T. xviii. p. 419; Galland, T. xiv. p. 245), and Guitmundus Archiepisc. Aversanus, de Corporis et Sanguinis Christi Veritate in Eucharistia, libr. iii. (in Bibl. PP. Max., T. xviii. p. 441). Eusebius Bruno (bishop of Anjou), whom Durandus numbered among the followers of Berengar, wished to have a stop put to all discussions concerning this sacrament (see Münscher, edit. by von Cölln, pp. 247, 248.)-But in vain! The theory of Paschasius and Lanfranc gained the victory.-Hugo of St. Victor himself called the few advocates of Berengar's doctrine "perverters of Scripture," and distinctly opposed a mere symbolical interpretation, though he would have retained it together with the real (see Liebner, p. 453, ss.)—Peter Lombard appealed, Sent. Lib. iv. Dist. 10. D. to (Pseudo-) Ambrose, De initiand.

mysteriis (Vol. i. § 138, note 3): Ex his (continues he) aliisque pluribus constat, verum corpus Christi et sanguinem in altari esse, immo integrum Christum ibi sub utraque specie et substantiam panis in corpus, vinique substantiam in sanguinem converti.-But he confesses his inability to explain the mode of that change, Dist. xi. A.: Si autem quæritur, qualis sit illa conversio, an formalis, an substantialis, vel alterius generis, definire non sufficio. Formalem tamen non esse cognosco, quia species rerum, quæ ante fuerant, remanent, et sapor et pondus. Quibusdam esse videtur substantialis, dicentibus sic substantiam converti in substantiam, ut hæc essentialiter fiat illa, si sensui præmissæ auctoritates consentire videntur.-B.: Sed huic sententiæ sic opponitur ab aliis: Si substantia panis, inquiunt, vel vini convertitur substantialiter in corpus vel sanguinem Christi, quotidie fit aliqua substantia corpus vel sanguis Christi, quæ ante non erat corpus, et hodie est aliquid corpus Christi, quod heri non erat, et quotidie augetur corpus Christi atque formatur de materia, de qua in conceptione non fuit factum. Quibus hoc modo responderi potest, quia non ea ratione dicitur corpus Christi confici verbo cœlesti, quod ipsum corpus in conceptu virginis formatum deinceps formetur: sed quia substantia panis vel vini, quæ ante non fuerunt corpus Christi vel sanguis, verbo cœlesti fit corpus et sanguis. Et ideo sacerdotes dicuntur conficere corpus Christi et sanguinem, quia eorum ministerio substantia panis fit caro, et substantia vini fit sanguis Christi, nec tamen aliquid additur corpori vel sanguini, nec augetur corpus Christi vel sanguis.-C.: Si vero quæris modum, quo id fieri possit, breviter respondeo: Mysterium fidei credi salubriter potest, investigari salubriter non potest. Comp. Dist. xii. A: Si autem quæritur de accidentibus, quæ remanent, i. e. de speciebus et sapore et pondere, in quo subjecto fundentur, potius mihi videtur fatendum existere sine subjecto quam esse in subjecto, quia ibi non est substantia, nisi corporis et sanguinis dominici, quæ non afficitur illis accidentibus. Non enim corpus Christi talem habit in se formam, sed qualis in judicio apparebit. Remanent ergo illa accidentia per se subsistentia ad mysterii ritum, ad gustus fideique suffragium: quibus corpus Christi, habens formam et naturam suam, tegitur. [The Decretum Gratiani was a O Concordia discordantium Canonum in Lib. iii." composed about the year 1150, by Gratianus, a Benedictine monk; it was also called Codex decretorum, Decreta Gratiani, and more frequently Decretum Grat. See Gieseler, 1. c. ii., § 60, note 5. Hallam's Middle Ages, ii. p. 2, 8th edit. Thomas Greenwood, Cathedra Petri, vol. iii. Lond., 1859. Book vi., chap. viii.]

66

Conc. Lat. IV. c. i. (quoted by Münscher, edit. by von Cölln, p. 251): Una est fidelium universalis ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino salvatur. In qua idem ipse sacerdos est sacrificium Jesus Christus, cujus corpus et sanguis in sacramento altaris sub speciebus panis et vini veraciter continentur, transubstantiatis pane in corpus et vino in sanguinem potestate divina, ut ad perficiendum mysterium unitatis accipiamus ipsi de suo, quod accepit ipse de nostro. Et hoc utique sacramentum nemo potest conficere nisi sacerdos, qui rite fuerit ordinatus, secundum claves ecclesiæ, quas ipse concessit Apostolis eorumque successoribus Jesus Christus. Pope Innocent III. himself main tained, de Mysteriis Missæ. 1. iv. c. 7: Non solum accidentales, sed etiaL

naturales proprietates remanere: paneitatem, quæ satiando famem expellit et vineitatem, quæ satiando sitim expellit.

• Thomas Aquinas (Summ. P. iii. Qu. 75, Art. 6, and 7, Qu. 76, Art. 3) made the assertion, that the body is broken only secundum speciem sacramentalem, but is itself incorruptibile et impassibile: see the passages quoted by Münscher, edit. by von Cölln, pp. 253, 254. [Aquinas argues, in Art. 6, against those who maintained, that the forma substantialis of the bread remained; for, 1. if the substantial form remains, the mere matter alone is changed, and not the form, whereas the words of institution say, This is my body. 2. Because this substantial form remained, it must be either in, or separate from the matter; both of which are in the case impossible, etc. Qu. 77, Art. 1: Relinquitur quod accidentia in hoc sacramento maneat sine subjecto, quod quidem virtute divina fieri potest. Baur, p. 267: Aquinas says, transubstantiation is neither an annihilation nor a continuance of the substance; if the accidents abide without the substance, this is like the case of all miracles, a working of the first cause without the second causes. The whole Christ was conceived as being in each part of the species; and to explain how this could be, how a body of greater quantity could be in a smaller, not dimensive, but as a substantial quantity, the scholastics made distinction, which at last run out into this-that existence in space does not belong to the essence of things that appear in space. Aquinas, Dist. 76, Art. 4.] Christ is whole and undivided in every particle of the host. In the same way the consecrated wine, though other liquids may be added, remains the blood of Christ as long as it does not cease to be wine. Fortunately these subtile definitions required only a fides implicita, but not explicita; see Cramer, vii. pp. 728, 729. The theory of Thomas is more fully developed by Engelhardt, Dogmengeschichte, ii. p. 214, ss., note; Ebrard, i. 487. [Hampden's Bampton Lectures, Lect. vii.]

'Peter Lombard, started this question, Sent. Lib. iv. Dist. 13, A., and decided: Illud sane dici potest, quod a brutis animalibus corpus Christi non sumitur, etsi videatur. Quid ergo sumit mus vel quid manducat! Deus novit hoc.-Alexander Hales, however, who lived about a century later, pretended to a better knowledge respecting this point (Summa P. iv. Qu. 45, Membr. 1, Art. 1 and 2). He took the affirmative side of the question, in support of which he asserted, that, if a sinner could receive the body of Christ, the same might be supposed, with much more propriety, in the case of an innocent animal: on the other hand, he professed to be aware that God abhors only the sin of the sinner, but not his human nature, which alone is susceptible of the beneficial effects of the sacrament. Nevertheless he was compelled to admit, that if a dog or a pig swallowed the unbroken host, the body of our Lord entered into the belly of the animal.-Thomas Aquinas held similar views, P. iii. Qu. 80, Art. 3: Etiamsi mus vel canis hostiam consecratam manducet, substantia corporis Christi non desinit esse sub speciebus, quamdiu species illæ manent, hoc est quamdiu substantia panis maneret; sicut etiam si projiceretur in lutum.-On the other hand, Bonaventura expressed himself with more propriety (after he had stated all that might be said for and against the doctrine) in Comment. ad. Sent. iv. Dist. 13, Art. 2, Qu. 1; Quantumcunque hæc opinio muniatur, nunquam