IMPANATION
694
IMPANATION
establishing at a distance from that school — at Ferrara
and at Bologna — veritable foci of Raphaelesque imi-
tation.
Innocen^o is one of the striking examples of this influence. With him it was not, as it was with Bagna- cavallo, a form of servility impelling him to travesty now the " Transfiguration ", now the " Healing of the Paralytic"; but through a kind of natural sympathy the ideas of the master were caught up and re-echoed in the kindred soul of the disciple. The force of Innocenzo's love was such as to give those ideas a new life in himself. His art is only a reflected art, and yet it keeps a certain spontaneity. With forms which are nearly all borrowed, the feeling remains ingenuous, and at times charming. For the most part, however, Innocenzo's works are only anthologies of Rafael, like the "Holy Family with his patrons" or the "St. Michael with the saints" in the Bologna museum, formed by the fusion of the " Virgin of Foligno" with the "St. Michael" of the Louvre. Other works, on the other hand, are freely created in the spirit of Raphael, such as the " Marriage of St. Catherine " in S. Giacomo Maggiore, one of this master's largest pictures, and perhaps his best, with a solidity of exe- cution very remarkable in a work of that date (1536). The predellas with which he loved to embellish his work are almost inx'ariably charming works in them- selves, the predella often better than the picture. In general, Innocenzo painted little besides altar pieces. Still, he did his part in the decoration of the Palazzino della Viola, where Cardinal d'lvrea entrusted him with the painting of a loggia. Lastly, his frescoes in S. Michele in Bosco are not to be despised, demonstrat- ing his love of large and simple subjects.
His work is interesting precisely because it main- tained in some measure the suavity of the old religious art, avoiding the pompous and violent subjects which were beginning to seduce the minds of his contempo- raries. His was a delicate poetic talent, with little originality, and the old themes offered it sufficient scope; and, in an age that was already abandoning those themes, this very spirit of tradition constituted a sort of originality. His hfe was that of a simple, hard-working artist, wholly given to the art which he respected and for which he won respect. ."MTable and modest, shunning the licentious society of his fellow- artists, he possessed the charm of a gentle and kindly disposition. Carried off, at the age of fifty-six, by a malignant fever, he left at Bologna the memory of an upright artist and an exemplary man.
VA.SARl,/.e Vile, II (Bologna, 1647). 221; Malvasia, Felsina Pittrice, I (Bologna, 1673), 146: Blanc. Hixtoire des peintrea; Ecnle Bolonaise (Paris, s.d.); Burckhardt, Cicerone, II (French tr., Paris, 1892), 702.
Louis Gillet.
Impanation, an heretical doctrine according to which Christ is in the Eucharist through His human body substantially united with the substances of bread and wine, and thus is really present as God, made bread: Deus panis /actus. As, in consequence of the Incarnation, the properties of the Divine Word can be ascribed to the man Christ, and the properties of the man Christ can be preilicated of the Word {com- municatio idiomatum), in the very same way, in con- sequence of the impanation — a word coined in imi- tation of incarnation — an interchange of predicates takes place between the Son of God and the substance of bread, though only through the mediation of the body of Christ. The doctrine of impanation agrees with the doctrine of consubstantiation, as it was taught by Luther, in these two essential points: it denies on the one hand the Transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Bloo<l of Christ, and on the other professes nevertheless the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Vet the doctrines differ e.ssentially in so far as Luther asserted that the Boily of Christ penetrated the imcbanged substance of the
bread but denied a hypostatic union. Orthodox
Lutheranism expressed this so-called sacramental
union between the Body of Clirist and the substance
of bread in the well-known formula: The Body of
Christ is " in, with and under the bread " — in, cum et
sub pane; really present, though only at the moment
of its reception by the faithful — in usu, non extra
usum. The theologians of the Reformed Churches,
calling this doctrine, in their attack against the Lu-
therans, impanation, use the term not in the strict
sense explained above, but in a wider meaning.
If we search for the historic origin of the term, we must go back to the controversies against the disciples of Berengarius of Tours at the end of the eleventh century. Guitmund of Aversa (d. before 1195), in his work " De corporis et sanguinis Christi veritate in Eucharistia" (P. L., CXLIX, 1427 sqq.), distinguishes two classes of disciples of Berengarius; those who absolutely deny the Real Presence of Chri.st in the Eucharist, and those who, though they admit that the Body and Blood of Christ are really (reven'i) present in the Eucharist, reject the doctrine of Transul)stantia- tion and explain Christ's Real Presence by a kind of impanation {Christum quodatnmodo imj>anari). Guit- mund thinks this to be the essence of Berengarius's doctrine (lianc esse subtiliorem Berengarii sentejitiam) . This teaching, however rightly or wrongly attributed to Berengarius, evidently docs not profess impanation in the strict sense of the term; it rather coincides with the above-mentioned doctrine of consubstantiation as taught bj- Luther. Alger of Liege (1131), in his work, " De Sacramento corporis et sanguinis Christi", I, 6 (P. L., CLXXX, 439-S45), without mentioning any definite names, points out and opposes the errors of some {errantes quidam) who say that "Christ's Person is impanated in the bread, just as God is incarnated in the human flesh " (dicunt ita personaliter in pane impanatum Christum sicut in carne humana person- aliter incarnatum Deum). He calls this a neresy, which ought to be utterly rooted out, because it is an absurd novelty {qtiia nova et absurda). Who was it that introduced this new heresy? For a long time the well-known Abbot Rupert of Deutz (1135) was suspected. Cardinal Bellarmine (De Euch., Ill, xi, xv), Baronius (.\nn. Eccl.: ad aiuium 1111, n. 49), Suarez, and Vasqucz thought they could trace back the doctrine of impanation to him (cf. his work "De div. officiis", II, 2 and 9), and recently P. Rocholl (" Rupert v. Deutz ", Gutersloh, 1886, 247 sqq.) re- peated the same charge. Others, however, acquit him of this error, as Alexander Xatalis, Tournely, and especially Gerberon in his " .Apologia Ruperti Tuitien- sis" (Paris, 16G9); and, amongst modern writers of the history of dogmatic theology, J. Bach (" Dog- mengeschichte des Mittelalters", I, Vienna, 1875, 412 sqq.) and Schwane (" Dogmengeschichte", III, Frei- burg, 1882, 641). They seem to be right, for a critical examination of all the passages bearing on the subject shows that Rupert, though at times he used ambigu- ous expressions, nevertheless believed in the Transub- stantiation of the substance of bread into the Body of Christ. However this be, it cannot now be decided whether -Mger of Liege cited Rupert as an advocate of imjianation, since it remains unknown whether Ru- pert had already published his ambiguous expression at the time when -Mger wrote his attack.
With much better reason, .lohn of Paris (d. 1306) is considereil the champion of the .strict doctrine of im- panation. In his work, " Determinatio de modo ex- istendi corpus [sic] Christi in Sacramento altaris alio quam sit ille quem tenet Ecclesia" (ed. Peter Alix, London, 1686), he tries, in conscious opposition to the Church, to establish, as plausible at least, the hy- pothesis that "the bread does not remain in its own suppositum, but is assumed through the Flesh or through the Body of Christ as a part of the esse and hypostasis of the Logos" (Ego dico panem ibimanere
