all this fell short of the New Opinion then so that it satisfied not the bigotted Men at Rome yet it gave satisfaction to others nay to the Pope himself so that the Case of Berengarius was put off to further consideration another year Now if the matter was thus as in all probability it was I cannot see what hurt this doth Berengarius's Reputation or why thy Romanists should take occasion hence to roar against him so for a perfidious and perjur'd person when in these instances he declared his ripened and deliberate judgment as far as the belief of a Real presence went to which as far as I can find he was constant all his Life time Nor do I see what advantage those Condemnations of him in his absence can bring to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation because those Synods seem to have been so zealously concern'd only for the Catholick Doctrine of the real presence and to have been unanimous as to that sole point not understanding rightly the sense either of Scotus or Berengarius For when the business was carried further from a real to a Corporal presence and from the belief of the main Thing to a belief of the Modus I mean when once it came to be urged that Christ's Body is Substantially and Materially in the Sacrament and that by a Substantial Conversion of the very Nature of the Elements into it when the matter was brought to this height Berengarius's very Judges blunder'd miserably and were much divided about it and inconsistent with themselves Thus we are expresly told by Zacharias Chrysopolitanus Sunt nonnulli imd forsan multi sed vix notari possunt qui cum damnato Berengario idem sentiant tamen eundem cum Ecclesia damnant In hoc videlicet damnant eum quia formam verborum Ecclesioe abjiciens nuditate sermonis seandalum movebat Non sequebatur ut dicunt usum scripturarum quoe passim res significantes tanquam significatas appellant presertim in Sacramentis Zachar. Chrysopol in concord Evangel lib. 4. cap. 156. BB. PP Soec. 12. in the next Age That there were some yea perhaps many who held the same Opinion with Berengarius although they condemned him In this thing they condemned him that laying aside the Churches way of speaking he gave offence by his open manner of expressing himself He did not observe the Language of Scripture which frequently gives the Name of the thing signified to that which signifies it especially in Sacraments This was the only quarrel which many had against him who as to his Doctrine perfectly concurr'd and agreed with him The truth is Berengarius his Judges were much to seek what to say to him or how to deal with him when he appeared personally before them Of which we have two plain instances in Two Synods at Rome the one under Nicolas the Second Anno 1059. the other under Gregory the 7th in February 1079. The first of these two Synods was called chiefly about the Election of Popes and against Simony which was then a great Trade at Rome Thither Berengarius was summon'd and there he defended himself with such irrosistible Evidence of truth against a material change in the Nicolaus Papa comperiens te docere panem vinumque altaris post Consecrationem sine materiali mutatione in pristinis essentiis remanere concessâ tibi respondendi licentid c. Lankfranc de Euchar. adv Berengarium Eique Berengario cum nullus valeret obsistere Albericus evocatur ad Synodum c. Leo Ostiensis in Chronic. Cassinens lib. 3. c. 33. Sacrament that he quite confounded the whole Synod though it consisted of no less than 113 Bishops Not a man of them had a word to say against his Arguments so that they were forced to send for Albericus a Cardinal Deacon and a man of great reputation for his Learning But he was so confounded too that he desired a Weeks time to write against Berengarius Lanfranck who relates things partially as the modern Romanists have done after him not only omits the main of this story but falsifies one part of it as if Berengarius had not answer'd for himself though the Pope had given him leave Whereas Leo Ostiensis who lived about that time relates the particulars of the story and Sigonius confirms it nay Guitmund himself though a bitter Adversary to Berengarius owns there was a conflict in that Synod All which the Learned Bishop Usher De succes statu cap. 7. has noted to my hands 'T is true after all this Berengarius Elegisti-palam atque in audientia Sancti Concilii orthodoxam fidem non amore veritatis sed timore mortis confiteri Lanfrane de Euchar in initio recanted in that Synod meerly for fear of Death An Argument that even great Men are subject to humane srailty especially in extremity of danger tho' the scandal of his complyance falls upon that cause which needed Fire and Faggot for its last Argument and an Executioner instead of a Disputant to bring it to a Conclusion But observe what a Blunder these Men committed in this their Sanguinary attempt on behalf of the New Opinion Humbertus was order'd by the Pope to draw up the Form of a Confession the Synod approved it and poor Berengarius to save his Life was forced to subscribe it Now the Confession was this in short That the Bread and Wine which are set upon the Altar after Consentio autem sanctoe Romanoe Ecclesioe scilicet Panem Vinum quoe in altari ponuntur post Consecrationem non solum Sacramentum sed etiam verum Corpus Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse sensualiter non solum Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri Lansranc Alger alii multi Consecration are not only the Sacrament but also the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ that this true Body is sensually not only in the Sacrament but in Truth handled and broken by the hands of the Priests and ground or torn by the Teeth of the Faithful This was very harsh for it renders Christ liable to New Sufferings every day it is inconsistent with the finer Notion of the presence of Christ's Body after the manner of a Spirit it introduces such a crass sort of Eating as our Saviour rebuked the Capernaites for thinking of it makes us to be not only Eaters of a Sacrament but in very Truth Eaters of Mans Flesh Therefore the present Church of Rome will not stand to these Expressions divers of her Doctors formerly have renounced this definition as erronous and absurd though it was made by the Pope in Cathedra and in a publick Synod the boldest Writers have been lamentably put to it how to give it a Tolerable construction The Glossator upon the decrees confesseth that if it be not understood in a sound sense it leads into a greater Heresie than what Berengarius himself was charged with But
Blood although he Eats and Drinks that which is the Sacrament of so great a thing All which how can it possibly consist with the fulsome Doctrine of a Corporal presence which supposes that very Flesh and Blood which Christ took of the Virgin to be truly Really Substantially and materially in the Sacrament This last passage in Fulbertus is probably thought to have been that which did stick so deeply in the mind of his Scholar Berengarius Whose famous case I am at length come to and shall search into it impartially though it be no small unhappiness that we must have recourse to the Writings of his profest Adversaries there being little extant which either he wrote for himself or his Friends for him though it was a case wherein we may be sure many Pens were at work And so we are expresly told by Sigebort who lived near the time of this Controversie that many disputed much both in their Discourses and Writings some Contra eum Berengarium pro eo multum à multis Verbis Scriptis disputatum est Sigeb Chron. ad an 1051. against Berengarius and some for him And the Truth of this will appear in the Sequel Though some Romanists have endeavoured to oppress the Memory of Berengarius with a heavy weight of ill Characters as 't is usual with them in all such cases yet several of that side have ingenuously acknowledg'd that he was a most Eminent person in his time not only for his great Charity Humility and Austerities of Life but also for his great Parts and Learning And the thing is evident partly from his Dignity in the Church for he was Archdeacon of Anger 's in France intrusted with the Office of Instructing the Clergy and of training them up in the Studies of Divinity And partly from those great stirs which hapned in so many parts of Christendom upon his Quarrel Not that I can imagine such hot contentions should arise in France England and Italy as 't is plain there were purely upon the personal account of Berengarius For it is impossible to conceive how one single Frenchman though of the greatest Note could engage such distant Numbers in a common Controversie by any New Doctrines of his own No their general Concurrence with him is a plain sign that they had a deeply radicated Love for the Ancient Truth however it was Deprest by the then prevailing Patrons of the Paschasian phancy that they were well prepared for a publick Declaration of the Truth and that they waited only for a fair Opportunity of declaring it and for some such Leading Man as Berengarius was to appear in the Head of them So you know it was at the time of the Reformationl people had had such bitter Experience of the Spirit of Popery that 't was every where Hated and the World was well disposed for the entertainment of Christ's Religion so that when Luther cryed out against Indulgences and Priest-craft the cry went presently round not so much for Luthers sake as for the respect men had for Truth and honesty and out of their detestation of a Lucrative contrivance which some Popes and their fellow work men had formed to oppress the world Thus a great part of Christendom seems to have been dispos'd in Berengarius his days if that had been God's time for a general Reformation But the Sins of the World were to be punish'd and God in his Wisdom chose rather to bring good out of evil afterwards than to prevent the evil at that time As to Berengarius his Principles I must intreat you to observe that his First opinion seems to have been that the Bread and Wine are barely Figures and Shadows without the invisible thing if we may believe those that wrote against him Lancfranck Adelmannus Durandus of Liege and especially Guitmund But searching more narrowly into this point and finding how obnoxious he was to his adversaries who could not but object against him the sense of the whole Catholick Church his Opinion afterwards rose higher as to this and his settled Judgement was That the Lancfranck de Euchar. Sacram Sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two things the visible Sacrament and the Thing of the Sacrament that is the spiritual Body of Christ as the Ancients themselves spake And to this exactly agrees what Guitmund fairly said of the Berengarians that they were divided in their positive Opinions some of them believing that there is Berengariani multum in hoe differunt quod alii nihil omnino de Corpore Sanguine Domini Sacramentis istis in esse sed tantummodo umbras hoec figur as esse dicant Alii verò dicunt ibi Corpus Sanguinem Domini revera sed latenter continueri ut sumi possint quodammodo ut ita dixerim impanari Et hanc ipsius Berengarii subtiliorem esse Sententiam aiunt Guitmund de Veritate Euchar. lib. 1. non procul ab initio nothing at all of the Lords Body and Bloud in the Sacrament but that the Symbols are shadows and figures only whereas others of them confest the Lords Body and Blood to be there truly but secretly and as it were joyned with the Bread and Wine that they may be received which they say saith Guitmund is the more subtile Opinion of Berengarius himself So that the main of the Controversie wherein Berengarius and his Party where concern'd lay in these two Negative Points which are now the great Points in Controversie between us and the Church of Rome 1. They utterly opposed the Paschasian Error of a corporal Presence 2. They absolutely denied any Essential change of the Nature and Substance of the Bread and Wine For now the Evil began to swel to a very high degree Tho I do Isti enim licet inter se diversi sint contra nos tamen unam habent penè sententiam argumentis nituntur eisdem Utrisque enim nibil de pane vino mutari essentialiter asserunt Id. not yet find the word used yet the Doctrine of Transubstantiation began now in this Age in the 11. Century to be introduced as an Additional Doctrine which some endeavoured to obtrude upon the World because they found it impossible for them to maintain their new Paschasian conceit of a corporal Presence without maintaining lustily this Newer fancy of a substantial change of the Sacramental Elements But the extream Novelty of this Opinion will easily appear from these following Considerations 1. Cardinal De sacr Euch. lib. 1. cap. 1. Bellarmine tho he seldome yields any thing that is against him and when he doth 't is with a sparing hand and against His own Will yet he confesseth that Berengarius was not reputed the first Inventer of his Error as he is pleased to call it Durandus the Bishop of Liege who wrote against Berengarius Qualiter Bruno Andegavensis Episcopus item Berengarius Turonensis antiquas hoereses modernis temporibus introducendo c.
Allegiance and to give away their Territories By this it appears what little Reason our Romanists have to pretend the Authority of this Lateran Council for their beloved Transubstantiation and how little they gain by it upon a strict Examination of the matter After all the Arts and Toyl of so many years to bring this strange conceit into some shape and to Cure those Flaws which all discerning and upright Men found in the formation of it After such various Methods used to get a Decree for it and to obtrude it upon an easie World in times of Ignorance After so many Hostile and Barbarous Courses practiced in several Parts of Christendome upon those who saw the falsehood of it and would not submit to the Innovation After so much Blood shed and so many Lives taken away in that unjust Cause The Patrons of it having got at length a promising opportunity of settling it in this Great Council at Rome and under the awe of a most Heady and Insolent Pope they providentially mist of their designs at last In Rome it self many opposed it with Rage probably divers of the Council did not at all like it to be sure they rose without confirming it by a Synodical Decree so that it had no Authority but the Pope's own and that Pope's too who warranted Rebellion and Treason in Subjects and made it the great business and Delight of his own Life during his Papacy But Threats would not do the work yet For Matthew Math. Par. in Hen. 2. ad An. 1223. Paris tells us that Anno 1223 the Albigenses chose one Bartholomaeus their Anti-Pope in Bulgary Croatia Dalmatia and those parts about Hungary where their Opinion prevailed so that many Bishops and others agreed with them Moreover that Anno 1234. they had Bishops of their perswasion in Spain and that an infinite Number of them was kill'd in Alemannia in Germany the same year Besides the Writings of Lucus Iudensis about Anno 1240. and of Petrus Pilichdorfius about Anno 1450. both against the Albigenses do plainly shew that notwithstanding the Decree of Innocent the Third the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was still vigorously resisted in very many places of the World and even where the Church of Rome carried great Authority But I must not forget a memorable Story of Guido Grossus Archbishop of Narbonne Anno 1268. because it shews how little He and the Divines at Paris then hearkned to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation notwithstanding all that had been done by Pope Nicolas the Second Gregory the Seventh and Innocent the Third and when you have consider'd it well I leave you to judge too by the way whether the judgment of the Popes tho' in Council was in those days thought Infallible Guido Grossus going to see Pope Clement the Fourth his Old familiar acquaintance and discoursing in his Court with a certain Learned person could not forbear declaring his sense about the Eucharist which was directly repugnant to Transubstantiation For his Opinion was that the Body of our Lord is not essentially in the Eucharist but only as the thing signified is under the sign To which it seems he added that this was the Celebrated Opinion at Paris After Guido's return home Clemens heard of this and wrote him a chiding Letter wherein he insinuated also that if he persitted in that Opinion he would be in danger of losing his Dignity De Euchar. lib. 3. P. 973. and Office This Letter the Learned Albertinus hath given us a Copy of out of a Manuscript in Pope Clement's Register and the thing is further attested by Monsieur I Arroque in his History of the Eucharist lately rendred into English and just fallen into my hands where you may see it at large though the principal part of it is what I have already related I add out of both that though the Archbishop answer'd the Popes Letter with some Caution and Fear yet in his Answer he said enough to clear and justifie his own Opinion against Transubstantiation For saith he the Body of Christ is so called Four ways 1. In respect of Similitude as the Species of Bread and Wine and that improperly 2. It is taken for the Material Flesh of Jesus Christ which was taken of the Blessed Virgin And this signification is proper 3. For the Church in regard of its Mystical Union with Christ 4. For the Spiritual Flesh of Jesus Christ which is Meat indeed And it is said of those who Eat this Flesh Spiritually that they do receive the Truth of the Flesh and Blood of our Saviour which as it overthrows the Dream of Transubstantiation so it is the very Language of the Ancients Clemens Alexandrinus S. Jerome S. Ambrose S. Austin and others who did distinguish Christ's Natural Body which was of the Virgin from that Spiritual Body which is receiv'd at the Eucharist as you may see plainly in that excellent little Book called the DIALLACTICON which God be thanked is now reprinted at London A Book written as Bishop Cosins tells us by Dr. Poinet Bishop of Winchester a little before Bishop Jewels Apology came out Cassander and other Divines abroad Extolled it deservedly The late Sa. Oxon if I may rank him among such Company takes notice of it but P. 61. says withal I have not the Book by me And I verily believe it for had he ever seen or read that Book I am apt to think he would hardly have wrote his own at least not that part of it the force whereof is quite destroy'd by the Diallacticon But not to digress further especially when I am near the End of my business Though in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries Transubstantiation was the common Tenent yet I cannot find that it past in those times for a certain Article of Faith determined by the Publick Authority of the Church but as a probable Opinion only as they thought then Those many difficult Consequences about Eating Digesting Voiding the Sacrament whether by Men or Beasts and the like which the subtle Schoolmen met with in managing that Opinion do plainly shew that the thing was not yet cleared beyond all Reason of doubting nor setled by any Authority which might be presumed sufficient to require their submission It is well known that the Famous Doctor of Sorbon Johannes Parisicnsis near the Vide determinat Joan. edit Londin 1686. year 1300. though he profest to hold Transubstantiation yet he held it only as a current Opinion he was so far from urging it as an Article of Faith that he proposed another way of explaining the real presence viz. that Mystical Union of the Sacred Symbols with Christ's person which Rupertus and others had spoke of long In praesentia Collegii Magistrorum in Theologia dictum est utrumque modum poneudi Corpus Christi esse in altari tenet pro Opinione probabili approbat utrumque per dicta Sanctorum Dicit tamen quod nullus est determinatus per Ecclesiam ideo nullum