Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	word_n	write_v	yield_v	122	3	6.6349	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34613	The history of popish transubstantiation to which is premised and opposed the catholic doctrin of Holy Scripture, the antient fathers and the reformed churches about the sacred elements, and presence of Christ in the blessed sacrament of the Eucharist / written in Latine by John, late Lord Bishop of Durham, and allowed by him to be published a little before his death at the earnest request of his friends.	Cosin, John, 1594-1672.; Beaulieu, Luke, 1644 or 5-1723.; Durel, John, 1625-1683.	1679 (1679)	Wing C6359A; ESTC R24782	82,162	188

of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament that stout Roman Champion applies to his Transubstantiation and then crows over his Adversaries supposing that he hath utterly overthrown the Protestants cause whereas there is such a wide difference as may be called a great Gulf fixed betwixt the true or real Presence of Christ in the Lords Supper and the Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into his Body and Bloud This last is such a Prodigie as is neither taught by Scripture nor possible to be apprehended by faith it is repugnant to right reason and contrary to sense and is no where to be found in Ancient Writers But the other is agreeable to Scripture and to the Analogy of faith it is not against Reason although being spiritual it cannot be perceived by our bodily senses and it is back'd by the constant and unanimous Doctrine of the holy Fathers For it makes nothing against it that sometimes the same Fathers do speak of the Bread and Wine of the holy Eucharist as of the very Body and Bloud of Christ it being a manner of speech very proper and usual in speaking of Sacraments to give to the sign the name of the thing signified And however they explain themselves in other places when they frequently enough call the Sacramental Bread and Wine Types Symbols Figures and Signs of the Body and Bloud of Christ thereby declaring openly for us against the Maintainers of Transubstantiation For we may safely without any prejudice to our Tenet use those Expressions of the Ancients which the Papists think to be most favourable to them taking them in a Sacramental sense as they ought to be whereas the last mentioned that are against them none can use but by so doing he necessarily destroys the whole contrivance of Transubstantiation it being altogether inconsistent to say the Bread is substantially changed into the Body of Christ and the Bread is a Figure a Sign and a Representation of the Body of Christ For what hath lost its being can in no wise signifie or represent any other thing Neither was ever any thing said to represent and be the Figure and Sign of it self But this is more at large treated of in the Book it self Now having given an account of the occasion of writing and publishing this Discourse perhaps the Reader will expect that I should say something of its excellent Author But should I now undertake to speak but of the most memorable things that concern this great Man my thoughts would be overwhelmed with their multitude and I must be injurious both to him and my Readers being confined within the narrow limits of a Preface But what cannot be done here may be done somewhere else God willing This only I would not have the Reader to be ignorant of That this Learned man and as appears by this constant Professor and Defendor of the Protestant Religion was one of those who was most vehemently accused of Popery by the Presbyterians before the late Wars and for that reason bitterly persecuted by them and forced to forsake his Country whereby he secured himself from the violence of their Hands but not of their Tongues for still the good men kept up the noise of their clamorous Accusation even while he was writing this most substantial Treatise against Transubstantiation John Durel CHAP. I. 1. The Real that is true and not imaginary Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is proved by Scripture 2 and 3. Yet this favours not the Tenet of Transubstantiation being it is not to be understood grosly and carnally but spiritually and Sacramentally 4. The nature and use of the Sacraments 5. By means of the Elements of Bread and Wine Christ himself is spiritually eaten by the Faithful in the Sacrament 6. The eating and presence being spiritual are not destructive of the truth and substance of the thing 7. The manner of Presence is unsearchable and ought not to be presumptuously defined 1. THose words which our blessed Saviour used in the institution of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist Mat. 26.26 Luk. 22.19 This is my body which is given for you This is my bloud which is shed for you for the remission of sins are held and acknowledged by the Universal Church to be most true and infallible And if any one dares oppose them or call in question Christs Veracity or the truth of his words or refuse to yield his sincere assent to them except he be allowed to make a meer figment or a bare figure of them * As G. Calixtus writes in some place of his learned Exercitations and before him M. Chemnitius in Exam. Con. Trid. atque in locis Theol. we cannot and ought not either excuse or suffer him in our Churches for we must embrace and hold for an undoubted truth whatever is taught by Divine Scripture And therefore we can as little doubt of what Christ saith Joh. 6.55 My flesh is meat indeed and my bloud is drink indeed which according to St. Paul are both given to us by the consecrated Elements For he calls the Bread the Communion of Christs Body 1 Cor. 10.16 and the Cup the Communion of his bloud 2. Hence it is most evident that the Bread and Wine which according to St. Paul are the Elements of the holy Eucharist are neither changed as to their substance nor vanisht nor reduc'd to nothing but are solemnly consecrated by the words of Christ that by them his blessed body and bloud may be communicated to us 3. And further it appears from the same words that the expression of Christ and the Apostle is to be understood in a Sacramental and mystick sense and that no gross and carnal presence of body and bloud can be maintained by them 4. And though the word Sacrament be no where used in Scripture to signifie the blessed Eucharist yet the Christian Church ever since its Primitive ages hath given it that name and always called the presence of Christs body and bloud therein Mystick and Sacramental Now a Sacramental expression doth without any inconvenience give to the sign the name of the thing signified Exod. 12.21 1 Cor. 10.3 4. And such is as well the usual way of speaking as the nature of Sacraments that not only the names but even the properties and effects of what they represent and exhibite are given to the outward Elements Hence as I said before the Bread is as clearly as positively called by the Apostle the Communion of the body of Christ 5. This also seems very plain that our Blessed Saviour's design was not so much to teach what the Elements of Bread and Wine are by nature and substance as what is their use and office and signification in this Mystery For the body and bloud of our Saviour are not only fitly represented by the Elements but also by vertue of his institution really offered to all by them and so eaten by the faithful Mystically and Sacramentally whence

nature and substance of the body of our blessed Saviour and that those words nature and substance ought not to be rejected because the Fathers used them in speaking of that Mystery Secondly He inquires whether those expressions truth nature and substance were used in this Mystery by the Ancients in their common acceptation or in a sense more particular and proper to the Sacraments Because we must not only observe what words they used but also what they meant to signifie and to teach by them And though with the Fathers he acknowledged a difference betwixt the body of Christ in its natural form of a humane body and that Mystick body present in the Sacrament yet he chose rather to put that difference in the manner of presence and exhibition than in the subject it self that is the real body and bloud of our Saviour being it is most certain that no other body is given to the faithful in the Sacrament than that which was by Christ given to death for their Redemption Lastly he affirms according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers that this matter must be understood in a spiritual sense banishing all grosser and more carnal thoughts 5. To Bishop Poinet succeeded in the same See the right Reverend Doctors T. Bilson and L. Andrews Prelates both of them throughly learned and great defenders of the Primitive Faith who made it most evident by their Printed Writings that the Faith and Doctrine of the Church of England is in all things agreeable to the holy Scriptures and the Divinity of the Ancient Fathers And as to what regards this Mystery the a Bils resp ad Card. Alan l. 4. first treats of it in his Answer to the Apology of Cardinal Alan and the b Andr. resp ad Apol Bel. c. 11. p. 11 last in his Answer to the Apology of Cardinal Bellarmine where you may find things worthy to be read and noted as follows Christ said this is my body in this the object we are agreed with you the manner only is controverted We hold by a firm belief that it is the body of Christ of the manner how it comes to be so there is not a word in the Gospel and because the Scripture is silent in this we justly disown it to be a matter of Faith We may indeed rank it among Tenets of the School but by no means among the Articles of our Christian Belief We like well of what Durandus is reported to have said We hear the Word and feel the motion we know not the manner and yet believe the Presence For we believe a Real Presence no less than you do We dare not be so bold as presumptuously to define any thing concerning the manner of a true Presence or rather we do not so much as trouble our selves with being inquisitive about it no more than in Baptism how the bloud of Christ washeth us or in the Incarnation of our Redeemer how the Divine and Humane Nature were united together We put it in the number of sacred things or Sacrifices the Eucharist it self being a Sacred Mystery whereof the remnants ought to be consumed with fire that is as the Fathers elegantly have it ador'd by faith but not searcht by reason Caus Ep. to Card. Perron 6. To the same sense speaks Is Causabon in the Epistle he wrote by order from King James to Cardinal Perron so doth also Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity Ep. Roff. praef ad loct Montac in Antid Art 13. Book 5. § 67. John Bishop of Rochester in his Book of the Power of the Pope R. Mountague Bishop of Norwich against Bullinger James Primate of Armach in his Answer to the Irish Jesuit Francis Bishop of Eli and William Laud Archbishop of Canterbury in their Answer to Fisher c In a Manuscript shortly to be Printed John Overall Bishop of Norwich and many others in the Church of England who never departed from the Faith and Doctrine of the ancient Catholick Fathers which is by Law established and with great care and veneration received and preserved in our Church 7. To these also we may justly add that famous Prelate Antonius de Domino Archbishop of Spalato a man well versed in the Sacred Writings and the Records of Antiquity who having left Italy when he could no longer remain in it either with quiet or safety by the advice of his intimate Friend Paulus Venetus took Sanctuary under the protection of King James of blessed memory in the bosome of the Church of England which he did faithfully follow in all Points and Articles of Religion But being daily vex'd with many affronts and injuries and wearied by the unjust persecutions of some sour and over-rigid men who bitterly declaimed every where against his life and actions he at last resolved to return into Italy with a safe conduct Before he departed he was by order from the King questioned by some Commissionated Bishops what he thought of the Religion and Church of England which for so many years he had owned and obeyed and what he would say of it in the Roman Court to this Query he gave in writing this memorable answer I am resolved even with the danger of my life to profess before the Pope himself that the Church of England is a true and Orthodox Church of Christ This he not only promised but faithfully performed for though soon after his departure there came a Book out of the Low Countries falsly bearing his name by whose title many were deceived even among the English and thereby moved to tax him with Apostacy and of being another Eubolius yet when he came to Rome where he was most kindly entertained in the Palace of Pope Gregory the Fifteenth who formerly had been his Fellow-student he could never be perswaded by the Jesuits and others who daily thronged upon him neither to subscribe the new devised-Tenets of the Council of Trent or to retract those Orthodox Books which he had Printed in England and Germany or to renounce the Communion of the Church of England in whose defence he constantly persisted to the very last But presently after the decease of Pope Gregory he was imprisoned by the Jesuits and Inquisitors in Castle St. Angelo where by being barbarously used and almost starved he soon got a mortal sickness and died in a few days though not without suspicion of being poysoned The day following his Corps was by the sentence of the Inquisition tyed to an infamous stake and there burnt to ashes for no other reason but that he refused to make abjuration of the Religion of the Church of England and subscribe some of the lately-made-Decrees of Trent which were prest upon him as Canons of the Catholick Faith I have taken occasion to insert this narration perhaps not known to many to make it appear that this Reverend Prelate who did great service to the Church of God may justly as I said before be reckoned amongst the Writers of the Church of England Let

the Roman Church Ibid. q. 45. art 14. Lastly Bell. de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. Bellarmine himself doth say That though he might bring Scripture clear enough to his thinking to prove Transubstantiation by to an easie man yet still it would be doubtful whether he had done it to purpose because some very acute and learned men as Scotus hold that it cannot be proved by Scripture Now in this Protestants desire no more but to be of the opinion of those learned and acute men 4. And indeed the words of institution would plainly make it appear to any man that would prefer truth to wrangling that it is with the Bread that the Lords Body is given as his Bloud with the Wine for Christ having taken blessed and broken the bread said This is my body and St. Paul than whom none could better understand the meaning of Christ explains it thus The bread which we break is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Communion or communication of the body of Christ that whereby his body is given and the Faithful are made partakers of it That it was bread which he reacht to them there was no need of any proof the receiver's senses sufficiently convinc'd them of it but that therewith his body was given none could have known had it not been declared by him who is the truth it self And though by the divine institution and the explication of the Apostle every faithful Communicant may be as certainly assured that he receives the Lords Body as if he knew that the Bread is substantially turned into it yet it doth not therefore follow that the Bread is so changed that its substance is quite done away so that there remains nothing present but the very natural Body of Christ made of bread For certain it is that the bread is not the Body of Christ any otherwise than as the Cup is the New Testament and two different consequences cannot be drawn from those two not different expressions Therefore as the Cup cannot be the New Testament but by a Sacramental figure no more can the Bread be the Body of Christ but in the same sense 5. As to what Bellarmine and other say That it is not possible the words of Christ can be true but by that conversion which the Church of Rome calls Transubstantiation that is so far from being so that if it were admitted it would first deny the Divine Omnipotency as though God were not able to make the Body of Christ present and truly to give it in the Sacrament whilst the substance of the Bread remains 2. It would be inconsistent with the Divine Benediction which preserves things in their proper being 3. It would be contrary to the true nature of a Sacrament which always consisteth of two parts And lastly It would in some manner destroy the true substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ which cannot be said to be made of Bread and Wine by a Priest without a most high presumption But the truth of the words of Christ remains constant and can be defended without overthrowing so many other great truths Suppose a Testator puts Deeds and Titles in the hand of his Heir with these words Take the House which I bequeath thee There is no man will think that those Writings and Parchments are that very House which is made of Wood or Stones and yet no man will say that the Testator spake falsly or obscurely Likewise our blessed Saviour having sanctified the Elements by his words and prayers gave them to his Disciples as Seals of the New Testament whereby they were as certainly secured of those rich and precious Legacies which he left to them as Children are of their Fathers Lands and Inheritance by Deeds and Instruments signed and delivered for that purpose 6. To the Sacred Records we may add the judgment of the Primitive Church For those Orthodox and holy Doctors of our holier Religion those great Lights of the Catholick Church do all clearly constantly and unanimously conspire in this That the presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament is only mystick and spiritual As for the entire annihilation of the substance of the Bread and the Wine or that new and strange Tenet of Transubstantiation they did not so much as hear or speak any thing of it Nay the constant stream of their Doctrine doth clearly run against it how great soever are the brags and pretences of the Papists to the contrary And if you will hear them one by one I shall bring some of their most noted passages only that our labour may not be endless by rehearsing all that they have said to our purpose on this subject 7. I shall begin with that holy and ancient Doctor Justin Martyr Just Mart. An. Dom. 144. who is one of the first after the Apostles times whose undoubted Writings are come to us What was believed at Rome and elsewhere in his time concerning this holy mystery may well be understood out of these his words After that the Bishop hath prayed and blessed and the people said Amen those whom we call Deacons or Ministers give to every one of them that are present a portion of the Bread and Wine Apol. 2. ad Anton. prope finem and that food we call the Eucharist for we do not receive it as ordinary Bread and Wine They received it as bread yet not as common bread And a little after By this food digested our flesh and bloud are fed and we are taught that it is the Body and Bloud of Jesus Christ Therefore the substance of the Bread remains and remains corruptible food even after the Consecration which can in no wise be said of the immortal Body of Christ For the flesh of Christ is not turned into our flesh neither doth it nourish it as doth that food which is Sacramentally called the Flesh of Christ But the Flesh of Christ feeds our souls unto eternal life 8. After the same manner it is written by that holy Martyr Irenaeus Bishop much about the same time St. Iren. A.D. 160. The bread which is from the earth is no more common bread after the invocation of God upon it but is become the Eucharist consisting of two parts Lib. 4. Cont. Haeres c. 34. the one earthly and the other heavenly There would be nothing earthly if the substance of the bread were removed Again As the grain of wheat falling in the ground and dying riseth again much increased and then receiving the word of God becomes the Eucharist which is the Body and Bloud of Christ Lib. 5. c. 12. So likewise our bodies nourished by it laid in the ground and dissolved shall rise again in their time Again We are fed by the Creature Ibid. but it is he himself that gives it he hath ordained and appointed that Cup which is a Creature and his Bloud also and that Bread which is a Creature and also his Body And so when the Bread and the

do the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist 20. St. Prosper St. Prosp A.D. 430. Orthodox in all things who lived almost in the time of Austin teacheth That the Eucharist consisleth of two things the visible appearance of the Elements and the invisible Flesh and Bloud of our Saviour Christ Sent. Pros dist 2. de cors cap. hoc est that is the Sacrament and the grace of the Sacrament as the person of Christ is both God and Man Who but the infamous Heretick Eutyches would say that Christ as God was substantially changed into man or as man into God 21. Upon this subject B. Theodoret 7. nothing can be more clear than this of Theodor. whence we learn what the Primitive Church believes in this matter Our Saviour Dial. 1. in the Institution of the Eucharist changed the names of things giving to his body the name of its Sacrament and to the Sacrament the name of his Body Now this was done for this reason as he saith Ibid. that they that are partakers of the Divine Mysteries might not mind the nature of what they see but by the change of names might believe that change which is wrought by Grace For he that called what by nature is his body Wheat and Bread he also honoured the Elements and Signs with the names of his Body and Bloud not changing what is natural but adding Grace to it He therefore teacheth that such an alteration is wrought in the Elements that still their nature and substance continues as he explains more plainly afterwards For when the Heretick that stands for Eutichius had said As the Sacrament of the Lords Body and Bloud are one thing before the Prayer of the Priest Dial. 2. and afterwards being changed become another so also the Body of our Lord after his ascention is changed into the divine substance and nature according to the Tenet of the Transubstantiator this Eutychian Argument is irrefragable but Catholick Antiquity answers it thus Thou are entangled in the nets of thine own knitting for the Elements or Mystick signs depart not from their nature after Consecration but remain in their former substance form and kind and can be seen and toucht as much as before and yet withal we understand also what they become now they are changed Compare therefore the Copy with the Original and thou shalt see their likeness For a figure must answer to the truth That body hath the same form and fills the same space as before and in a word is the same substance but after its resurrection it is become immortal c. All this and much more is taught by Theodoret who assisted at the universal Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon It is an idle exception which is made by some in the Church of Rome as though by the nature and substance of the Elements which are said to remain L. 2. de Euch. c. 27 Theodoret had understood the nature and substance of the accidents as Cardinal Bellarmine is pleased to speak most absurdly but the whole context doth strongly refute this gloss for Theodoret joyns together nature substance form and figure and indeed what Answer could they have given to the Eutychian Argument if the substance of the bread being annihilated after the Consecration the accidents only remain Or did Christ say concerning the accidents of the Bread and Wine these accidents are or this accident is my body But though we have not that liberty yet the Inventors of Transubstantiation may when they please make a Creator of a Creature substances of accidents accidents of substances and any thing out of any thing But sure they are too immodest and uncharitable who to elude the authority of so famous and so worthy a Father as Theodoret alledge that he was accused of some errours in the Council of Ephesus though he repented afterwards as they themselves are forced to confess Fain would they if they could get out at this door when they cannot deny that he affirmed that the Elements remain in their natural substance as he wrote in the Dialogues which he composed against the Eutychian Hereticks with the applause and approbation of the Catholick Church And indeed the evidence of this truth hath compelled some of our Adversaries to yield that Theodoret is of our side For in the Epistle before the Dialogues of Theodoret in the Roman Edition set forth by Stephen Nicolinus the Popes Printer in the year 1547 it is plainly set down Praef. in Dial. Theod That in what concern'd Transubstantiation his opinion was not very sound but that he was to be excused because the Church of Rome had made no decree about it 22. With Theodoret we may joyn Gelasius St. Gelas A. 470 or 490. plus minus who whether he were Bishop of Rome or no as Bellarmine confesseth was of the same age and opinion as he and therefore a witness ancient and credible enough He wrote against Eutyches and Nestorius concerning the two natures in Christ in this manner Doubtless the Sacrament of the Body and Bloud of Christ which we receive De duabus in Christo natur in Biblioth partum Tom. 4. is a very divine thing whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature and yet it doth not cease to be Bread and Wine by substance and nature And indeed the image and resemblance of the Body and Bloud of Christ is celebrated in this mysterious action By this therefore we see manifestly enough that we must believe that to be in Christ which we believe to be in his Sacrament that as by the perfecting vertue of the Holy Ghost it becomes a divine substance and yet remains in the propriety of its nature so this great Mystery the Incarnation of whose power and efficacy this is a lively image doth demonstrate that there is one intire and true Christ consisting of two natures which yet properly remain unchanged It doth plainly appear out of these words that the change wrought in the Sacrament is not substantial for first the sanctified Elements are so made the Body and Bloud of Christ that still they continue to be by nature Bread and Wine Secondly The Bread and Wine retain their natural properties as also the two natures in Christ Lastly The Elements are said to become a divine substance because while we receive them we are made partakers of the Divine Nature by the Body and Bloud of Christ which are given to us These things being so their blindness is to be deplored who see not that they bring again into the Church of Rome the same Error which Antiquity piously and learnedly condemned in the Eutychians And as for their thread-bare objection to this Bell loco Citat Baron A.D. 496. nota Marg. ad verba Gelasii in B. B. Patrum That by the substance of Bread and wine the true substance it self is not to be understood but only the nature and essence of the accidents it is a very strange and very

from the Sacrament but in its right administration he joyned together the thing signified with the sacred Sign and taught that the Body of Christ was not eaten with the mouth in a carnal way but with the Mind and Soul and Spirit Neither did Berengarius alone maintain this Orthodox and ancient Doctrine for a Chron. à Miraeo editum Sigibert b In Contin Bedae William of Malmesbury c In hist majori ad An 1087. Matthew Paris and d Ad cúndum annum Matthew of Westminster make it certain that almost all the French Italians and English of those times were of the same opinion and that many things were said Baron ad An. 1035. §. 1.6 writ and disputed in its defence many men amongst whom was Bruno then Bishop of the same Church of Anger 's Now this greatly displeaseth the Papal faction who took great care that those mens Writings should not be delivered to Posterity and now do write that the Doctrine of Berengarius owned by the Fathers and maintained by many famous Nations sculkt only in some dark corner or other 7. The first Pope who opposed himself to Berengarius was Leo the e A 1050. Conc. Ver. sub Leone Papa 〈◊〉 Ninth a plain man indeed but too much led by Humbert and Hildebrand For as soon as he was desired f Lanfr in libro citato he pronounced sentence of Excommunication against Berengarius absent and unheard and not long after he called a Council at Verceil wherein John Erigena and Berengarius g But it was about 200 years after the death of this most innocent man were condemned upon this account that they should say that the Bread and Wine in the h Adelm in Ep. ad Bereng Eucharist are only bare Signs which was far from their thoughts and farther yet from their belief This roaring therefore of the Lion frighted not Berengarius nay the i These of Ren. Ang. Leon Dolae Maclo c. Gallican Churches did also oppose the Pope and his Synod of Verceil and defend with Berengarius the oppressed truth 8. To Leo succeeded Pope Victor the Second An. 1055. Conc. Turon sub Vict. Papa II who seeing that Berengarius could not be cast down and crusht by the Fulminations of his Predecessor sent his Legate Hildebrand into France and called another Council at Tours where Berengarius being cited did freely appear and whence he was freely dismist after he had given it under his hand that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrifice of the Church and not shadows and empty figures and that he held none other but the common Doctrine of the Church concerning the Sacrament For he did not alter his judgment as modern Papists give out but he persisted to teach and maintain the same Doctrine as before as Lanfrank complains of him 9. Yet his Enemies would not rest satisfied with this An. 1058. Con. Rom. sub Nicol. Papa 11. but they urged Pope Nicholas the Second who within a few months that Stephen the Tenth sate succeeded Victor without the Emperours consent to call a new Council at Rome against Berengarius For that sensual manner of presence by them devised to the great dishonour of Christ being rejected by Berengarius and he teaching as he did before That the Body of Christ was not present in such a sort as that it might be at pleasure brought in and out taken into the stomach cast on the ground trod under foot and bit or devoured by any beasts they falsly charged him as if he had denied that it is present at all An hundred and thirteen Bishops came to the Council An. 1059. to obey the Popes Mandate Berengarius came also And as k De Regn. Ital. l. 9. An. 1059. Sigonius and l In Chro. Cassin l. 3. c. 33. Leo Ostiensis say when none present could withstand him they sent for one Albericus a Monk of Mont Cassin made Cardinalby Pope Stephen who having asked seven days time to answer in writing brought at last his Scroll against Berengarius The Reasons and Arguments used therein to convince his Antagonist are not now extant but whatever they were Berengarius was commanded presently without any delay m Baron ad A. 1059 § 18. to recant in that form prescribed and appointed by Cardinal Humbeert which was thus n Habetur apud Gratian de Consecr dist 2. cap. 42. I Berengarius c. assent to the holy Roman and Apostolick See and with may heart and mouth do profess that I hold that Faith concerning the Sacrament of the Lords Table which our Lord and Venerable Pope Nicholas and this sacred Council have determined and imposed upon me by their Evangelick and Apostolick Authority to wit That the Bread and Wine which are set on the Altar are not after the Consecration only a Sacrament Sign and figure but also the very Body and Bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ thus far it is well enough but what follows is too horrid and is disowned by the Papists themselves and that they the Body and Bloud are touched and broken with the hands of the Priests and ground with the teeth of the Faithful not Sacramentally only but in truth and sensibly This is the Prescript of the Recantation imposed on Berengarius and by him at first rejected but by imprisonment and threats and fear of being put to death at last extorted from o Pap. Mass Annal Franc. l. 3. him 10. This form of Recantation is to be found entire in a Sub libri quem cont Bereng scripsit initium Lanfrank b Lib 2. c. 15. Algerus and c Ubi supra Gracian yet the Glosser on Gratian d In C●●go Bereng de Consecrat dist ● John Semeca marks it with this note Except you understand well the words of Berengarius he should rather have said of Pope Nicholas and Cardinal Humbertus you shall fall into a greater Heresie than his was e In C. utrum sub figura 72. for he exceeded the truth and spake hyperbolically And so f In 4 dist 9. prin ● q. 1. Richard de Mediavilla Berengarius being accussed overshot himself in his Justification but the excess of his words should be ascribed to those who prescribed and forced them upon him Yet in all this we hear nothing of Transubstantiation 11. Berengarius at last escaped out of this danger and conscious to himself of having denied the truth took heart again and refuted in writing his own impious and absurd Recantation and said That by force it was exterted from him by the Church of Malignants the Council of vanity Lanfrank of Caen at that time head of a Monastery in France afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury and Guitmundus Aversanus answered him And though it is not to be doubted but that Berengarius and those of his Party writ and replied again and again yet so well did their Adversaries look to it that nothing