put forth in Print without any adding or withdrawing any thing for the more faithful reporting of the same In Witness whereof they have subscribed their Names I will not go about to imitate their several different hands least I prove a Bungler at it but I observe the Bishop of Durham's Title is very differently Written from all the rest for it is in Greek Characters 1 Matthue Archbishop of Canterburye 2 Tho. Ebor. Archiepiscopus 3 Edm. London 4 Ja. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 5 Rob. Winton 6 William Bushoppe of Chicester 7 Jo. Bushop of Heref. 8 Richarde Bishope of Ely. 9 Ed. Wigorn. 10 N. Lincoln 11 R. Meneven 12 Thomas Covent and Lich. 13 John Norwic. 14 Joannes Carleolen 15 Will. Cestren 16 Thomas Assaphen 17 Nicolaus Bangor Hii Patres precedentes subscripserunt manibus suis propriis in hoc Libello Now out of the whole four things are observable 1. That even before the time of Elfrick the Doctrine of Christs Spiritual presence only was the Doctrine commonly and currently received in all the Western Churches whatever fantastical Notions some private men might entertain to the contrary For those Eighty Sermons which Elfrick spake of as of his Preface to the Book now mention'd own Writing whereof that upon Easter-Day was one were not of his own composure but Tranflations which he made out of Latin Writers which Ib. shews that the Latins whom he followed and Translated had been positive against the new conceit of a Corporal presence 2. That in Elfrck's time the same Doctrine was constantly held throughout the whole Church of England as the True Doctrine For how can we imagine that Elfricks Translations could be read publickly in the Churches in England if the English Bishops did not believe them to contain Doctrines that were found and agreeable to the Catholick Faith Or how can we conceive that Elfrick's Epistles should be put among the publick Writings of our Church had not the Doctrines in them been publickly own'd and profest here And yet it is evident that among other Canons which our Bishops collected out of Gildas Ib. Theodorus Egbert Alcuine and out of the Fathers of the Primitive Ages they did sort those Epistles of Elfrick for the better ordering of the English Church 3. That those Writings of Elfrick's did so directly strike at the Errours of Paschasius as if he had purposely designed to prevent those Errours from creeping into this Kingdom and throughly to season the whole Nation against them For in some places he takes the Opinion nay the very words of Paschasius and contradicts him so flatly in the words of Bertram and others of the former Century that you would think he had some of those Authors before him as perhaps he had 4. That upon the Conquest when divers of the Foreign Clergy came hither with and after Lancfrank an Italian Patron of Paschasius's gross Opinion and now sent for by the Conqueror to be Archbishop of Canterbury they found the Doctrine of the Spiritual presence only taught and profest in the Church of England For this reason they fell soul upon the Records of our Church and especially upon those Latin Authors which Elfrick had made use of and upon what they could understand of Elfrick's own Writings So that those Eighty Latin Sermons which Elfrick had Translated are long ago lost nor did the Latin Epistle to Wulfstane which they found in the Library Ibid. at Worcester and probably was given to that Library Ibid. by Wulfstane himself escape them neither For in part of that Epistle where the tender point lay a perfect Rasure was committed I have Noted the words above in a Parenthesis viz. that this Sacrifice is not made that Non fit tamen hoc Sacrificium Corpus ejus in quo passus est pro nobis neque Sanguis ejus quem pro nobis effudit sed spiritualiter Corpus ejus efficitur Sanguis sicut Manna quod de Coelo pluit aqua quoe de Petra fluxit Body of Christ in which he suffer'd for us nor that Blood of Christ which he shed for us but it becomes Spiritually his Body and Blood as the Manna that descended from Heaven and the Water which flowed out of the Rock These words were flatly and expresly against the Opinion of Paschasius and therefore they were quite rased out tho' afterwards they were restored to us out of another Latin Copy of the same Epistle in the Church of Exeter which by good luck had escaped their Tallons Had these Men understood the Saxon Language perhaps we should have had very little or nothing of Elfricks Writings left us But such foul play is an evident Argument of a very bad Cause And so I shall leave it to your consideration what little Reason the Romanists have to call us Hereticks and Innovators in this point when 't is so plain that the Innovation lieth at their own door and that when it first began to peep into the World the Church of England would not endure it but even in the days of the Saxons when the Controversie about it was so hot abroad especially in France She still maintain'd the Doctrine of the spiritual presence so that it held on constantly here to the time of the Conquest and might have held on still in an uninterrupted course from Age to Age had it not been for some Workers of Iniquity Let us now cross the Sea again and go on with out Relation of this matter how it stood abroad whence I have a little diverted you though I hope with no unuseful or unpleasant Digression In the Tenth Century this Controversie seem'd to lie pretty Quiet some following the phancy of Paschasius that Christ's Natural Body is in the Sacrament his Body properly so called that which he took of the Holy Virgin that which suffer'd upon the Cross c. Others following the Catholick Faith of the Ancient Church that it is Christ's Spiritual Body meaning not his Flesh properly but the Virtue of his Flesh Qui dicunt esse virtutem Carnis non Carnem virtutem Sanguinis non Sanguinem Paschas in Math. 26. not his Blood but the Virtue of his Blood as Paschasius himself represents their meaning in his time The Truth is this Tenth Century abounded with Men from whom the World could not expect any thing that was good some very illiterate some very Dull and Unactive some very Lewd some very Ambitious and self ended and some quite discouraged by the tempestuousness of the times By the account all Learned Men have given us it was a most Infamous Age the worst that ever was or hath been hitherto since the beginning of Christianity Probable it is that at this time Paschasius his Opinion did spread and even to the Court of Rome when nothing in comparison was in the way to stop it And when it was once gotten thither 't is easie to believe that indigent Men or flatterers would be found to
figure and kind and are to be Seen and Touched as they were before Nothing can be plainer than this to Men who are not obstinately addicted to an Opinion in spight of all Reason and Sense And what Theodoret saith here is very agreeable to what he told Eranistes in the First Dialogue viz. That our Saviour honoured the visible Symbols with the Appellation of his Body and Blood not changing the Nature of them but adding Grace to Nature To avoid all this our Adversaries pretend that by Substance and Nature Theodoret means the Accidents of Bread which is in effect to tell us that they are utterly resolved to believe or at least to befriend a Lie For who that really loves Truth would thus confound things so as to make Substance and Accident the same But if they will strain their parts to play tricks with words how can they make this their interpretation to come up to Theodoret's design or to reach the Argument he had in hand which was about the supposed substantial change of Christ's Humane Nature into his Divinity Theodorets purpose was to Confute this by Arguing from the Doctrine of the Sacrament and had the Church believed a Substantial change of the Bread this would have confirm'd the Eutychian in his Opinion but it could not have Confuted it For the Heretick desired no more to be granted him but this that the Nature or Substance of the Elements doth cease though the Accidents continue And this indeed would have favour'd his conceit that the Substance of Christ's Humanity did cease the Properties of it Remaining still But Theodoret could not be so weak as to yield this for then he would inevitably have lost himself in his Dispute But what think you of a Pope that disputed against the Eutychians too and that from the very same Doctrine of the Sacrament It was no less a Man than Gelasius who was Bishop of Rome Anno 492. and wrote a Celebrated Book of the two Natures in Christ Which though Bellarmine and some more about Bellarmine's time denied to be this Galasius his Book yet the Arguments against them are so strong that Cardinal Perron Petavius and other Learned and more Ingenuous Men since have yielded us that point And the moderate Writer I quoted before saith This Work is assuredly of Pope Gelasius c. In that piece of Gelasius his Book which we have extant Treatise of Transub p. 40. in the Bibliotheca Patrum he teacheth the same Doctrine which Theodoret did and for the confirmation of the same thing as Cardinal Bellarmine doth Bellarm. de Euch. lib. 2. cap. 27. confess And what can be plainer than these words of Gelasius Viz. That the Sacraments which we receive of the Body and Blood Certè Sacramenta quae sumimus Corporis Sanguinis Domini divina res est propter quod per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae tamen esse non desinit Substantia vel Natura Panis Vini c. of the Lord is a Divine thing because by them we are made partakers of the Divine Nature and yet the Substance or Nature of the Bread and Wine doth not cease to be And truly the Representation and Similitude of Christ's Body and Blood is Celebrated in the Ministration of these Mysteries and therefore it is plain that we must think that of Christ himself which we profess and Celebrate in this Representation of him His meaning evidently is that we must believe the Permanency of Christ's Humane Nature though united to the Divine because in the Holy Eucharist which is the Representation of Christ the Nature and Substance of Bread and Wine remaineth though Consecrated by the Minister And yet we have another eminent Writer on our side no less a Man than Ephram who was Patriarch of Antiâ—ch about Anno 540. He disputed too against the Eutychians and drew the very same Argument from the Sacrament which others had used before him shewing that the Humanity of Christ did not Cease in its Substance by being united to the word no more than the Bread ceaseth in its Substance by the Addition of Spiritual Grace That says he Phetii Bibliothee cod 229. which is received by the Faithful doth not depart out of its own sensible Substance and yet continues undivided from the intelligible Grace And least it should be replyed though 't is strange it should that by Substance he means the Species and Accidents of the Bread he says the same thing of the Sacrament of Baptism where no Romanist ever affirmed any Transubstantiation to be His words are these Baptism also which becomes entirely a Spiritual thing and is One doth conserve still the propriety of the sensible Substance I mean Water and loseth not what it was Whence 't is clear that Ephram lookt upon the case in both Sacraments to be the same an Addition of Spiritual Grace to be in both but a loss of Substance to be in neither nor any other change to be in the Eucharist than what is in Baptism Sir I have instanced in those four Writers particularly not only because they were all Great Men in their Times Three of them Patriarchs nay one of them Patriarch of Rome but because they all argued against the same Heresie after the same manner which to me seems very observable and providential For tho the Eutychian Heresie prevailed so long and did spread so far that it did vast mischief yet God directed the issues of it so that 't was an occasion of shewing us what the Catholick Faith was both in the Greek and Latin Churches in those most Learned and flourishing times of Christianity concerning that great point which in these latter Ages hath made so many distractions in Christendom For it is not to be imagined but that these Eminent Bishops spake the sense of the whole Catholick Church over which they presided For having to do with obstinate Hereticks they were obliged to encounter them upon principles which all Christians consented to and were agreed otherwise the Disputations would have been Endless had they argued from principles of their own and which they were still to prove It was necessary for them to proceed upon some common Foundation whereon both Hereticks and Catholicks did stand and such was this Doctrine of the Sacrament for which Reason the Learned Doctors of the Church chose to insist upon it nor do I find that the Hereticks did contradict it or endeavour to destroy it which they would most certainly have done considering how much it made against them had they not known it to have been a principle universally receiv'd that the Bread and Wine are not Transubstantiated but remain still in their own Nature and Substance even after Consecration For this Reason I have omitted an hundred other quotations out of the Ancients and have taken notice only of this their common Argument against the Eutychians because I think it a plain and concise way of confuting the Popish pretence
touching the Antiquity of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation For it is not imaginable that the Ancients would have spoken so peremptorily and dogmatically in this point had they not had the Authority of the whole Church to have back't them And because they spake this so freely and that as a common Argument against those Learned Hereticks we may be sure that what they said was the common Faith of the Catholick Church in those times I mean in the Sixth Century And now Sir I shall proceed to Examine how the matter stood as to this point in the times following It is evident that the great Council of 338. Fathers who met at Constantinople Anno 754. were of this Faith That the Bread in the Eucharist is not Christ himself but the Image of him For this they urg'd as an Argument against the use of all other Images because the Symbols in the Eucharist are the only Image of himself which he left his Church Now this utterly overthrows the Doctrine of the Corporal presence and much rather the conceit of Transubstantiation For if the Bread be the Image of his Body it cannot be the Body it self as the Second Nicene Council argued when they oppos'd the Definitions of this Council at Constantinople And besides there is something very observable in the Discourse of this Council upon this point which I wonder so many Writers have not taken notice of and it is this that Christ Ordaining at his last Supper this Image of himself intended to shew the Mystery of his Incarnation And to this purpose they exprest themselves as any one may see by consulting the Acts of the Council As Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 6. when Christ took our Nature he took barely the matter of Humane Substance not his whole Person Divinity and all for to suppose that would be an Offence or Derogation to the Deity so when he appointed this Image of himself he chose barely the Substance of Bread not any shape of Man in it but only a Representation of his Natural Flesh for that would have been an Intreduction of Idolatry Moreover they say that as Christ's Natural Body was Holy by being filled with the Deity so this Image of him becomes Holy by being Sanctified by Grace and as that Flesh of ours which Christ took became Sanctified by being united to the Deity so is the Bread in the Eucharist the true Image of his Natural Flesh Sanctified by the Advent of the Holy Spirit c. Is this at all consistent with Transubstantiation or with the Doctrine of Christ's Corporal presence in the Sacrament And yet this was the sense of those 338. Fathers which they Dogmatically deliver'd as the sense of the Church whereof they lookt upon themselves as the Representatives Therefore Cardinal Bellarmine understanding their sense throughly and finding how strongly and invincibly it made against Transubstantiation had no other way left him but to rank this great Council among Hereticks nay he says they were the first that ever called in question the Truth of the Lords Body in the Eucharist Now this Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 1. is easily said but by his favour they denied not the reality of Christ's Spiritual presence but of his Corporal presence only as we Protestants do Nay he himself rightly observes in the same place that the Protestant Faith in this point was not reckon'd among any of the Ancient Heresies nor so much as disputed against by any one of the Ancients for the first 600. Years For how should any Dispute against that which was the Common Faith of the Church and had been so all along to the time of this Constantinopolitan Council Those Fathers did no more but declare that publickly which they had received from former Ages and now made use of as a proper Argument against Images The Patrons of Images finding themselves pinch't with this Argument began to move a point which hitherto lay quiet and to strain those words This is my Body to a sense beyond what had been formerly taught though it was a great while before they could hammer out their New Notions into any Form for they spake very confusedly inconsistently and grosly as if Christ's Natural Body were in the Sacrament And though I do not find that any of them went so far as to own yet a Substantial change of the Nature of the Bread and Wine into the Substance of Flesh and Blood which is the conceit of the Church of Rome now yet 't is plain that what these Innovators said caused a New Great Controversie in Christendom and that just upon the neck of the former Quarrel about Images whereof I have already given you a particular and Faithful account II. And now I am come to the Second Thing I promised to shew you which was when and how the sense of the Ancient Church about the Sacrament came to be alter'd what progress that alteration made and what strong Opposition it met with for several Ages after it began It is generally agreed that Paschasius Rathbertus was one of the first Innovators in the Latin Church Vide Albertin de Sacram. p. 920. about Anno 818. He was first a Monk and afterwards Abbot of Corbey in France and a Man of some considerable Reputation especially for those times when Learning was most decayed which perhaps might transport him into an undue Opinion of his own abilities and that might make him affect singularity However it came about two very Learned Jesuites are agreed that Paschasius was a Leading Man in this business So says Bellarmine that Paschasius Bellarm. de Scriptor Eccles in Paschas Sirmond in vita Paschasii operibus ejus prefix was the first Author that wrote seriously and copiously of the Truth of the Lords Body and Blood in the Eucharist And so saith Sirmondus that Paschasius was the first that explained the Genuine sense of the Catholick he means the Roman Church so as that he opened the way to others who afterwards wrote upon the same Subject The Book which they chiefly mean is that of the Body and Blood of the Lord written to one Placidus a young man whom Paschasius dearly loved In reading of this Book one shall find so many dark Riddles unconquerable perplexities and plain inconsistences that it may be justly questioned whether they are possible to be reconciled to Truth or Sense nay whether the Man himself understood what he would be at One while he will have it to be nothing else but the Flesh and Blood of Christ and another while to be a Figure and the Flesh and Blood of Christ Mystically Now he says that Christ's Body is Created in the Sacrament than that it is made of the Substance of Bread and by and by that the Mystery is Celebrated in the Substance of Bread and Wine Sometime he tells us that 't is the very Body which Christ took of the Virgin and presently that it is wholly a Spiritual and Divine thing
Account we have hitherto had of that Council is very imperfect but the Learned and inquisitive Du Plessis saw some Manuscript Acts of this Council which though they struck immediately at Amalarius for some Errours he held about the Sacrament De missa lib. 4. cap. 8. pag. 743. yet are they so Opposite to Paschasius's Fancy and Destructive of it as if the Council had intended to wound Paschasius through Amalarius his side Thus it was Amalarius Archbishop of Lyons was a considerable men in that Age but in some points he held very absurd and monstrous Opinions for which reason the Church of Lyons afterwards took it ill that Amalarius Multum molestè dolenter accepimus ut Ecclesiastici prudentes viri tantam injuriam sibimetipfis fecerint ut Amalarium de Fedei ratione consulerent qui verbit Libris suis mendaciis erroribus fantasticis atque hereticis disputationibus plenis omnes pene apud Frauciam Ecclesias nonnullas etiam aliarum regiontum quantum in se fult infecit atque corrupit c. Eccles Lug. dunens de tribut Epistolis Bibliothec. P 9. had been consulted in the cause against Gotteschalchus because he had done his endeavour to infect and corrupt all the hurches in France With Lyes and Errours and with fantastical and He retical disputations that his Writings ought to have been burnt The Errours thus objected against him seem plainly to have been those concerning the Sacrament For this was one of his Fantastical and Heretical Notions that Christ hath a Tripartite Body one that he took of the Virgin another that is in us who live upon the Earth and a Third that is in those who are dead This monstrous Opinion we find in the 35th Chapter of his Third Book de Officiis Ecclesiasticis and it was laid to his charge by the Carisiac Synod as Du Plessis shews And this seems to be that foolery about the Tripartite Redy of Ad ultimum quoeso ne sequaris ineptias de Tripartito Christi Corpore Paschas ad Frudegard in fine Christ which Paschasius himself caution'd Frudegard against For this was a different thing from Paschasius his Imagination of the threefold Body of Christ Though Amalarius favour'd Paschasius his Opinion as to the main of it yet in some things they were divided that Innovation being as yet Raw and Undigested But besides this Amalarius had another New conceit agreeable to that of Paschasius that the simple Nature of Amalar. de Offic Ecclesiast c. 24. Bread and Wine is turn'd into a reasonable Nature that is the Nature of Christ's Body and Blood though he could not tell what becomes of this Body when 't is received whether it goes up to Heaven or flies out into the Air or remains in the Communicants Body till death or goes out at the opening of the Vein Such phantastical and heretical conceits had this Man Answer to the Jesuites Challenge pag. 79. about this matter for Bishop Usher saw in Bennet's Colledge Library one of his Epistles in Manuscript to Guitard wherein he exprest himself to this purpose and the same Errours were charged upon him by the Carisiac Synod also Now the Councils definition upon this strikes at all in short to the ruin of Amalarius and Paschasius his cause too viz. That the Bread and Wine is Spiritually made the Body of Christ that is the Mystery of our Life and Salvation wherein one thing is seen by the Eye of the Body and another by the Eye of Faith that it is the Food of the mind not of the Belly that in that visible Bread and Drink a Man receives the virtue of invisible Grace and that the Body of Christ is not in the visible thing but in the Spiritual Virtue c. The Acts of this Council were written by Florus and dedicated to several Bishops and other Great Men at that time Which is a clear Argument that the sense of the Carisiac Synod was very agreeable to the received Doctrine of the Church then Which I note the rather because for the space of about 200. years no Council but this took any notice that I know of the Doctrine of the Sacrament and yet a great many Synods were held on several occasions in that long tract of time and a Controversie upon such a weighty point could not have escaped them all and this being the first that ruin'd the pretence of a Corporal Presence it is easie to believe that till now there had been no occasion for a publick difinition in this point and that when this occasion was offer'd they were resolved to stifle this Innovation upon its first appearance To go on now with matter of Fact Of those that singly engaged in the quarrel with Paschasius Bertram was the next You find by the Nameless Author above mentioned that not only Rabanus wrote against him but also Ratranus who is now usually called Bertram for he is indifferently called Bertramus Ratramnus Ratrannus Whatever his right Name was he was a Monk of Corbey and a very Eminent Person about Anno 840. for the Controversie now growing hot especially in France where it had been kindled and Carolus Calvus being very desirous to quench it in time directed Bertram so I will now call him to give his sense of it Bertram in obedience to the King's Command wrote an Excellent book upon the Subject in the beginning whereof he takes notice of no small Schism that then was in the Church about the Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood and then he states the Two Great Questions which Carolus Calvus had proposed to him I. Whether the Sacrament be a Figure of some secret thing which is exhibited with it and which is the Object not of Sense but of Faith. II. Whether that thing so exhibited be the very Natural Body of Christ which was Born of the Virgin Mary which Suffer'd which was Dead and Buried which Rose again which Ascended into Heaven and Sitteth at the Right Hand of the Father which was the Opinion and the very words of Paschasius I. As to the First though at the close of his Book he denies the Sacrament to be a meer Figure a bare Shadow an empty Sign without Christ's real Presence yet he owns it to be a Figure and solidly proves from Scripture Reason and the Authority of several Ancient Fathers that it is a Figure and that under the visible and corruptible Elements as under a Cover is contained a Divine and Spiritual Thing which is believed to be there upon Consecration through the Operation of the Spirit without any Corporal change of the things we see but the Elements Neque ista commutatio corporaliter sed spiritualiter facta Quoniam sub velamento Corporei panis Corporeique vini spirituale Corpus Christi spiritualisque sanguis existit Nam secundum Creaturarum Substantiam quod fuerunt ante Consecrationem hoc posten consistunt remaining still
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