Church; and it met with great oppofition in that Age, as I fhall have occafion hereafter to fhew. For Rabanus Maurus Archbishop of Mentz, about the year DCCCXLVII. reciting the very words of Pafchafius, wherein he had delivered this Doctrine, hath this remarkable paffage concern. ing the novelty of it; (w) Some, fays he, of late not baving a right opinion concerning the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord, have faid that this is the Bodyand Blood of our Lord,which was born of the Virgin Mary, and in which our Lord fuffered upon the Grofs and rose from the dead: which error, fays he, we have opposed with all our might. From whence it is plain, by the Teftimony of one of the greatest and most learned Bishops of that Age, and of emnient reputation for Piety, that what is now the very Do&rine of the Church of Rome concerning the Sacrament, was then esteemed an Error broached by fome particular Perfons, but was far from being the generally receiv'd Do arine of that Age. Can any one think it poffible that fo emnient a Perfon in the Church, both for Piety and Learning, could bave condemn'd this Doctrine as an Error and a Novelty, had it been the general Doctrine of the Chriftian Church, not only in that but in all former Ages and no Cenfure pafs'd upon him for that which is now the great burning Article in the Church of Rome, and efteemed by them one of the greatest and most pernicious Herefies?

Afterwards in the year MLIX, when Berenga rius in France and Germany had rais'd a fresh Oppofition against this Doctrine, he was compell'd to recant it by Pope Nicholas and the Council at

(w) Epik. ad Heribaldum, v. 33.

Rome,

Rome, in these words, (x) That the Bread and Wine which are fet upon the Altar, after the Confecration, are not only the Sacrament, but the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Chrift; and are fenfibly, not only in the Sacrament, but in truth, bandled and broken by the hands of the Prieft, and ground or bruifed by the Teeth of the Faithful. But it feems the Pope and his Council were not then skilful enough to exprefs themselves rightly in this matter; for the Glofs upon the Canon-Law fays exprefly, (y) That unless we understand thefe words of BERENGARIUS (that is in truth of the Pope and his Council) in a found fenfe, wè fall fall into a greater Herely than that of B ERENGARIUS: for we do not make parts of the Body of Chrift. The meaning of which Glofs I cannot imagine, unless it be this, That the Bo

of Chrift, though it be in truth broken, yet it is not broken into parts, (for we do not make parts of the Body of Christ) but into wholes: Now this new way of breaking a body, not into parts but into wholer, (which in good earneft is the Doatrine of the Church of Rome) though to them that are able to believe Tranfubftantiation it may for any thing I know appear to be found fenfe, yer to us that cannot believe so, it appears to be folid Nonfenfe.

Abour XX years after, in the year MLXXIX Pope Gregory the VIth began to be fenfible of this abfurdity; and therefore in another Council at Rome made Berengarins to recant in anotherForm,

(x) Gratian. de Confecrat. diftinét. 2. Lanfranc. de corp. &fang. Domini, c. 5: Guil. mun. de Sacram. Algar. de Sa-. cram. I. 1. c. 19. (y) Glof. Decser. de confecias. dift. in cap. Ego Berengarius.

B 4

viz. (z) That the Bread and Wine which are placea upon the Altar, are fubftantially changed into the true and proper and quickning Flesh and Blood of our Lord Jefus Chrift, and after Confecration are the true Body of Chrift, which was born of the Virgin, and which being offered for the Salvation of the World did hang upon the Cross, and fits at the right hand of the Father.

So that from the firft ftarting of this Do&trine in the fecond Council of Nice in the year DCCLXXXVII, till the Council under Pope Gregory the VIIth in the year MLXXIX, it was almoft three hundred years that this Doctrine was contefted, and before this mishapen Monster of Tranfubftantiation could be lick'd into that form in which it is now fettled and eftablish'd in the Church of Rome. Here then is a plain account of the first rife of this Doctrine, and of the feveral fteps whereby it was advanced by the Church of Rome into an Article of the Faith. I come now in the

Third place, to answer the great pretended De monftration of the impoffibility that this Doctrine, if it had been new, fhould ever have come in in any Age, and been received in the Church: and confe quently it must of neceffity have been the perpetual Belief of the Church in all Ages: For if it had not always been the Doctrine of the Church, whenever it had attempted first to come in there would have been a great flir and bustle about it, and the whole Chriftian World would have rofe up in oppofition to it. But we can fhew no fuch me when it first came in, and when any fuch oppofition was made to it, and therefore it was always the Doctrine of the Church. This De

(z) Waldenf, To. 1, C. 13.

monstration

monftration Monsieur Arnauld, a very learned Man in France, pretends, to be unanswerable: Whether it be fo or not I fhall briefly examine. And,

First, We do affign a punctual and very likely time of the first rife of this Doctrine, about the beginning of the ninth Age; though it did not take firm root, nor was fully fettled and established till towards the end of the eleventh. And this was the most likely time of all other, from the beginning of Chriftianity, for fo grofs an Error to appear; it being, by the confeffion and confent of their own Hiftorians, the most dark and dismal time that ever happened to the Christian Church, both for Ignorance and Superftition and Vice. It came in together with Idolatry, and was made ufe of to fupport it: A fit Prop and Companion for it. And indeed what Tares might not the Enemy have fown in fo dark and long a Night; when fo confiderable a part of the Chriftian World was lull'd alleep in profound Ignorance and Superstition? And this agrees very well with the account which our Saviour himself gives in the Parable of the Tares, of the fpringing up of Errors and Corruptions in the Field of the Church. (b) While, the Men flept the Enemy did his Work in the Night, fo that when they were awake, they won dered how and whence the Tares came; but being fure they were there, and that they were not fown at first, they concluded the Enemy had done it.

Secondly, I have fhewn likewife that there was confiderable oppofition made to this Error at its filt coming in. The general Ignorance and grofs Su

(b) Matth. 13. 24.

B5

perftition

perftition of that Age rendred the generality of People more quiet and fecure, and difpofed them to receive any thing that came under a pretence of Mystery in Religion, and of a greater Reverence and Devotion to the Sacrament, and that feemed any way to countenance the Worship of Images, for which at that time they were zealoufly concern'd. But notwithstanding the fecurity and paffive Temper of the People, the Men moft eminent for Piety and Learning in that Time made great refiftance against it. I have already named Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz, who oppofed it as an Error lately fprung up and which had then gain'd but up on fome few Perfons. To whom I may add Heribaldus Bishop of Auxerres in France, Jo. Scotus, Erigena, and Ratramus, commonly known by the name of Bertram, who at the fame time were employ'd by the Emperour Charles the Bald to oppofe this growing Error, and wrote learnedly against it. And these were the eminent Men for Learning in that time. And Becaufe-Monfieur Arnauld will not be fatisfied unlef's there were fome ftir and bustle about it, ~Bertram in his Preface to his Book tells us, that they who according to their feveral opinions talked differently about the mystery of Chrift's body and blood were divided by no fmall Schifm.

Thirdly, Though for a more clear and fatisfactory Answer to this pretended Demonftration I have been contented to untie this Knot, yet I could without all these pains have cut it. For fuppofe this Do&trine had filently come in and without oppofition, fo that we could not af fign the particular time and occafion of its firft Rife; yet if it be evident from the Records of former Ages for above 500 Years together, that

this