* de Scriptor.

And for this, befides the Evidence of History, we have the acknowledgment of two very Eminent Perfons in the Church of Rome, Bellarmine and Sirmondus, who do in effect confefs that this Pafchafius was the first who wrote to purpose upon this Argument. * Bellarmine in these words, This Authour was the first who Ecclef. hath feriously and copiously written concerning the truth of Chrift's body and bloud in the Eucharift: And † Sir- tin vita Palmondus in thefe, he fo first explained the genuine fenfe chafii. of the Catholique Church, that he opened the way to the reft who afterwards in great numbers wrote upon the fame Argument: But though Sirmondus is pleafed to fay that he onely first explain'd the fenfe of the Catholique Church in this point, yet it is very plain from the Records of that Age which are left to us, that this was the first time that this Doctrine was broached in the Latin Church; and it met with great oppofition in that Age, as I fhall have occafion hereafter to fhew. For Rabanus Maurus Arch-Bishop of Mentz about the year DCCCXLVII reciting the very words of Pafchafius wherein he had deliver'd this Doctrine, hath this remarkable paffage concerning the novelty of it; Some, I Epift. ad fays he, of late, not having a right opinion concerning c. 33. the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Lord, have faid that this is the body and bloud of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary, and in which our Lord fuffered upon the Cross and rofe from the dead: which errour, fays he, we have oppos'd 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 eminent reputation for Piety, that what is now the very Doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning the Sacrament, was then efteem'd an Errour broach'd by foine particular Perfons, but was far from being the generally receiv'd Doctrine of that Age. Can any

D

one

Heribaldum.

confecrat. di

Domini. c. 5.

one think it poffible, that fo eminent a Perfon in the Church both for piety and learning, could have condemn'd this Doctrine as an Errour and a Novelty, had it been the general Doctrine of the Christian Church, not onely in that but in all former Ages; and no cenfure pass'd upon him for that which is now the great burning Article in the Church of Rome, and esteemed by them one of the greatest and most pernicious Heresies?

Afterwards in the year MLIX, when Berengarius 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 Rome, in these words, * Gratian. de* that the bread and wine which are fet upon the Altar, ftinct. 2. after the confecration are not onely the Sacrament, but Lanfranc. de the true body and bloud of our Lord Jefus Christ; and corp. & fang are fenfibly, not onely in the Sacrament but in truth, Guitmund. handled and broken by the hands of the Priest, and de Sacram. Id. ground or bruifed by the teeth of the faithfull. But it eram.l.1.c.19. feems the Pope and his Council were not then skilfull enough to express themselves rightly in this matter; + Glofs. De for the Glofs upon the Canon Law fays exprefly, † that cret. de confe- unless we understand these words of BERENGARIUS in cap.Ego Be- (that is in truth of the Pope and his Council) in a found rengarius. fenfe, we shall fall into a greater Herefie than that of

crat. dift. 2.

BERENGARIUS; 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 Body 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 Chrift,) but into wholes: Now this new way of breaking a Body, not into parts but into wholes (which in good earnest is the Doctrine 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, yet to us that cannot believe so it appears to be folid non-fenfe.

About

Waldenf.

About XX years after, in the year MLXXIX Pope Gregory the VIIth began to be fenfible of this abfurdity; and therefore in another Councat Rome made Berengarius to recant in another Form, viz. * that the bread and * wine which are placed upon the Altar are fubftantially Tom. 2.c. 13. changed into the true and proper and quickning flesh and bloud of our Lord Jefus Christ, 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 on the right hand of the Father.

So that from the first starting of this Doctrine in the fecond Council of Nice in the year DCCLXXXVII, till the Council under Pope Gregory the VIIth in the year MLXXIX, it was almost three hundred years that this Doctrine was contested, and before this mifhapen Monster of Tranfubftantiation could be lick'd into that Form in which it is now fetled and establish'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 Faith. I come now in the

Third place, to answer the great pretended Demonftration 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 confequently 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, when ever it had attempted first to come in there would have been a great ftir and bustle about it, and the whole Chriftian World would have nofe up in oppofition to it. But we can flew no fuch time 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 Demonftration Monfieur

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 rise of this Doctrine, about the beginning of the ninth Age; though it did not take firm root nor was fully fetled and establish'd till towards the end of the eleventh. And this was the most likely time of all other, from the beginning of Christianity, for fo grofs an Errour to appear; it being, by the confeffion and confent of their own Hiftorians, the most dark and dismal time that ever happened to the Chriftian Church, both for Ignorance, and Superftition, and Vice. It came in together with Idolatry, and was made use 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 afleep in profound Ignorance and Superftition? And this agrees very well with the account which our Saviour himfelf gives in the Parable of the Tares, of the fpringing up of Errours and Corruptions in the Field of the *Matth. 13. Church. While the men flept the Enemy did his work in the Night, fo that when they were awake they wondered 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.

24.

Secondly, I have fhewn likewife that there was confiderable oppofition made to this Errour at its first coming in. The general Ignorance and grofs Superftition of that Age rendered 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 greater reverence and devotion to the Sacrament, and that feemed any way to countenance

the

the worship of Images, for which at that time they were zealously 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 resistance against it. I have already named Rabanus Arch-Bishop of Mentz, who oppos'd it as an Errour lately fprung up and which had then gained but upon fome few perfons. To whom I may add Heribaldus Bishop of Auxerres in France, Io. Scotus Erigena, and Ratramnus commonly known by the name of Bertram, who at the fame time were employed by the Emperour Charles the Bald to oppose this growing Errour, and wrote learnedly against it. And these were the eminent men for learning in that time. And because Monfieur Arnauld will not be fatisfied unless there were some stir 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 blond were divided by no Small 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 thefe pains have cut it. For fuppofe this Doctrine had filently come in and without oppofition, fo that we could not affign the particular time and occafion of its first Rife; yet if it be evident from the Records of former Ages, for above D. years together, that this was not the ancient belief of the Church; and plain alfo, that this Doctrine was afterwards received in the Ro man Church, though we could not tell how and when it came in, yet it would be the wildest and most extravagant thing in the world to set up a pretended Demonstration of Reason against plain Experience and matter of Fact. This is jult Zeno's Demonftration of

the