"and were, on that account, called Berengarians. Berengarius was "succeeded by Peter Bruis, who preached at Toulouse, under the pro"tection of an earl, named Hildephonsus; and the whole tenets of the "reformers, with the reasons of their separation from the church of Rome, "were published in a book written by Bruis under the title of ANTI"CHRIST. In the year 1140, the number of the reformed was very great, " and the probability of their increasing alarmed the pope, who wrote to ❝ several princes to banish them their dominions, and employed many "learned men to write against them. In 1147, Henry of Toulouse, "being deemed their most eminent preacher, they were called Henri"cians, and as they would not admit of any proofs relative to religion but "what could be deduced from the scriptures themselves, the popish party "gave them the name of Apostolics. Peter Waldo, or Valdo, a native of Lyons, at this time became a strenuous opposer of popery; and from "him the reformed received the appellation of Waldoy, or Waldenses. "Waldo was a man eminent for his learning and benevolence; and his "doctrines were adopted by multitudes. The bishop of Lyons, taking "umbrage at the freedom with which he treated the pope and Romish "clergy, sent to admonish him to refrain in future from such discourses; "but Waldo answered, "That he could not be silent in a cause of such "importance as the salvation of men's souls; wherein he must obey "God rather than man.'"

Such is the introduction made by Fox, on changing his tone respecting the subject of religion; let us now examine his statements by the test of history. We have shewn the impossibility of the smallest degree of error in points of faith creeping into the church of Christ, though Fox blasphemously asserts that it was tainted with many corruptions; but we do not mean to deny that there were artful priests, who sought to delude and lead others into error. Among these we have seen Arius and his abettors, both bishops and priests, condemned by Fox himself, Novatus, Eutyches, Nestorius, and a swarm of heretics, who were immediately detected and denounced by the guardians of the true faith as soon as their novelties began to be made public. The same was the case with Berengarius, who is named by John Fox as the principal among "the worthies," who, about the year 1000" preached gospel truths according to their primitive purity." This "worthy," this gospel preacher, was honoured with the Catholic priesthood, and nominated archdeacon of Angers, in France, by Hubert of Vendome, bishop of the see, about the year. 1039. He first broached errors against marriage and infant baptism, about the year 1047, but soon corrected himself. He next began to teach his novelty respecting the real presence of our Saviour in the blessed eucharist, about fifty years after the period stated by Fox, and as soon as he had declared himself, his own schoolfellow, Adelman, bishop of Brescia, warned him that he stood in opposition to the sense of the whole Catholic church. Here then we have a man placing his own individual opinion against the general conviction of the whole Christian world, and is there a being simple enough to believe that Berengarius knew better than the whole of mankind put together, and that he only was in in possession of the truth? To entertain such an idea would be madness, and yet here are a set of men putting forth such folly, in order to diffuse, they say,

among "their fellow-believers (Must not those who believe with them "be fellow-fanatics?) a knowledge and love of the genuine principles "of Christianity.' A very rational idea of Christianity truly!

Bossuet, in his learned and acute History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches, says, that Berengarius was not only reproached by Adelman, but that all the authors of of that age upbraided him with impugning the faith of the whole universe, and consequently the notions he taught must be as downright heresy as the notions of Arius, and others, stigmatized as such in this Book of Martyrs. For we wish the reader to bear in mind, that heresy, as defined by Dr. Johnson, is, “an " opinion of private men different from that of the Catholic and orthodox "church;" and a heretic, according to the same authority, is, "one "who propagates his private opinions in opposition to the Catholic "church." By these definitions it is evident that Berengarius was a heretic, and his notions heresy, because he was but a private individual opposing the Catholic church, and his opinions were embraced only by a few private men, Fox, in his account of the persecutions of the Catholics by the Arians, and of the martyrdom of pope Martin, allows the right and authority of councils to define matters of faith; now, if the popes and bishops possessed rightly that power in time of persecution, they could not be divested of it in time of peace; the power vested in the guardians of faith in the fourth and seventh, must also be vested in them in the eleventh and nineteenth centuries; and we see them exercising this right with the same forbearance and clemency towards Berengarius, though the civil authorities were then Catholic, as when the temporal power was in the hands of heretics, and Catholics were the objects of persecution. This is a fact which cannot be too often repeated, since it is little known to the Protestant community, it having been the object of the writers of that party to suppress and misrepresent every circumstance that might tend to elicit the truth of history, and bear in favour of that faith which is immutable and can never change. The proceedings against Berengarius we find so clearly detailed by the Rev. Alban Butler, in a note to his life of St. Leo IX, and the authorities he has produced so numerous and conclusive, that we should be guilty of a dereliction of our duty to the public were we not to lay before them the account of this judicious and accurate writer.

66

66

66

1

The news of this heresy," says Mr. B. no sooner reached Rome, "but St. Leo IX. condemned it in a council which he held in that city "after Easter in 1050. But as Berengarius could not be heard in person, the pope ordered another council to meet at Vercelli three months after, at which the heresiarch was summoned to appear. He was soon informed of the condemnation of his error at Rome, and imme"diately repaired into Normandy to the young duke William the bas"tard. In a conference before that prince at Brione, he and a cleric, who was his scholar, and on whom he much relied in disputation, " were vere reduced to silence by the Catholic theologians, and revoked "their errors. But Berengarius insolently renewed them at Chartres, es, whither he withdrew, as we are informed by Durand, abbot of “Troarn, (1. de Corpore Domini, p. 437. (See also Mabillon,) Acta "Bened., 16. et Anal. 1. 59. n. 74) St. Leo IX, opened the council

r

"at Vercelli in September, at which Berengarius did not appear, but « only two ecclesiasties in his name, who were silenced in the disputa"tion: the doctrine which they maintained was condemned, and the "book of John Scotus Erigena [from which he took his errors] thrown "into the flames. In October the same year, 1050, a council at Paris, "in presence of king Henry, unanimously condemned Berengarius and "his accomplices, and the king deprived him of the revenue of his be"nefice. In 1054, Victor II. having succeeded the holy pope Leo IX. "held immediately a council at Florence, in which he confirmed all "the decrees of his predecessor. He caused another to be assembled "the same year at Tours by his legates, Hildebrand and cardinal "Gerard, in which Berengarius made his appearance according to summons. He at first began to vindicate his error, but at length so"lemly retracted it, and bound himself by oath to maintain with the "Catholic church, the faith of the real presence in the blessed eu"charist. This retractation he signed with his own hand, and "thereupon was received by the legates to the communion of the "church. (Lanfranc. p. 234. Anonym. de multiplic, condemn. Be"reng. p. 361. Guitm. 1. 3. t. 18. Bibl. Patr. p. 462. Mabillon, &c.) "Yet the perfidious wretch, soon after he was come from the council, "made a jest of his oath, and continued secretly to teach his heresy. "To shut every door against it, Maurillus, archbishop of Rouen, made "an excellent confession of the Catholic faith, which he obliged all to "subscribe: in which many other prelates imitated him. (See Mabil"lon, Act, t. 9. p. 226, et Annal, t. 2. p. 460, &c.). Eusebius Bruno, "bishop of Angers, in his letter to Berengarius, mentions a second "council held at Tours against him. After the death of pope Stephen, "who had succeeded Victor, Nicholas II. assembled at Rome in 1059, "a council of one hundred and thirteen bishops, at which Berenga "rius was present, signed the Catholic confession of faith on this "mystery presented him by the council, and having kindled himself "a fire in the midst of the assembly, threw into it the books which "contained his heresy. The pope sent copies of his recantation to all "places where his errors had raised a disturbance, and admitted him "to communion. Nevertheless, the author being returned into France, "relapsed into his error, and spoke injuriously of the see of Rome, and "the holy pope Leo IX. Alexander II. wrote him a tender letter, ex"horting him to enter into himself, and no longer scandalize the church. "Eusebius Bruno, bishop of Angers, formerly his scholar, and after"wards his friend and protector, did the same. In 1076, Gerard, car"dinal bishop of Ostia, presided in a council at Poitiers against his " errors. Maurillus, archbishop of Rouen, had condemned them in a "council at Rouen, in 1063. (Mabillon, Analect. p. 204, 227, and "514.) Hildebrand having succeeded Alexander II. under the name " of Gregory VII. called Berengarius to Rome in 1078, and in a coun"cil there obliged him to give in a Catholic confession of faith. The "bishops of Pisa and Padua thinking afterward that he had not suffi"ciently expressed the mystery of transubstantiation and his former relapses having given reason to suspect his sincerity, the pope de"tained him a year at Rome, till another council should be held. This "met in February, 1079, and was composed of two hundred and fifty

OF

bishops. In it Berengarius declared his firm faith that the bread and "wine are substantially changed into the body and blood of Christ, and prostrating himself, confessed that he had till then erred on the mys"tery of the eucharist. (See Martenne, Anecdot. t. i. p. 109.) After so solemn a declaration of his repentance he returned to the vomit when he arrived in France. Then it was that Lanfranc, who had been nine years bishop of Canterbury, in 1079, wrote his excellent confu"tation of this heresy, in which he mentions the pontificate of Gregory VII. and the last council at Rome, in 1079. From which, and other circumstances, dom Clemencez demonstrates that he could not have published this work whilst he was abbot at Caen, as Mabillon and "Fleury imagined. About the same time Guitmund, afterward bishop "of Aversa, near Naples, a scholar of Lanfranc, published also a learned "book on the body of Christ, against Berengarius. Alger, a priest and scholastic at Liege, afterwards a monk of Cluni, who died in 1130, wrote also an incomparable book on the same subject, by the reading Wie beubner' ows to becoquod 28w boe &

"of which Erasmus says his faith of the truth of that great mystery, "of which he never doubted, was much confirmed, and he strongly "recommends to all modern Sacramentarians the perusal of these three "treatises, preferably to all the polemic writers of his age. Durand, "monk of Fecam, afterward abbot of Troarn, about the year 1060, "likewise wrote on the body of our Lord, against Berengarius, which "book is published by D'Archery in an appendix to the works of Lan"franc.

66

"These treatises of Lanfranc and Guitmund doubtless contributed to 66 open the eyes of Berengarius, who never pretended to make any reply to either of them, and whose sincere repentance for the eight last years of his life is attested by irrefragable authorities of the same age, as by Clarius the monk, who died ten years after him, and almost " in his neighbourhood. (Spicileg. t. ii. p. 747.) Richard of Poictiers, a monk of Cluni, (Ap. Martenne, Ampl. Collect. t. v. p. 1168.) the "Chronicle of Tours, (Ap. Martenne, Anecd. t. iii.) and others. These "eight years he spent in prayer, alms-deeds, and manual labour, in the "isle of St. Cosmas, below the city, then belonging to the abbey of "Marmoutier, where he died in 1088. William of Malmsbury writes, "that he died trembling, after making the following declaration: "This day will my Lord Jesus Christ appear to me either to glory, by his mercy, through my repentance; or, as I fear, on the account of others, "to my punishment.' Oudin, the apostate, betrays a blind passion in "favour of the heresy, which he had embraced, when he pretends to "call in question his repentance. (De Script. Eccles. t. ii. p. 635.) "Cave carries his prejudices yet farther, by exaggerating beyond all hounds, the number of his followers. If it amounted to three hun"dred, this might seem considerable to Malmesbury and others, who complain that he seduced many. Not a single person of note is men"tioned among them. Cave says, his adversaries were only the monks. "But Hugh, bishop of Langres, Theoduin of Liege, Eusebius Bruno of Angers, the two scholastics of Liege, Gossechin and Adelman, many "of the bishops who condemned him, and others who confuted his error, where not of the monastic order. Never was any heresy more "universally condemned over the whole church. The unhappy author "is convicted from his writings of notorious falsifications (Martenne, "loc. cit. p. 111. &c.) and of perfidy from his three solemn retracta❝tions falsified by him, viz. in the Roman council of pope Nicholas II. (Conc. t. ix. p. 1101.) and in those of St. Gregory VII. in 1078 and 1079; not to mention that which he made before William the bastard, "duke of Normandy. From the fragments and letters of this here"siarch which have reached us, it appears that his style was dry, harsh, full of obscure laconisms, no ways equal to the reputation which "he bore of an able grammarian, or to that of the good writers of the 66 same age, Lanfranc, Adelman, St. Anselm, &c. His manner of writ"ing is altogether sophistical, very opposite to the simplicity with "which the Christian religion was preached by the apostles. We have "extant the excellent writings of many, who entered the lists against him; Hugh, bishop of Langres, Theoduin, bishop of Liège, Eusebius Bruno, bishop of Angers, (who had been some time his protector), Lanfranc, Adelman, scholastic of Liege, afterward bishop of Brescia,