« ForrigeFortsæt »
" 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 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 bý 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.
“ The news of this heresy,” says Mr. B.“ no sooner reached Rome, 6 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 per
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 reduced to silence by the Catholic theologians, and revoked “ their errors.
But Berengarius insolently renewed them at Chartres, whither he withdrew, as we are informed by Durand, abbot of "Troarn, (1. de Corpore Domini, p. 437. (See also Mabillon,) Acta “ Bened. n. 16. et-Anal. 1. 59. n. 74.) St. Leo IX. opened the council
at Vercelli in September, at which Berengarius did not appear, but
only two ecclesiastics 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 .66 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 aşsembled " the same year at Tours by his legates, Hildebrand and cardinal “Gerard, in which Berengarius made his appearance according to sum
mons. 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 à 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
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, aad 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. 244, 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
CONTINUATION OF THE REVIEW. “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 mystery 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
• 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.
“ These treatises of Lanfranc and Guitmund doubtless contributed to (open
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 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 Liege, Eusebius
Bruno, bishop of Angers, (who had been some time his protector), “Lanfranc, Adelman, scholastic of Liege, afterward bishop of Brescia,
"Guitmund, monk of the cross of St. Leufroi, afterward bishop of
Aversa, B. Maurillus, archbishop of Rouen, Bruno, afterward bishop “of Segni, Durand, abbot of Troarn in Normandy, B. Wholpbelm, “abbot of Brunvilliers, near Cologn, Ruthard, monk of Corwei, after"ward abbot of Hersfield; Geoffery of Vendome, whose first writing
was a treatise on the body of our Lord; St. Anastasius, monk of St. “ Michael, afterward of Cluni, Jotsald, monk of Cluni, Albert, monk of "mount Cassino, Ascelin mouk of Bec, Gosechin, scholastic of Liege,
an anonymous author published by Chifflet, &c. See the History of " Berengarius, wrote by Francis le Roye, professor in laws at Angers, “in 4to. 1656: and' by Mabillon in his Anacleta, t. ii. p. 477. and again “ in his Acta Bened. t. ix. Fleury, Histor. Eccles. and Ceillier; t. xx.
p. 280. have followed this latter in their accounts of this famous he"resiarch. But his history is most accurately given by FF. Clemences
and Ursin Durand, in their continuation of the Historie Literaire de “ la France, t. viii. p. 197, who have pointed out and demonstrated seve"ral gross mistakes and misrepresentations of Oudin 'and Cave, the "former in his Bibl. Scriptor. Eccles. t. ii. the latter in his Hist. Liter."
From this statement, it is plain that Berengarius could not be a preacher of " gospel truths, according to their primitive purity," as Fox asserts ; nor did the popes, by whom his doctrine was condemned, do more than Fox allowed the popes had a right to do, in his account of the martyrdom of pope' Martin in the seventh century. By a, reference to page 178 of our Review, it will be seen that Fox stated that Martin called a council of bishops, on the heresy of the Monothe-' lites, by whom the heresy was condemned; and by the acéount quoted from Mr. Butler, it appears that Leo XI. and his successors did no more towards Berengarius. His opinion was new and novel, like the opinions of the Monothelites; and as such, it was condemned by the ministers of Christ's church, appointed to guard the faith delivered to them, that no 'novelty or error may creep therein. The only difference that we can discover in the two cases is, that in the case of the Monothelites the civil powers were against the pope; whereas, in that of Berengarius, the temporal monarchs were in unity with the head of the church. In the case of pope Martin, he exhibited, in the persecutions he suffered for defending: “ gospel trùths according to their pri“mitive purity," a mind impressed with the truths he preached, and a courage unshaken at the torments he endured; whereas Berengarius displayed baseness and treachery in his conduct, violating his solemn oath, and at last repenting his misdeeds,' and declaring his doctrine, which Fox calls pure gospel-truths, to be no other than FALSEHOOD Had Berengarius been inspired with the Spirit of Truth, as the apostles, and Catholic fathers, and bishops were, why did he not preach his doctrines with the same undeviating firmness as they did, sealing their conviction with their blood, and in every instance defying tortures and death to the renunciation of those truths which had been imparted to them? We see council after council called to consider and decide upon the new opinions of this heresiarch; we see all these synods agree in deciding against him, and yet we are told that he“ preached
gospel-truths according to their primitive purity.” A very pretty Worthy must he be, that could retraet and return to his vomit time