« ZurückWeiter »
high repute in their day", lent the aid of their talents to stay the progress of that unscriptural and irrational fancy by which the superstitious were labouring to embarrass the Eucharistic ques. tion. This fact explains the reason why the Roman Bishops allowed the controversy to rage without a single effort on their part to dogmatise. However well disposed they might have been to patronise the notions of Radbert, these were as yet so new, and so decidedly opposed by theologians of eminence, that it would evidently have been found impossible to obtain for them the sanction of any respectable synod 4.
But the carnal presence, strong in its power to fascinate the heart of fallen man, soon recovered of the shock which it had received when first fairly before the world. That intellectual eclipse
with Druthmar. He says that the passage so decidedly subversive of transubstantiation, is corrupted by the Protestants. Unfortunately for the Cardinal's hypothesis, the passage is found entire in an edition of Druthmar, printed in 1514, that is, three years before Luther attacked indulgences. Allix on the Albigenses, 100.
Their names, and citations from their works, may be seen in Bp. Cosin's history, and in the introduction to the Book of Bertram.
* “ Quelque animée que fût cette dispute, on ne tint point de concile pour la decider; comme il ne s'agissait point du fonds de la doctrine, mais seulement des termes, on la laissa discuter entre les theologiens, et les evêques ne s'en mêlèrent point.” (Du Pin, 52.) This mode, however, of characterising the controversy, and of accounting for the conduct of the hierarchy during its course, will not bear examination.
which overshadowed Europe during the tenth century was eminently fitted for the growth of superstition, and through that gloomy period, Radbert's Eucharistic notions, no longer afraid of such geniuses as illumined the age, which first shewed them distinctly to mankind, gained constantly upon public opinion. Their progress was not, indeed, either unheeded, or unopposed“, but minds equal to the task of effectually correcting popular errors were few and comparatively feeble. Hence as was to be expected, when the millenary year arrived, men of information were less indisposed than heretofore towards that doctrine of the Sacrament which had formerly experienced a reception so unpromising from the gerality of such as were most competent to decide upon it. Guitmund, Bishop of Aversa, Alger, a monk of Corbey, and other scholars of note now openly supported the carnal presence. The most celebrated advocate of this doctrine, however, was a native of Pavia, named Lanfranc, who, being left an orphan at an early age, passed into France, and was highly valued in that country as
• "Hanc vero de corpore et sanguine Domini quæstionem deinceps varie fuisse agitatam, ostendunt scripta adversaria Ratherii, (qui ex monacho Lobiensi, Veronensis primum, deinde Leodiensis ecclesiæ factus est episcopus, temporibus Henrici Aucupis, et filii ejus Ottonis Magni Imp.) ac Herigeri Abbatis Lobiensis, qui sub finem decimi seculi, congessit contra Ratherium, (vel ut alii habent codices, contra Ratbertum) multa Catholicorum Patrum scripta de corpore et sanguine Domini." Usser. de Success. 26.
| Hospiniani Hist. Sacrament. Tigur, 1598. p. 340.
an instructor of youth. This eminent divine appears to have been somewhat over credulous, for it having been reported when he was a boy, that a priest in his neighbourhood had discovered flesh and blood where he expected to see only bread and wine", the young Lanfranc was fixed immovably in the opinions broached by Paschasius Radbert. The learned Italian became at length a monk of Bec, afterwards Abbot of Caen, and as his reputation ever stood high, it cannot be doubted that he was largely instrumental in spreading a belief of the corporal presence among his adopted countrymen. That doctrine, however, yet continued to find its principal supporters among the lovers of the marvellous in lower life; it being designated by its most illustrious opponent as the belief of Paschasius, of Lanfranc, and of the vulgari
& Dacherii Vit. Lanfr. Lut. Paris. 1648.
1. b Scribit enim Guitmundus, lib. 2. Lanfrancum narrasse, se puero in Italia accidisse, quod cum presbyter quidam missam celebrans, inventa super altare veram carnem et verum in calice sanguinem, secundum propriam carnis et sanguinis speciem, sumere trepidasset, rem protinus suo episcopo, consilium quæsiturus, aperuisse : episcopum autem cum multis aliis episcopis ad hoc convocatis, calicem illum, cum eadem carne et sanguine Domini, diligenter opertum et sigillatum, in medio altaris pro summis reliquiis perpetuo servanda inclusisse.” (Hospinian. 340.) The same imposture, it may be recollected, was practised at Calais. (Hist. Ref. under King Henry VIII. II. 458.) Hospinian seems to have considered that the wonderment which took, as we are informed, an effect so powerful upon
Lanfranc's mind was brought about by diabolical agency.
Lanfranc. adv. Berengar. 231.
It was Berenger, Archdeacon of Angers ", who thus spoke of the corporal presence. This distinguished polemic, who was for virtue, learning, and abilities one of the first men of his age', opposed with vigour the prevailing disposition towards a belief in Radbert's doctrine. The principal authority which he used in his arguments upon this subject, was that of John Scot, or Erigena, whose name carried great weight with it among all the best scholars in Western Europe. In the hope of bringing over Lanfranc to his opinion, Berenger wrote a friendly letter to that illustrious monk. He then chanced to be from home, and the letter was opened by some of his clerical acquaintances, who, disgusted at its contents, transmitted it in haste to Leo IX. Bishop of Rome. This prelate, appears to have been a zealous assertor of Radbert's doctrine, for he took upon himself to condemn Berenger unheard, and to pronounce him out of communion with the Roman Church. In the following September, Leo convoked a synod at Vercelli, and in this, Berenger, Erigena, and all their favourers were formally condemned". This attempt of the Roman
k" Claruit circa annos Domini 1030.” Hospinian. 332.
1 “Quem virum sanctimonia vitæ et doctrina præstantem · fuisse, testantur Platina, Vincentius Bergomensis, et alii quamplurimi.” (Cosin. 131.) His epitaph also written by a learned bishop, who was contemporary with him, bears the amplest testimony to Berenger's excellence : it is preserved by William of Malmsbury, and has been extracted either wholly or in part by Hospinian, Abp. Usher, and Bp. Cosin.
m In the year 1050. Usser. de Success, 101.
Church to thrust upon the consciences of men a new article of faith immediately excited a violent ferment in France. Berenger's opinions were extensively and warmly canvassed there; being condemned, indeed, by many, but by a large number actively supported, both in conversation, and on paper". Such a spirit of hostility to the decisions of his see alarmed Victor II. who succeeded Leo, and in the hope of reconciling the French to what his predecessor had done, he despatched Hildebrand into Gaul. By means of that able politician a synod was assembled at Tours, at which Berenger appearedo, and
• “Quod autem alibi affirmat idem (Papirius Massonus) solum inventum esse Berengarium, qui novam de Eucharistia sententiam proferre in medium auderet, eique bellum illius temporis theologos omnes indixisse ; falsi convincunt authores duo, qui a Berengarii ætate non multum abfuerunt, Conradus Bruwilerensis, et Sigebertus Gemblacensis monachus : quorum alter in vita Wolphelmi Bruwilerensis Abbatis, alter in chronico ad annum Domini 1051, his verbis utitur. Istis diebus Francia turbabatur per Berengarium Turonensem, qui asserebat Eucharistiam, quam sumimus in altari, non esse revera corpus et sanguinem Christi. Unde contra eum, ET PRO EO, multum a multis, et verbis, et scriptis, disputatum est. Ubi tamen notandum, in vulgatis Sigce berti exemplaribus, verba illa quæ Berengarii favebant cause, (ET PRO EO) omissa prorsus esse : quæ non modo in Sigeberti exscriptoribus, Gulielmo Nangiaco, et magni chronici Belgici consarcinatore Nussiensi monacho, cernuntur integra; sed etiam ex ipso, ut creditur, Sigeberti autographo, quod in Gemblacensi asservatum est cænobio, nuper restituta sunt ab Auberto Mirceo, diligentissimo antiquitatum Belgicarum indagatore." Usser. de Success. 100.
• In 1055, according to Hospinian and Bp. Cosin: Abp. Usher places it in the following year.