Page:Delineation of Roman Catholicism.djvu/285

 aAP. IV.] ?!A NSUBS?AN?'IOn. 277 on the cross, and in which he arose from ihe dead. This er we / have opsed with 1 our might."* The question of Srcoism arose imme&atelv out of these dis- . ms. Pchius maintained "that bread and wine in the sament are not under the same laws with our other fd,  they pass into our flesh and subsce without y ecuation.  Bem affirmed that; "the bre d wine e under the same laws th 11 er fo." Some sup at e bre and wine we annilated, or that ey have a etl being, or else are chged m flesh and bl, and nm into humou or excrements to be voided. These, nd various dmd qufio and opinions,  to show tt the doctrine of an- subafion w only received in n, even by three who were of the side of Pcius; wle it is qually clear st it was entirely reed by oers. 5. During the n cenm them w lille controve on the sub- je of e sackeat of e rd's supper; but opini seemed ' aut the se unds as in e nin cen. fluctuate, keeping e consequence of the profound im Neveeless, domincy, in ce of the times, w in favour of a cde stem, wch advanced fher toward e doctrine of nsubsntiation. 6. In the year 1045, Beteager, pfincip of :he public schl at Tou, and archdeacon of Angers, publicly professed s optiou nsubnfiatiou. He w a m of profound !eing and ateness, bm wanting in mor couge m cling m s profession. He was con- demned for here by several councils. At a council held at Verceil, in 10, Beteager dt not apar in person, and two peons whom he nt m mnmin his docine were forced to be stent as sn �ey h cohented. At another council, held at Paris  e same yr, it was oained that he and s adherents should be constoned m recan under e pain of being put to dea. At these councils he dt not me s apsrce, because s life would be forfeited; he w therefore condemned unheard and in s absence. By teats, d not by ment or conction, he was comlled, by a council held in Tou in 1054, to abjure his opinions ain; but he sn fs st his abjuration w only in name, and not real. At another uncil, held in me, under Nichol II., in the year 1058, he a forced m recant, in e following words, dm up by Hum- n: that "the broad and wine, er consecfion, we not only sacrament, but  the real body and bld of Jesus Cst; and that ts y is hdled and broken b e priest, and braised by the teeth of e faithf, (fidelinto dentibus atd,) not only in the sacrament, but  in a senblo manner." Ts doctri w so monsus that no  cod or ever &d seriously believe it. And it see e d h counc were not en slful enough  eress themselves ghfiy on  mawr; for the g!s upon the canon law says, "that e we unded ese wos of Beteager in a sound .sense,  f m a eamr heresy au that of Beanget; for we do e  of e y of Gt.  Betonget returned to the incc ' n. Ma. Epist.  Heard, e. 33. f  t ve  and y m opin. in  Pi Etc. ., 1

�