?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
�
