hunc caput habeant ut Judices Regem Quando quidem sit Romana Civitas omnibus imperii Romani civitatibus honorabilior Romanus Pontifex principatum obtineat Sacerdotii super omnes Episcopos utpote cum sit Civitas haec Domina omnium illi civitati quisquis praefuerit Episcopus ex antiquitatis constitutione non Christi princeps omnium habeatur Ecclesiarum paulo post Quis autem ferat ut Constanopolitanus Patriarcha cunctis praeferatur Ecclesiis quod nec Antiquitas ei contulit nec ulla decreta majorum constituunt nec rationis habetur vel Ecclesiasticae vel humane jurae fundatum but on Ecclesiastical Constitutions the Grants of Princes and the Dignity of the City of Rome the Head and Mistress of all Cities in the Empire as the Pope hath the Preheminence over all Bishops and Churches which though at the time when our Author wrote was as much as the Pope himself could wish yet comes so short of the Papal claims since the Hildebrandine times that he now passeth at best but for a Trimming Catholick with F. Cellot and his Friends This I hope will suffice to vindicate Ratramnus both in point of Faith towards God and of good manners towards his Governors so that there appears nothing in his Person to prejudice us against his Doctrine delivered in this Book which whether it be his or not and whether it be come pure and undepraved to our hands I shall enquire in the next Chapter CHAP. III. That this Book is neither wholly forged nor yet depraved that Ratramnus is its true Author and not Joannes Scotus Eregina AMong our Adversaries of the Roman Church who allow the Author but condemn his Work there pass Three several Opinions and all false 1. That it is a * Sixtus Senens in Praefat Biblioth Sanctae Possevinus in Praefat. Apar Sac. Breerly Parsons in his three Controvers p. 2. c. 10. But he makes the forgery committed by the Followers of Berengarius late forgery that it was written by Oecolampadius and published under the venerable Name of an Author of the IX Century by the Hereticks This Sixtus Senensis and after him Possevine with extreme impudence pretend But for want of good memories they elsewhere tell us that the Author of that Book wrote under Charles the Great A. D. 810. or the Grosse A. D. 886. and was confuted by Paschasius Radbertus Sure Sixtus Senensis forgot himself very much when in the very next Page he accused Oecolampadius for rejecting St. Ambrose his Books of the Sacrament which are cited by Bertram in this Work. It is withal pleasant to observe that Bishop Fisher (a) Praef. lib. 4. De veritate Corp. Saug Christi contra Oecolam Colen 1527. against Oecolampadius names Bertram among other Catholick Writers of the Sacrament five years before the first Edition of it 1532. and I am apt to believe he had read it in Manustript and was of the same mind with the University of Doway who think with candid expounding he is Catholick enough But it were doing too much honour to this shameless calumny for me to insist longer on its confutation 2. Others more plausibly allow Bertram to have written a Book of this Argument and that this is the Book but falling into the hands of Hereticks the disciples of Berengarius and Wiclef it is come down to us wretchedly corrupted and depraved This is the Opinion of * Espenc De Ador. Euchar. l. 4. c. 19. Espencaeus †Greg. De Valentia in Thom. Tom. 4. disp 6. q. 3. punct 1. Gregory of Valentia and many others particularly the Publishers of the last Bibliotheca Patrum at Lyons who give this reason why they have not inserted it into that Collection viz. ‖ Bibliothecae Patrum Lugd. 1677. T. XV. ad finem libri secundi de Praedest Because it is if not a suspicious piece yet depraved and adulterated with spurious mixtures This is easily said but not so easily believ'd In whose hands have the Manuscripts been kept in ours or theirs Hath not the Popish Interest prevailed all Europe over till the beginning of the XVI Century Have not the Popish Clergy had the keeping all famous Libraries and have they kept them so negligently that Hereticks have had access and opportunity of depraving all the Copies in the World If they say their number was small and it might easily be done whom are we to thank for that If they are interpolated why do they not assign the passages and by genuine Copies convince the World of so gross an Imposture But alas the pretence of Interpolation is very idle and he that would go about to clear it of what they call Heresie must do it una litura and with a single dash expunge the whole Book for though they may pick out two or three passages that seem to favour them yet if they read the next sentences before and after they will plainly see they are nothing to their purpose For my own part I doubt not but that this Book is come to our hands as free from corruption as any Book of so great Antiquity it is manifestly all of one piece but if it be corrupted those of the Church of Rome are likely to have been the Interpolators it being more easie to foist in two or three passages into a Book than two hundred and I can beyond all possibility of contradiction make out that those passages which we alledge in favour of our Doctrine against Transubstantiation are near an hundred years older than Berengarius who was for almost thirty years together baited in one Council after another and died about the Year 1088. For Aelfrick Abbot of Malmsbury in a Homily translated by him into into the Saxon tongue about the year 970. hath taken word for word most of those passages which now sound harsh to Roman Ears This was observed by the Learned (a) Answer to the Jesuits Challenge ch 3 of the Real Presence Vsher who hath collected several and I having with care compared Bertram and that Homily have observed several others and I conceive it will not not be unacceptable to the Reader to see them set in parallel which I shall do following the (b) This Homily is extant in the second Tome of the Book of Martyrs And in Lisle's Saxon Monuments in quarto Lond. 1638. In English alone at Oxford about the Year 1674. And in Saxon and Latin by Mr. Wheelock in his Notes on Bede Hist Eccl. L.V. c. 22. p. 462. Edition Printed by John Day in 12º about the year 1566. And it is remarkable that after the Homilist comes to treat of the Sacrament for a good part of their discourse is about the Paschal Lamb there scapes hardly one Page without somewhat out of Bertram till he resume his former discourse I shall only note by the way that the old word †Husel ab Hostia derivari modeste conjicit Eruditissimus Somnerus at
of a Temporary Prohibition (h) Vide Indicem in Classe 2. B. donec corrigatur till he be corrected or explained I fear those Fathers despaired of softning his harsh Expressions into any tolerable Catholick Sense 3. If we may judge of the Sense of the Pope who published the Index and the Council which ordered it to be made by the Judgment of the most eminent Doctors in and soon after that time we must believe that False and Heretical Doctrine was the fault which the Trent Censors found with it Sixtus Senensis who wrote within three Years after the Council was dissolved calls it (i) Perniciosum Oecolampadii volumen in vulgarunt sub titulo Bertrami Sixtus Sen. in Praef. Biblioth S. a pernicious Book of Oecolampadius against the Sacrament of Christ's Body And saith (k) Aug. Expositionem hujus loci Bertramus detorquet ad Haeresin Sacramentariorum Lib. 6. Annot. 196. n. 1. vide n 2. That he wrests St. Austin's Exposition of these words I am the Living Bread to the Sacramentarian Heresie making the Holy Eucharist to be nothing else but Bread and Wine in substance bearing a Figure and Resemblance together with the Name of Christ's Body which is not truly and corporally present but only in a Spiritual and Mystical way And makes (l) Berengarius ducentis pene post Bertramum annis eandem Haeresin instauravit ib. n. 6. Berengarius to have revived the same Heresie Two hundred Years after him Espencaeus an Author of the same time points out the very Propositions which shew the Pseudo-Bertram (m) Espencaeus de ador Euch. lib. 2. c. 19. as he stiles him to have been no true Son of the Church but the Son of a Strange Woman (n) Vide pref p. 8. Claudius Sainctes who was at the Council of Trent judged the Book full of Errors and Heresies and therefore spurious Gregory de Valentia (o) Greg. Valen. Comment Theol. Tom. IV. Disp VI. Punct 3. tells us that the Book is leaven'd with the Sacramentarian Error and justly sure for false Doctrine condemned in the Trent Index And Possevin (p) Appar T. 1. p. 219. Bertramus Prohibitus est omnino a Clem. VIII Pont. Max. in postremo indice Librorum prohibitorum Itaque amplius legendus non est nisi quis concessus Sedis Apostolicae ad refellendos qui ex illo errores afferuntur Bertramo qui Divinum hoc mysterium haud recte intelligebat neque credebat acquaints us that notwithstanding the favourable Judgments of the Lovain Divines It may by no means be read save by the Pope's special License in order to confute it being utterly Prohibited So that it is not for an obscure Expresson or suspected Proposition but for downright Heresie that he stands condemned M. Boileau (q) Preface p. 8. He might have added Baronius who could not be ignorant of this Work yet never vouchsafeth to mention it nor the Author more than once and that with Disgrace as an Adversary to Hincmare in the Controversie of Predestination confesseth that not only the Trent Censors but Pope Clement the VIII with the Cardinals Bellarmine Quiroga Sandoval and Alan utterly rejected this Book as Heretical But he gives an incredible account of their inducement to do so viz. That the Protestants run them down by the pure dint of Impudence (r) Estant imprime par le soin des Protestants d' Allemagne comme un ouvrage qu'ils s'imaginerent leur estre favourable ils en furent â—rus sur leur parole presque tous les Catholiques le rejetterent comme un tres-mechant livre c. Pref. p. 5. see also p. 12. They first Published it they claimed it as favourable to their Sentiments and made Translations of it into French to serve their own turns and they had the fortune to have their bare word taken and thereupon the R. Cs. generally rejected it as a pernicious Forgery These were Candid Doctors indeed to take an Adversaries bare word and let go so considerable a Champion for the Real Presence This was an extraordinary piece of Civility for those Doctors are not usually so prone to believe us though we produce Scripture and Authentick Testimonies from the Fathers in proof of our Assertions The first Editions of this Book have little appearance of that confidence we are accused of there were no large Prefaces or Remarks printed with the Text no Expositions or Paraphrases but plain Translations for many Years after the Roman Doctors had censured it but the naked Text was fairly left to the Readers Judgment The first Publishers of our Party could not possibly make a more confident pretence to the favour of Bertram than M. Boileau doth and yet we must beg his Pardon that we cannot return the Civility and give him up to the Church of Rome on his bare word Whatever motives prevailed with them it is undeniable and by M. Boileau himself confessed that their greatest Men have judged this Book Heretical and I see no reason to believe that Espenceus Genebrard and other Sorbon Doctors of the last Age were not as competent Judges whether the Doctrine it contains be agreeable to the Faith of the Church of Rome as himself M. le Faure and the other Doctors his Approvers And yet if after all the Judgment of so many great Prelates and Doctors of the Church of Rome must stand for nothing and be no prejudice to the Notion of Ratram's Orthodoxy advanced by Mr. Dean of Sens I think it but a modest and equitable request to him and his Friends that they make no use of the Concession of the Centuriators (s) As Mr. Boileau doth Remarks on n. 15. and some others citing Cent. IX de Doctrina Transubstantiationis habet Semina Bertramus utitur enim vocabulis commutationis conversionis Non sequitur Vide in Dissertationis nostrae cap. 5. quo sensu his Vocabulis utatur Centuriatores etiam objiciunt Mabillonius N. Alexander who acknowledg in this Author the Seeds of Transubstantiation Especially when it is remembred that those Authors being Lutherans have no power to make Concessions for us and being for Consubstantiation which Doctrine is utterly inconsistent with Ratram it was indifferent to them since he was no Friend of theirs whether they gave him up for a Calvinist or Papist if their Inclinations were determined one way rather than the other they must be stronger to allow him for a Transubstantiator who agrees with them in the Belief of a Corporal Presence than to acknowledg him a favourer of our Sentiments which are against both 2. A Second Reason why we cannot understand this Tract in the Sense of M. Boileau and for Transubstantiation is because Aelfric and our Saxon Ancestors who lived in the Tenth Century have taught us to understand it in a contrary Sense And if there be any thing in the Vulgar Plea for Oral Tradition we may justly expect a better account of the Doctrine
the Jansenists acknowledge his Abilities his great Reputation for Learning in France and style him That Learned Benedictine c. I might add that Servatus Lupus treats him in his Address as (c) Clarissimo suo R. Lupus Ep. 79. an intimate and much esteemed Friend directing his Epistle To his most dear Rotrannus and (d) Familiares habuit Praestantissimos quosque sui seculi viros Hincmarum Rem Rhabanum Mog Wenilonem Senon Heriboldum Ratbertum Corbeiensem Ratramnum Monachum Corbiensem c. Baluz in notis at titulum Beati Lupi p. 340. Baluzius numbers him among the Famous Men who were the familiar Acquaintance of that Learned Abbot As also the Testimony of the Chronicon Hirsaugiense published by Trithemius That he was a Person well accomplished with all sorts of Literature and many other proofs of his admirable Learning But I conceive those already produced will convince all unprejudiced Persons and since his other Works have appeared in Print the Adversaries of his Doctrine touching the Real Presence are ashamed to deny him right in this point and betake themselves to other arts for the evading the force of his Testimony of the Belief of the Church in that Age. To close this Section I shall give a brief account of his Writings as well those which are not extant as those we have in Print The first of his Writings extant is that of the manner of Christ's Birth or of the Virgins Delivery This must have been written before the Year 844. (a) Sirmondus in Vita Paschasii Radberti operibus praefixa Par. 1618. in which Pascasius Radbertus was made Abbot of Corbey if (b) Mabillon in Praef. ad Acta Ben. sec 4. p. 2. c. 3. nu 150. Monachorum omnium peripsema F. Mabillon mistake not when he tells us that his two Books on that Argument are a Confutation of Ratramne For he doth not style himself Abbot but only the off-scouring of all Monks whereas in his (c) Ibidem inter Acta Ben. p. 135. Humilis exiguus Radbertus vester etsi indignus Abbas Levita Christi Monachorum omnium peripsema Epistle to Carolus Culvus published by F. Mabillon he styles himself Abbot Nor could his Book be written after his Resignation of that Abbey being dedicated to Theodrada Abbess of Soissons and her Nuns which (d) Mabil ubi supra Theodrada died A. D. 846. and he resigned not till 851. The occasion of his writing was News out of Germany as I guess from New Corbey which had much correspondence with this Corbey in France of which it was a Colony that some in those Parts held strange opinions touching our Saviour's Birth as though he came not out of his Mothers Womb into the World the same way with other Men. In opposition to that Doctrine (a) Vide Librum Ratramni apud Dacherium Spicil Tom. 1. Ratramnus asserts That Christ was Born as other Men and his Virgin Mother bare him as other Women bring forth to use (b) Tertul. de Carne Christi c. 23. Tertullian's words patefacti corporis lege Those whose opinions he confutes were perhaps some of those Novices for whose use Paschasius had written his Book of the Sacrament and who had not only imbibed his Doctrine touching the Carnal Presence of Christ therein but might have also heard the manner of our Saviour's Birth without opening his Mother's Womb alledged to solve an Objection against it for our Adversaries of the Church of Rome now say (c) Vide Guil. Forbesii Consider Modest de Sacr. Euchar. l. 1. c. 2. that it is no more impossible for one Body to be in two places than for two Bodies to be in one which they conceive must have happened in our Saviours Birth as also in his Resurrection and coming into his Disciples the Door being shut This might provoke Paschasius to write against our Author as well as Zeal for the Blessed Virgins Integrity And having said thus much on this subject I cannot wave so fair an opportunity of doing right to the ever memorable Archbishop Vsher whom Lucas Dacherius having published this Work reproacheth as a Lyar for saying (a) Vsserius in Hist Gottesc c. 11. That Ratramnus in this Work maintaineth the same Doctrine which he hath delivered in his Book touching the Lord's Body and Blood whereas he makes no mention of the Eucharist in it And F. Mabillon who for his Candor is no less to be honoured than for his great Learning imputes it to prejudice or mistake But I need not use (c) Conringius ad Antiquit. Acad. Supplemento 39. apud Mabillon ibid. Conringius his shift to vindicate him and suppose Dacherius hath suppressed those passages which induced the Learned Primate to say what he did It is enough to justifie him that (d) Apud Dacherium Spicil Yom. 1. p. 333. Ratramnus asserts two things which by consequence oppose Transubstantiation and establish the contrary Doctrine (b) Mabillon Act. Ben. Praef. sec 4. p. 2. c. 3. nu 153. and this he notoriously doth 1. In the very scope and drift of his Book contradicting an Illustration of that Doctrine by the manner of Christ's Birth 2. By Denying that Christ though Omnipresent in his Divinity can in his Body be in more than one place so that when he comes to a new place he leaves the place where he was before This Opinion in its consequences maintains the Doctrine of his Book concerning Christ's Body though not expresly in Terms And this is as much as the Primate saith And when we consider where the Dispute concerning Christ's Birth began and that Paschasius defended it what I have said will appear not improbable This Book is also in Manuscript in Salisbury Library and that of Bennet College in Cambridge On what occasion he wrote his two Books of Predestination I have already related They are published by Mauguin and in the new Bibliotheca Patrum Printed at Lyons 1677. Tom. XV. p. 442. He likewise wrote a Book about the Year 853. to justifie an old Hymn which (a) Teste ipso Hincmaro in libro De non Trina Deitate operum T. 1. 450. Et Mauguin Dissert Hist c. 17. Dehinc post aliquot annos cum Hincmarus in Ecclesia Remensi vetustissimum receptissimum Hymni Ecclesiastici hunc versiculum Te Trina Deitas unaque poscimus cantari vetuisset Ipse Ratramnus volumine non modicae quantitatis ad Hildegarium Meldensem Episcopum edito ex libris SS Hilarii Augustini de Trinitate veterem Ecclesiae Traditionem confirmavit Hincmarus of Rhemes had commanded to be altered and that instead of Te Trina Deitas they should sing Te Summa Deitas imagining the former expression to make Three Gods against which Order of Hincmarus Ratramnus wrote a large Book asserting the expression to be Orthodox by the Authority of St. Hilary and St. Augustine but this piece is lost He wrote another Book (b)
own Doctrine of Christ's Presence (a) This Miracle is found in Paschas Radbert de Corp. Sang. Dom. in Bibl. Patrum Par. 1610. Tom. VI. c. 14. They tell you of a Woman whofe doubts touching the Real Presence were cured at the Prayers of St. Gregory at whose request God caused the Host she was about to receive to appear as though there lay in the dish a joynt of a Finger all Bloody Whereas according to the Popish Doctrine Christ's (b) Concil Trid. Sess 13. Can. 3. whole Body Soul and Divinity is in every bit of the Host and drop of the consecrated Wine and this Miracle if it proves any thing must prove the contrary Again our Homilist in the beginning of p. 47. saith immediatly after those words cited by me out of the 46 page Therefore the Holy Mass is profitable both to the quick and to the dead The propitiatory Sacrifice was by this time set on foot which necessarily supposeth the Corporal Presence of Christ But it is worth observing however that the Adoration of the Sacrament sprang not up till some Ages after it being not mentioned either by Radbertus or Ratramnus or Elfrick in this Homily 3. The Third Opinion maintained by those who do not condemn our Author though they do this Book is that it is not the Work of Ratramnus but of Joannes Scotus And so it may be for ought I have hitherto said in regard he was more Ancient than our Saxon Homilist and equal with Bertram This Opinion was first delivered by the Learned (a) P. de Marca in Epistola Apud Dacherium in Spicil Tom. 2. Peter de Marca and is urged with great confidence by a (b) At the end of Mr. Arnaud's Defence in quarto Par. 1669. Dissert 1. The Author is Mr. Paris Monk of St. Genouefe whose Modesty M. Arnaud tells us caused him to conceal his Name This Dissertator makes a great dust with his Conjectures and would perswade us that Bertram and Ratramnus are not the same Person by reason of the variety of Names given him as I have shewn in the beginning of this Discourse but this is a poor shift for every one knows how differently Writers report the Names of Men who flourish'd in that Age and in those Parts of France and where the Authors make no difference it often happens by the Transcribers mistake One would think the Instance he gives of Cellot's Anonymous Writer who in his first leaf calls the Adversaries of Paschasius Rabanus and Ratramnus and in the next Babanus and Intramus might have suppressed that Objection In the next Section he saith Trithemius and Sigebert make Bertram to have written but one Book of Predestination whereas Ratramnus wrote two and that the two MSS. mentioned by Suffridus Petrus may be false written And I may better say they are not for he names neither more nor elder Copies that make it out As for the precise number of Books Sigebert and more curious Men are not always exact but many times where the Work is small call two Books Ad Carolum librum de Praedestin because one Work a Book so Sigebert saith and not one Book In his Third Section this Monk of St. Genouefe gives us nothing but a taste of his Modesty in taxing the incomparable Vsher of false dealing and telling the World that his Testimony is of no credit concerning a rasure out of a Manuscript he had seen at Cambridge and wonders he hath the confidence to hope that his bare word should be taken for it after his false dealing about Ratramnus his Book of Christ's Birth without telling how the Passage rased was recovered In the last Section he offers toward an Answer to the Reasons that induced Father Cellot to conclude Ratramnus Corbeiensis the Author of those Books which pass under the Name of Bertram I could were it worth while shew the insufficiency of his Answers and would do it but that I have in reserve such Testimonies from F. Mabillon as will baffle all his amusing Conjectures and to which any man of modesty will submit This he offers to prove that Bertram is not Ratramnus To make good the other part of his undertaking and shew that Joannes Scotus is the Author of this Book he suggests Three things 1. That this Book is agreeable to the account that is given of Scotus his Book whose Authority Berengarius used 2. That the style and manner of arguing are Scotus his peculiar way 3. That the Disciples of Berengarius after Scotus his Book was condemned in the Synods at Vercelli and Rome gave it the disguised Name of Bertram to preserve it from the flames His Arguments from the account given of Scotus his Book are well answered by F. Mabillon and all I shall say is what he omits viz. That the Doctrine of Scotus according to the best accounts we can have of it is not agreeable to that of Bertram for if F. Alexander and others are not Mistaken in (a) Quod Sacramenta Altaris non verum Corpus verus Sanguis sit Domini sed tantum memoria veri Corporis Sanguinis ejus de Praed c. 31. Hincmarus his meaning he taught that the Sacrament was only a Memory of Christ's Body and Blood which this Dissertator to give us a Specimen of his Honesty as he did before of his Modesty changes into a naked figure without any sort of Truth and expresly contrary to his Sentiments imputes to Bertram as his Doctrine 2. The style of Bertram and Scotus are not at all alike Scotus is full of Greek words and notions and citations out of the Greek Fathers which Bertram is free from His way of Arguing is not Syllogistical as Bertram's so far as I can observe by his Books De Naturis And his notion Scotus de Divisione Naturae l. 5 N. XX. Item l. 2. n. XI That Christ's glorified Body is absorpt in the Divine Nature and is not local nor visible nor had the same Members after its Resurrection which it had before will quite overthrow many of Bertram's Arguments to prove that in the Sacrament is not exhibited the same Body in which he died and rose again His Third suggestion is a meer Conjecture and a very weak one For if Berengarius his Disciples feigned that Name to preserve the Book from the fire What use did they preserve it for What service did it ever do them Who ever mentions any of them that alledged Bertram's Authority How comes it to pass that no Copies of it were preserved in the Southern Parts of France where the Albigenses and Waldenses Berengarius Disciples have abounded in all times ever since It is much they should not save one Copy of Bertram But since he is Conjecturing Why may not I offer a Conjecture or two in this matter 1. Why might not Bertram's Book through mistake both with Berengarius and his Adversaries pass under the Name of Scotus It is not impossible but I
insist not upon it 2. It is very probable that when the Synods of Vercellis and Rome condemned Scotus his Book to the flames those who had the execution of the Decree especially in Normandy and England Lanfranc's Province might burn Bertram for company and occasion the present scarcity of Manuscripts But to silence all these pretences and shew that Bertram's Book is no Forgery not corrupted by Heretical mixtures nor yet written by Scotus but Ratramnus Monk of Corbey I shall close this Chapter with the iningenuous acknowledgment of the Learned and honest F. Mabillon who saith Act. Ben. Sec. IV. p. 2. Praef. p. 45. n. 83. Travelling in the Netherlands I went to the Monastery of Lobez where among the few Manuscripts now remaining I found two One Book written 800 years since containing two pieces one of the Lord's Body and Blood and the other of Predestination the former one Book the latter two The Inscription and beginnings of both were thus in the Manuscript Thus begins the Book of RATRà NVS Therefore it is not Jo. Scotus of the Body and Blood of the Lord. You commanded me Glorious Prince At the end of this Book Thus begins the Book of RATRAMNVS concerning God's Predestination To his Glorious Lord and most Excellent King Charles RATRAMNVS c. As in the Printed Book The other Book was a Catalogue of the Library of Lobez with this Title A. D. 1049. The Friars of Lobez taking an account of the Library find in it these Books Ratramnus of the Lord's Body and Blood one Book The same Author of God's Predestination two Books which gives us to understand that the Book which contains these pieces of Ratramnus is the very same set down in the Catalogue A. D. 1049. and written before that time and by the hand it appears to have been written a little before the IX Century And I doubt not but it is the very Book which Herigerus Abbot of Lobez used at the end of the X Century This is full proof that Ratramnus is the Author and that the Book is no modern Forgery being 800 years old Well but hath it not been corrupted and interpolated by Hereticks Let F. Mabillon answer again touching the sincerity of the Editions of this Book I compared saith he the Lobez Manuscript with the Printed Books Ibid. p. 64. nu 130. and the reading is true except in some faulty places which I corrected by the Excellent Lobez Manuscript There is (a) That word is existit p. which I have inserted into the Text upon F. Mabillon's Authority Let the Papists make their best of it one word of some moment omitted which yet I will not say was fraudulently left out by the Hereticks the first Publishers of it in regard as I said before there appears not any thing of unfaithfulness in other places Thus doth this Learned and Ingenuous Benedictine testifie that the Book we now publish is a genuine piece of the IX Century that Ratramnus Monk of Corbey is the true Author and that his Work is come to our hands sincere and without Heretical mixtures either of Berengarius or Wiclef's Disciples (a) Mabil Iter Germanicum praefixum Analect Tom. IV. Incipit Liber Ratramni de perceptione Corporis Sanguinis Domini ad Carolum Magnum Beside the Lobez MS. the same Father in his Germain Voyage met with another in the Monastery of Salem Weiler which he judgeth by the hand to be 700 years old This gives the Title in the end as the Lobez MS. but in the beginning styleth it The Book of Ratramne of Receiving the Lords Body and Blood. To Charles the Great CHAP. IV. Of the the true Sense of the Author in some controverted Expressions BEfore we can comprehend the Sentiments of Ratramnus in the Controversie depending between us and the Church of Rome touching Christ's Presence in the Sacrament it will be necessary to settle and clear his true meaning in some Terms which frequently occur in this Tract Because our Adversaris by abusing the ambiguity of them and expounding them according to the Prejudices wherewith Education hath possest them seem to think Bertram their own and charge us with impudence and folly in pretending to his Authority Those Terms which are in the state of the Question are the principal Keys of the whole Discourse and well understood will open our Author's mind therein That * Quod in Ecclesia ore fidelium sumitur Corpus Sanguis Christi Qu. 1. § 5. Quod ore fidelium per Sacramentorum Mysterium in Ecclesia quotidie sumitur Q. 2. sect 50. which the mouth receiveth is the Subject of both Questions Not what the Faithful receive any way but what their Teeth press their Throat swalloweth and their Bellies receive In what sense the consecrated Elements are Christ's Body and Blood and whether his natural Body or not In the first Question there are two opposite Terms †See them explain'd by Bertram himself sect 7 8. and him determining the Sacramental change to be Figuratively wrought not corporally sect 9 16. and supporting himself by the Testimony of St. Augustine de Doctr. Christ l. 3. c. 16. Figure and Truth Figure The word Figure when applied to Terms or Propositions is taken in a Rhetorical sense and implies those Expressions not to be proper but either Metaphors or Metonymies c. as when Christ is called a Vine When applied to things as the consecrated Elements Figure and Mystery are of the same signification and imply the thing spoken of to be a Sign or Representation of some other thing Verity or Truth And on the contrary Verity or Truth in this Tract when applied to Terms or Propositions signifies Propriety of Speech but when applied to things it imports * In Proprietate Substantialiter in manifestationis Luce in veritatis simplicitate in this Tract are equivalent to naturally and in Verity of Nature This the Saxon Homily very well clears and as superficie tenus considerata answers to in proprietate a little before in Bertram sect 19. so in the Saxon Homily superficie tenus considerata is rendred after bodily understanding which answers to true Nature immediately preceding Truth of Nature So then Ratramnus determines the first Question to this effect That the words of our Saviour in the Institution of the Holy Eucharist are not to be taken properly but figuratively and that the consecrated Elements orally received by the Faithful are not the True Body of Christ but the Figure or Sacrament of it though not meer empty figures or naked signs void of all Efficacy but such as through the Blessing annext to our Saviour's Institution and the powerful operation of the Spirit of Christ working in and by those Sacred Figures is the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ Besides this Another sence of Verity Verity or Truth hath yet another sence as it stands opposed to a Lye or Falshood For a Proposition
Recantation he was the veriest Stercoranist who called Stercoranist first and Pope Nicolaus II. with the whole Council that imposed that Abjuration upon him were Stercoranists to some purpose who taught him (b) Of the Stircoranists an Imaginary Sect first discovered by Cardinal Perron see Conferences between a Romish Priest a Fanatick Chaplain and a Divine of the Church of of England p. 63. And Mr. L' Arroque in his Hist of the Eucharist Book II. ch 14. That Christ's Body is truly and sensibly handled and broken by the Priests Hands and ground by the Teeth of the Faithful And it is very unlikely that Bertram writ against such an Heresie when admitting him to have been of the same Faith with the Church of Rome touching Christ's Presence in the Sacrament he must have been a Stercoranist himself who asserts that what the Mouth receives is ground by the Teeth swallowed down the Throat and descends into the Belly nourishing the Body like common Food But (a) Mabillon Praef. ad sec IV. p. 2. nu 93. F. Mabillon waves this Pretence of the Stercoranists and makes Bertram to have through mistake opposed an Errour he thought Haymo guilty of viz. That the consecrated Bread and Cup are not signs of Christ's Body and Blood. I confess the words cited by him I can scarce understand but if that piece of Haymo be genuine by the citation he takes from him in the end of the same Paragraph in which he asserts That though the Taste and Figure of Bread and Wine remain yet the nature of the Substance is wholly turned into Christ's Body and Blood I see no reason why Bertram might not write against Paschasius and Haymo too Though in truth I do not imagine him to have confuted the Book of Paschasius but only his Notion in answer to the two Questions propounded to the King. Who were the Adversaries of Paschasius whose Doctrine is owned to be the Catholick Faith now held by the Roman Church he himself is best able to tell us and he informs us (a) Paschasius in Epist ad Frudegardum That they were such as denied the Presence of Christ's Flesh in the Sacrament but held an invisible power and efficacy in and with the Elements because say they there is no Body but what is visible and palpable which are the Sentiments of Ratramnus as will evidently appear to any unbyass'd Reader But to deprive us of all pretence to the Authority of Bertram they falsly impute to us the utter denial of the Verity of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament which we deny no otherwise than Bertram doth And to vindicate the Reformed Church of England in this point I shall propound her Doctrine out of her Liturgy Articles and Catechism In the Catechism we learn That the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lord's Supper In the 28 Article we profess That to them who worthily receive the Lord's Supper the Bread whith we break is the Communion of the Body of Christ and likewise the Cup of Blessing is the partaking of the Blood of Christ. In the Prayer before Consecration we beseech God that we may so eat the Flesh of Christ and drink his Blood that our sinful Bodies may be made clean by his Body and our Souls washed through his most precious Blood. In the Consecration Prayer we desire to be made partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood. And in the Post-Communion we give God thanks for vouchsafing to feed us with the spiritual food of Christ's most blessed Body and Blood. It is not the Verity of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament that our Church denies but the rash and peremptory determination of the manner of his Presence by the Roman Church 'T is a Corporal and Carnal Presence and Transubstantiation which we deny This our Church declares against in the Rubrick about Kneeling at the Communion asserting that we Kneel not (a) At the end of the Communion Service to adore any corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. That the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain in their very natural Substances after Consecration Also that the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one Our (b) Art. 28. Church declares that Transubstantiation cannot be proved by Holy Writ but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion to many Superstitions That Christ's Body is given taken and eaten in the Supper only in an Heavenly and Spiritual manner And that the means whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith only These are Authentick Testimonies of the Doctrine of our Church out of her publick Acts. I might add others of very great Authority out of the Apology for our Church written by the Learned Jewel together with its Defence by the Author Bishop (a) Eliensis Apolog. contra Bellarm. p. 11. Andrews against Bellarmine the Testimony of King James in (b) Casaubonus nomine Jacobi Regis in Epistola ad Card. Perronum p. 48. 51. ubi exscribit verba Eliensis Casaubon's Epistle to Cardinal Perron (c) Hooker Eccles Policy lib. 5. sect 67. Hooker Bishop (d) Montacutius in Antidiatrib contra Bulenger p. 143. Montague against Bulengerus c. but for brevity's sake I refer the Reader to the Books themselves And also for a Vindication of the Forreign Reformed Churches in this matter I desire the Reader to consult their Confessions and the Citations collected by Bishop (e) Hist Transub c. 2. Cosins out of their Confessions and their most Eminent Writers Both we and they assert the Verity of Christ's Body and Blood as far as the nature of a Sacrament will admit or is necessary to answer the ends for which that Holy Mystery was instituted by our Saviour We own a real communication of Christ's Body and Blood in that way which the Soul is only capable of receiving it and benefit by it We acknowledge the Verity of Christ's Body in the same sence that Bertram doth and deny the same Errors which the Church of Rome hath since imposed upon all of her Communion for Articles of Faith which Bertram rejected though since that time they are encreased in bulk and formed into a more Artificial Systeme Most if not all of these determinations of our Church are to be found in this little Book if not in express terms yet in such expressions as necessarily import them And perhaps the judgment of Bertram was more weighed by our Reformers in this Point than any of our Neighbour Churches Bishop (a) In Praef. libri de Coena Domini Latine excusi Genev. 1556. Ridley who had a great hand in compiling the Liturgy and Articles in King Edward VI. his Reign had such an esteem of
this Author and Work that he doth in his Paper given in to Queen Maries Commissioners at Oxford besides his own Answers and Confirmations insist upon whatever Bertram wrote on this Argument as a further proof of his Doctrine professing that he doth not see how any Godly Man can gain-say his Arguments and that it was this Book that put him first upon examining the old Opinion concerning the Presence of Christ's very Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament by the Scriptures and Elder Fathers of the Churcb and converted him from the Errours of the Church of Rome in that point And Dr. (a) Dr. Burnet's Hist of the Reform p. II. Book I. p 107. Burnet tells us the same adding That Ridley having read Bertram and concluding Transubstantiation to be none of the Ancient Doctrines of the Church but lately brought in and not fully received till after Bertram 's Age communicated the matter with Cranmer and they set themselves to examine it with more than ordinary care Thus he in the account he gives of the Disputation concerning the Real Presence A. D. 1549. which is the year in which the first Common-Prayer-Book of King Edward VI. was published at which time also Bertram was Printed in English by order of Bishop Ridley So that a Reverend and Learned Divine of our Church b had reason in asserting the Doctrine of Bertram was the very same Doctrine which (a) Several Conferences between a Popish Priest c. p. 61. the Church of England embraced as most consonant to Scripture and the Fathers Which is not what our Adversaries would put upon us that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a naked Commemoration of our Saviour's Death and a meer Sign of his Body and Blood but an efficacious Mystery accompanied with such a Divine and Spiritual Power as renders the consecrated Elements truly tho' Mystically Christ's Body and Blood and communicates to us the real Fruits and saving Benefits of his bitter Passion And this is the Doctrine of Bertram in both parts of this Work. CHAP. VI. That Ratramnus was not singular in his Opinion but had several other Great Men in his own and the following Age of the same Judgment with him in this Point BUt after all that I have said if Ratramnus tho' never so Learned or Orthodox were singular in his Sentiments touching Christ's Presence in the holy Eucharist we can make little of his Authority If the general Belief of the Church in his Time were contrary it only sheweth that one Eminent Divine had some Heterodox Opinions Let us therefore examine the Writers of his own Age and the next after him and see whether he or Paschasius delivered the current sence of the Church I shall not stand to examine the Belief of the more Ancient and Pure Times of Christianity but refer my Reader to Albertinus Archbishop Vsher and Bishop Cosins for an account of it I shall confine myself to the IX and X Centuries in which we shall find several of the most Eminent Doctors and Writers of the Church of the same Judgment with Ratramnus and some who were offended at the Doctrine of Paschasius And indeed there are manifest Tokens in his Book but more evident Proofs in his Epistle to Frudegardus that his Doctrine did not pass without contradiction in his own life time When he delivers his Paradox he prepares his Reader for some wondrous Doctrine And so strange was that new Doctrine of his that if the (a) Anonym de Euch. ad finem Sec IV. p. 2. Anonymous Writer published by F. Mabillon be Rabanus his Epistle to Egilo this Great and Learned Bishop professeth That he never heard or read it before and he much wondred that St. Ambrose should be quoted for it and more that Paschasius should assert it But F. Mabillon offers it only by way of conjecture modestly submitting it to the Judgment of Learned Men whether that Tract against Radbertus be the Epistle of Rabanus or not And I conceive there are better reasons to perswade us that it is not than those he offers to prove that it is As that it bears not the Name of Rabanus though himself mention his writing on that Subject to Egilo That it is not in an Epistolary Form Egilo is not so much as named nor doth any address to a second person appear throughout it but it is plainly a Polemical piece To which I may add that in the Anonymous piece there occurs an odd distinction of the same Body Naturaliter and Specialiter and yet in expounding the Doctrine of the Sacrament to Heribaldus it is not used by Rabanus though that Epistle to Egilo were first written But whoever he were that wrote it he was in all likelyhood an Author of the same Time and treats Paschasius very coursly and severely It is not likely that it was written while he was Abbot since the Author flouts him and in an Ironical way calls him Pontificem Among the Writers of the IX Century I shall number (a) Inter scriptores de Divinis Officiis Ed. per Hittorpium Par. 1610. col 303. Charles the Great though perhaps the Epistle to Alcuin was written somewhat before wherein he affirms that Christ supping with his Disciples brake Bread and gave it them with the Cup for a FIGVRE of his Body and Blood and exhibited a Sacrament highly advantagious to us As Venerable Bede before him speaks He gave in the Supper to his Disciples a FIGVRE of his Holy Body and Blood which notion consists not with the carnal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament (a) Apud L' Arroque Hist Euch. l. 2. c. 13. Theodulphus Aurelianensis near the beginning of this Century saith that by the visible offering of the Priest and the invisible consecration of the Holy Ghost Bread and Wine pass into the Dignity not the Substance of the Body and Blood of our Lord. As Jesus Christ is figured by the Wine so are the Faithful People by Water Amalarius (b) Amalarius Fortunatus Ibidem In Praefat. Col. 307. l. 1. c. 24. Fortunatus in the Preface of his Books of Divine Offices makes the Sacramental Bread and Wine to represent the Body and Blood of Christ and the Oblation to resemble Christ's own offering of himself on the Cross as the Priest doth the Person of Christ And elsewhere he saith that the Sacraments of Christ's Body are secundum quendum modum after some sort Christ's Body which is like Bertram's secundum quid not absolutely and properly but in some respect the Body of Christ and Amalarius cites that Passage of St. Augustine which Bertram alledged to render a reason why the Sacramental Signs have the name of the Thing signified What the Doctrine of Joannes Scotus was is hard to say only in the general 't is agreed that it was contrary to that of Paschasius though perhaps he erred on the other extreme making it a naked empty Figure or Memory of our Saviour's Death And
which the outward sense beholds that which the bodily eye seeth that which is outwardly seen or done corporeal that which the Teeth press or the Mouth receives that which feeds the Body that which appears outwardly importing the sensible qualities to be all that we have to judge the nature of visible Objects by its extension and figure its colour its smell its taste its solidity c. None of those Phrases imply the Accidents without the Substance but they are descriptions of the Sacramental Symbols or outward Signs And to these are opposed that which faith or the eyes of the mind only beholds that which we believe that which is inwardly contained or Spiritually seen or done that which faith receives the secret vertue latent in the Sacrament the saving benefits of it that which feeds the Soul and ministers the Sustenance of eternal life all expressions equivalent to the thing signified or the grace wrought by the Sacrament Also invisibly and inwardly are generally of the same signification with spiritually These are the Terms whose Ambiguity Popish Writers commonly abuse when they go about to persuade us that Ratramnus in this Book asserts the Real Presence in the sence of the Roman Church and is for Transubstantiation which any Man that reads him will find as difficult to believe as Transubstantiation itself CHAP. V. That this Treatise expresly Confutes the Dostrine of Transubstantiation and is very agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of England IT being acknowledg'd by (a) Bellarm. de Script Eccles de Paschasio Radberto ad A. D. 850 Bellarmine that the first who wrote expresly and at large concerning the Verity of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist was Paschasius Radbertus though he and Possevine to mention no more mistake grosly in saying that he wrote against Bertram and Sirmondus confesseth that he was the first who explained the (b) Genuinum Ecclesiae Catholicae sensum ita primus explicuit ut viam caeteris aperuerit qui de eodem argumento multi postea scripsere Sirmond in vita Paschasii praefixa operibus in Folio Par. 1618. genuine sence of the Catholick Church so as to open the way for others who have since written on that Subject It will not be amiss before I propose distinctly the Doctrins of the Church of Rome and our own Church that I say somewhat of Radbertus and his sentiments which our Adversaries own to be a true Exposition of the sence of their Church That Bertram as Bellarmine tells us was the first that called Transubstantiation in Question we are not much to wonder since Radbertus was the first that broach'd that Errour in the Western Church and no Errour can be written against till it be published And (a) Contra quem i. e. Paschasium satis argumentantur Rabanus in Epistola ad Egilonem Abbatem Ratramnus libro composito ad Carolum Regem Apud Cellotium Opusc Il. cap. 1. Herigerus tells us that not only Ratramnus but also Rabanus wrote against him and by comparing circumstances of time I shall shew that his Book did not long pass uncontradicted If we look into the Preface of * Vide Epistolum ad Carolum apud Mabillonium Act. Ben. Sec. 4. p. 2. p. 135. Placidio meo Warino Abbati Quem etiam Abbatem fuisse constat ex Prologo Paschasii Ideo sic communius volui stilo temperare subulco ut ea quae de Sacramento Corporis Sanguinis Christi sunt necessaria rescire quos necdum unda liberalium attigerat literarum vitae pabulum salutis haustum planius caperent ad medelam Ibidem Paschasius Radbertus it is easie to observe that the Book is not controversal but didactical and though dedicated to Warinus once his Scholar but then Abbot of New Corbey yet it was written in a plain and low style as designed for the Instruction of the Monks of New Corbey as much Novices in Christianity as in the Religion of St. Benedict and not so much as initiated in any sort of good literature and to teach them the Doctrine of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament This New Corbey was Founded by St. Adelardus the next year after his return from Exile viz. A. D. 822. and the place chosen as conveniently seated for the propagation of Christianity among the Pagan Saxons lately Conquer'd by Charles the Great and Ludovicus Pius And therefore this Book of * Vide Mabillonium A. B. sec 4. p. 2. Praef. de Paschas Radberto in Elogio Historico ejusdem Radbertus could not be written as some conjecture during the Banishment of Adelardus which lasted seven years from 814. to 821. In regard the Society for whose use it was written was not erected till afterwards Nor was Warinus to whom Radbert gives the Name of Placidius as he did to himself the Name of Paschasius Abbot till the Death of Adelardus A. D. 826. The ground of the mistake was the Opinion that prevailed till the Lives of Adelardus and Wala written by Radbertus were published by F. Mabillon viz. That †Ex vita S. Walae à Paschasio Radberto scriptae Arsenius mentioned in the Prologue was Adelardus whereas now it appears that Radbertus constantly calls Adelardus by the Name of Antonius and Wala his Brother and Successor in the Government of Old Corbey by that of Arsenius and it was during Wala's Banishment that Paschasius wrote his Book de Corpore Sanguine Domini or as he styles it of the Sacraments which happened A. D. 830. and lasted two years so that Paschasius his Book may be supposed to have been written A. D. 831. that is thirteen years later than formerly it was thought But though the Book was then first written on this occasion * Nunc autem dirigere non timui vobis quatenus nobis operis praestantior per vos exuberet fructus mercedis pro sudore cum per vos ad plurimos pervenerit commendatus Pasch Radbert in Ep. ad Carolum apud Mabillon sec 4. p. 2. p. 135. p. 136. Et ut hoc diligentius perlegat vestre Sagax intelligentia prostatis imploro precibus quatenus vestro examine comprobatus Codex etsi jamdudum ad plurimos pervenit deinoeps securius haberi possit Paschasius to recommend his Doctrine with the better advantage by his own Dignity and the Authority of his Prince sometime after his Promotion to the Abby of Corbey writes an Epistle to Carolus Calvus and sends him this Book though written many years before as a Present or New-Years-Gift Upon the receipt of this it is highly probable that Carolus Calvus propounded those two Questions to Ratramnus and upon his Answer those feuds might grow in the Monastery of Corbey which made Paschasius weary of the Place and resign his Abby in the year 851. in which Sirmondus supposeth he died but F. Mabillon gives good reasons to prove that he lived till 865. That the Controversies about the
Corpus ejus Et Calix vel quod habet Calix quomodo est Sanguis ejus Ista Fratres ideo dicuntur Sacramenta quia in eis aliud videtur aliud intelligitur Quod videtur speciem habet corporalem quod intelligitur fructum habet spiritualem XCIV Ista venerabilis Author dicens instruit nos quid de proprio Corpore Domini quod de Maria natum nunc ad Dexteram Patris sedet in quo venturus est judicare vivos mortuos Et quid de isto quod super Altare ponitur Populo participatur sentire debeamus Illud integrum est neque ulla sectione dividitur nec ullis Figuris obvelatur Hoc vero quod super Mensam Domini continetur Figura est quia Sacramentum est exterius quod videtur Speciem habet corpoream quae pascit Corpus interius vero quod intelligitur Fructum habet spiritualem qui vivificat Animam XCV Et de hoc Mystico Corpore volens apertius manifestius loqui sic dicit (a) Apud Fulgentium Ibidem in consequentibus Corpus ergo Christi si (b) Sirmondus legit Vis Audi. vultis intelligere Apostolum audite dicentem Vos estis Corpus Christi Membra (c) Haec verba unculis inclusa Librarii errore n MS. Lobiensi omittuntur Si ergo vos estis Corpus Christi Membra Mysterium vestrum in Mensa Domini positum est Mysterium (d) Domini male Vestrum accipitis ad id quod estis Amen respondetis respondendo subscribitis Audis ergo Corpus Christi respondes Amen esto Membrum Christi ut verum sit Amen Quare ergo in Pane Nihil hic de nostro adferamus (a) Apostolum item audiamus in Impressis Ipsum Apostolum dicentem audiamus cum (b) Cum ergo in Impressis de isto Sacramento loqueretur ait Vnus Panis Vnum Corpus multi sumus in Christo reliqua XCVI S. Augustinus satis nos instruit quod sicut in Pane super Altare positum Corpus Christi signatur sic etiam Corpus accipientis Populi ut evidenter ostendat quod Corpus Christi proprium illud existat in quo natus de Virgine in quo lactatus in quo passus in quo mortuus in quo sepultus in quo resurrexit in quo Coelos ascendit in quo Patris ad Dextram sedet in quo venturus est ad Judicium Hoc autem quod supra Mensam Dominicam positum est Mysterium continet illius sicut etiam identidem Mysterium continet Corporis Populi credentis Apostolo testante (c) Dicente Codd nonnulli Unus Panis Unum Corpus multi sumus in Christo XCVII Animadvertat Clarissime Princeps Sapientia vestra quod positis Sanctarum Scripturarum Testimoniis Sanctorum Patrum Dictis evidentissime monstratum est quod Panis qui Corpus Christi Calix qui Sanguis Christi appellatur Figura sit quia Mysterium quod non parva differentia sit inter Corpus quod per Mysterium existit Corpus quod passum est sepultum resurrexit Quoniam hoc proprium Salvatoris Corpus existit nec in eo vel aliqua Figura vel aliqua Significatio sed ipsa rei Manifestatio cognoscitur ipsius Visionem Credentes desiderant quoniam ipsum est Caput nostrum ipso viso satiabitur desiderium nostrum Quo (a) Melius Codd impressi quoniam ipse Pater unum sunt non secundum quod Corpus habet Salvator sed secundum plenitudinem Divinitatis quae habitat in homine Christo XCVIII At in isto quod per Mysterium geritur Figura est non solum proprii Corporis Christi verum etiam Credentis in Christum Populi Vtriusque namque Corporis id est Christi quod passum est resurrexit Populi in Christo (b) Impressi legunt in Christo per Baptismum renati renati atque de mortuis vivificati Figuram gestat XCIX Addamus etiam quod iste Panis Calix qui Corpus Sanguis Christi nominatur (a) Et existit Addidi haec verba monitus à Mabillonio locum ita extare in MS Laubiensi Acta Bened. Saecul 4. p. 2. in Praef. n. 130. Nec quicquam tamen juvat Pontificiorum causam haec additio agnoscunt enim Reformati Panem Calicem non solum Corpus Sanguinem Christi nominari sed etiam existere spiritualiter existit Memoriam repraesentat Dominicae Passionis sive Mortis quemadmodum ipse in Evangelio dixit Hoc facite in mei commemorationem Quod exponens Apostolus Paulus ait Quotiescunque manducabitis Panem hunc Calicem bibetis Mortem Domini annunciabitis donec veniat C. Docemur a Salvatore necnon a Sancto Paulo Apostolo quod iste Panis iste (b) Calix Forte reponendum est Sanguis qui super Altare ponitur in Figuram sive in Memoriam Dominicae Mortis ponantur ut quod gestum est in praeterito presenti revocet Memoriae ut illius Passionis memores effecti per eam efficiamur Divini Muneris Consortes per quam sumus a Morte liberati Cognoscentes quod ubi pervenerimus ad Visionem Christi talibus non opus habebimus instrumentis quibus admoneamur quid pro nobis immensa Benignitas sustinuerit Quoniam ipsum facie ad faciem contemplantes non per exteriorem temporalium rerum admonitionem commovebimur sed per ipsius contemplationem Veritatis aspiciemus que madmodum nostrae Salutis Autori gratias agere debeamus CI. Nec ideo quoniam ista dicimus putetur in Mysterio Sacramenti Corpus Domini vel Sanguinem ipsius non a Fidelibus sumi quando Fides non quod Oculus videt sed quod credit accipit quoniam spiritualis est Esca spiritualis Potus spiritualiter animam pascens Aeternae Satietatis vitam tribuens Sicut ipse Salvator Mysterium hoc commendans loquitur Spiritus est qui vivificat nam Caro nihil prodest CII Imperio vestrae Magnitudinis parere cupientes praesumpsi parvus rebus de non minimis disputare non sequentes aestimationis nostrae praesumptionem sed Majorum intuentes Autoritatem quae si probaveritis Catholice dicta vestrae Meritis Fidei deputate quae deposita Regalis Magnificentiae Gloria non erubuit ab humili quaerere Responsum Veritatis Sin autem minus placuerint id nostrae deputetur Insipientiae quae quod optavit minus efficaciter (a) Valuit Ita Colon. Editio 1551. Et MS. Lob. Impressorum alii voluit alii potuit legunt valuit explicare FINIS Sigebert Gemblacensis in his Book of Illustrious Men Chap. 96. BErtram * Two MSS. of Sigebert call him Ratramus wrote a Book of the Body and Blood of the Lord and a Book of Predestination to Charles viz. the Bald. The Testimony of John
our Lord's Passion or Resurrection is celebrated are called by the name of those Days because they have some Resemblance of those very Days in which our Saviour once suffered and rose again XXXVIII Hence we say to Day or to Morrow or next Day is the Passion or Resurrection of our Lord whereas the very Days in which those things were done are long past So we say the Lord is offered when the Sacraments of his Passion are celebrated Whereas he was but once offered in his own Person for the Salvation of the World as the Apostle saith (a) 1 Pet. 2.21 Christ hath suffered for us leaving you an Example that you should follow his steps Not that Christ suffers every day in his own Person This he did but once but he hath left us an Example which is every day presented to the Faithful in the Mystery of the Lord's Body and Blood So that whosoever cometh thereunto must understand that he ought to have a fellowship with him in his Sufferings the Image whereof he expects to receive in the Holy Mysteries according to that of the Wise-man (a) Prov. 23.1 2. If thou comest to the Table of a Great man consider diligently what is set before thee knowing that thou thy self must prepare the like To come to this Great-man's Table is to be made a Partaker of the Divine Sacrifice To consider what is set before thee is to understand the Lord's Body and Blood of which whosoever is partaker ought to prepare the like that is to imitate him by dying with him whose Death he commemorates not only in believing but also in eating XXXIX So St. Paul to the Hebrews (a) Heb. 7.26 27. Such an High Priest became us who is holy harmless undefiled separate from sinners and made higher than the Heavens who needeth not as those daily to offer up Sacrifice first for his own Sins and then for the Peoples For this the Lord Jesus Christ did once when he offered himself What he did once he now every day repeats For he once offered himself for the Sins of the People yet the same Oblation is every day celebrated by the Faithful but in a Mystery So that what the Lord Jesus Christ once offering himself really did the same is every day done in Remembrance of his Passion by the Celebration of the Mysteries or Sacraments XL. Nor yet is it falsly said That in those Mysteries the Lord is offered or suffereth because they have a Resemblance of his Death and Passion whereof they are Representations whereupon they are called The Lord's Body and the Lord's Blood because they take the Names of those things whereof they are the Sacrament For this reason St. Isidore in his Book of Etymologies saith thus Sacrificium the Sacrifice is so called from Sacrum Factum a sacred Action because it is consecrated by mystical Prayer in Memory of the Lord's Passion for us Whence by his Command we call it the Body and Blood of Christ which though made of the Fruits of the Earth is sanctified and made a Sacrament by the invisible Operation of the Spirit of God. Which Sacrament of the Bread and Cup the Greeks call the Eucharist that is in Latine bona Gratia good Grace And what is better than the Body and Blood of Christ * These words which lie between two little Stars are not in the Printed Editions of St. Isidore I wish they were not purposely omitted by the Publishers of his Works or rather expunged anciently by the Enemies of Berengarius Now Bread and Wine are therefore compared to the Body and Blood of Christ because as the Substance of this visible Bread and Wine feed and inebriate the outward man so the Word of God which is the living Bread doth refresh the Souls of the Faithful by the receiving thereof * These words which lie between two little Stars are not in the Printed Editions of St. Isidore I wish they were not purposely omitted by the Publishers of his Works or rather expunged anciently by the Enemies of Berengarius XLI Likewise this Catholick Doctor teaches That the holy Mystery of the Lord's Passion should be celebrated in Remembrance of the Lord 's Suffering for us In saying whereof he shews that the Lord suffered but once but the Memory of it is represented in sacred and solemn Rites XLII So that the Bread which is offered though made of the Fruits of the Earth when Consecrated is changed into Christ's Body as also the Wine which flowed from the Vine is by Sacramental Consecration made the Blood of Christ not visibly indeed but as this Doctor speaks by the invisible Operation of the Spirit of God. XLIII And they are called the Blood and Body of Christ because they are understood to be not what they outwardly appear but what they are inwardly made by the invisible Operation of the Holy Ghost And that this invisible Operation renders them much a different thing from what they appear to our Eyes he St. Isidore observes when he saith That the Bread and Wine are therefore compared to the Lord's Body and Blood because as the Substance of material Bread and Wine doth nourish the outward Man so the Word of God which is the Bread of Life doth refresh the Souls of the Faithful in partaking thereof XLIV In saying this we most plainly confess That in the Sacrament of the Lord's Body and Blood whatsoever is outwardly received serves only for the Refreshment of the Body But the Word of God who is the invisible Bread being invisibly in the Sacrament doth in an invisible manner nourish and quicken the Souls of the Faithful by their partaking thereof XLV Wherefore again the same Doctor saith There is a Sacrament in any divine Office when the thing is so managed that there is somewhat understood which must be spiritually taken In saying thus he shews that every Sacrament or Mystery of Religion contains in it some secret thing And that there is one thing that visibly appears and another thing to be Spiritually understood XLVI And soon after shewing what are the Sacraments which the Faithful should celebrate he saith And these Sacraments are Baptism Chrism or Confirmation and the Body and Blood of Christ Which are called Sacraments because under the Coverture of bodily things the Power of God doth in a secret way work the Salvation or Grace conferred by them And from these secret and sacred Vertues they are called Sacraments And in the following words he saith It is called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Mystery because it contains a secret or hidden Dispensation XLVII What do we learn hence but that the Body and Blood of Christ are therefore called Mysteries because they contain a secret and hidden Dispensation That is it is one thing which they outwardly make Shew of and another thing which they operate inwardly and invisibly XLVIII And for this Reason they are called Sacraments because under the Covert of bodily Things a
material the advantage if any be lies on our side In his Preface and Remarks I meet with nothing of any moment which is not obviated and fully cleared in my (d) In Chapters IV. and V. Dissertation For I had considered the main things on which he insists in the Writings of F. Mabillon and Natalis Alexander and given them an Answer If he had borrowed F. Mabillon's Modesty and Ingenuity as he hath done his Arguments or contented himself with them he would have escaped many foul imputations which will now unavoidably disparage either his Judgment or his Integrity There are two things which disable me for a thorough examination of Monsieur Boileau's Work the one is the want * Dacherij Spicilegium Mabillonij Analecta c. of some Books which it were necessary for me to consult on this occasion which cannot be here procured and the other the want of a little more critical Skill in the French in order to the more effectual discovery of his unfair dealing However under these disavantages I doubt not to convince all unprejudiced Persons of these three things 1. First That Monsieur Boileau hath grosly misrepresented the design and sentiments of Ratram in this Book 2. That he hath not acted the part of a Faithful Translator nor used that exactness which himself and his Approvers pretend but on the contrary hath all along accommodated his Version to his own Hypothesis and not the Authors Words 3. That his Exposition of the Controverted Terms in this Discourse both in his Preface and Remarks is often very absurd that those Terms cannot bear his Sense nor are they used therein by other Ecclesiastical Writers either of the same or elder times And the proof of these will be a full confutation of this Doctors confident Pretence that this Book of Ratram contains no other Sentiments than those of that Church which he stiles Catholick Apostolick and Roman touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist Before I enter upon the first part of my Undertaking it will not be amiss to take a short view of Monsieur Boileau's Preface the sum of which is this That although this piece of Ratram is one of the most considerable Monuments of the Ninth Century and serves admirably to clear the perpetuity of the Faith touching the Eucharist yet it hath lain in the dark and been taken notice of by almost no body from his own time till it was Printed at Colen Anno Dom. 1532. That upon its first appearance in publick it met with very odd entertainment and quite contrary to what it deserved being challenged by the Protestants as favourable to their Sentiments and given up by the Roman Catholicks as an Impudent and Heretical Forgery Insomuch that this Tract was put into the Index of Prohibited Books made in the Council of Trent Anno Dom. 1559. and stands condemned in the succeeding Indices and the most eminent Doctors of that Communion have ever since esteemed it a Dangerous and Heretical Piece Some few indeed have treated poor Ratram a little more favourably The Lovain Divines who compiled the Belgick Index declare that with the help of a Catholick Exposition he may be tolerated And M. de Sainte Boeuve Kings Professor of Divinity in the Sorbon did in the Year 1655. generously undertake the Defence of his Doctrine in his publick Lectures But after all no less a man than Petrus de Marca and others have been since labouring to prove that this Book was written by Joannes Scotus and not Ratram and is the same that was condemned in the Berengarian Controversie by the Synods of Rome and Vercelli Having rejected this and all other hard censures he tells us that Ratram's Sentiments are entirely Catholick and not in the least contrary to the Doctrine of Paschasius Radbertus or the present Roman Church and this he doubts not to make evident by his Translation of Bertram into French and the Exposition of his obscure terms given in this Preface and the remarks which he hath added to justifie his Translation Having given this general account of Mr. Boileau's Work I shall shew how he represents the Scope and Sentiments of our Author In the Negative (a) Que cet Auteur n'a point eu d'autre creance que celle de la realite de la Transubstantiation Preface p. 10. That he doth not impugn the Doctrine of the Real Presence or Transubstantiation nor dispute against the Opinion of Paschasius Radbertus But on the contrary (b) Cet Auteur n' est point oppose a Paschase ny a la Doctrine de l'Eglise Catholique Ibid. and p. 23 24. That he and Paschasius teach the same Doctrine 2. In the Affirmative (c) Ce livre de Ratramne est fait contre des Theologiens Catholiques mais-pas-contre le Sentiment Catholique p. 21. That this Book was writen against certain Catholick Divines tho not against the real Presence and Transubstantiation And that the Opinions which he encounters are these (d) See page 22. 23. two 1. That The Body of our Lord received in the Holy Sacrament is exposed naked to our bodily Senses without any Figure or Vail whatsoever 2. That the Body of Christ which is visible and orally received in the Holy Sacrament or whatever is the object of Sense therein which as (e) Preface p. 25. in Versione passim Mr. Boileau expounds this Tract is only the Species or Accidents of Bread and Wine is the self same Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin Crucified Dead and Buried That is his true and natural Body Now in this account of the Design and Sentiments of Ratram this Doctor is either grosly mistaken himself or else he grosly abuseth his Reader And this I hope to make out both by shewing the weakness of those Arguments he offers for it and also by producing better Reasons against it The Sum of what is said to support the Negative viz. That Ratram doth not confute the Sentiments of Paschasius or the Doctrine of Transubstantiation may be reduced to these three things 1 (f) Preface p. 2 3 4. The Silence of all Authors from his own time to the Year 1532. especially in the Berengarian Controversie none save F. Cellot's Anonymus once mentioning him as an Adversary to Paschasius 2. (g) Ibid p. 21 25 26. The Silence of Ratram himself who never mentions Paschasius or his Book nor the real Presence but on the contrary uses terms proper to establish Transubstantiation 3. (h) Ibid p. 8 9 10 12. That many Learned Writers of the Roman Communion especially since Manuscript Copies of it have been found have esteem'd this Piece very Orthodox To the First I answer That the pretended Silence of Authors hinders not but that Ratram might impugn the Doctrine of Paschasius When two Authors of the same time handle one and the same Argument and the one advanceth this Proposition That the Body of Christ received orally in the Sacrament
is the same Body which was born of the Virgin Suffered on the Cross and rose from the Grave as Paschasius did and the other puts the Proposition into the Form of a Question and determines it in the Negative as (i) Through the whole discussion of the Second Question Bertram hath done I conceive there needs no witness to make any man who is not sunk quite over head and ears into Scepticism believe that this latter opposeth the Doctrine of the former But Secondly He doth not say that no body hath mentioned him as an Adversary to Paschasius he acknowledgeth that F. Cellots Anonymous Author hath expresly affirmed it And tho' he thinks it enough to invalidate his Credit by saying of him as the Bishop of Meaux doth of M. Imbert (k) See the Bishop of Meaux his Letter in the Vindication of his Exposition p. 116. Vn homme sans nom comme sans scavoir He is a man of neither Repute nor Learning that he is an Author of little Sense or Merit whose Name or Age cannot be discovered This will not serve his turn for the credibility of a Witness depends more upon a man's Honesty and the means he hath of truly informing himself touching the matter he attests than on his renown or deep Learning an ordinary Parish Priest may be as credible a Witness of a matter of Fact within his knowledg as the Bishop of Meaux or the Dean of the Metropolitical Church of Sens. We were in a miserable case if none under the Dignity of a Dean could tell Truth or if we were to know no more than some Sorbon Doctors are content to let us But what if Mr. Boileau be mistaken when he tells us that by the confession of all Mankind he hath little Sense or Reason and that his Age is unknown What if his Time and Name be well known and he appear to have been an Author of some Figure and Note for Learning F. (l) Acta Ben. S. IV. p. 2. Praef. n. 48. Proinde auctorem Herigerum Abbatem Laubiensem affirmare non vereor De Herigero autem Girardus in vita Adalbardi Corbeiensis apud Mabillon Ibidem n. 48. Abbas Laubiensis HERIGERUS qui eo tempore inter Sapientes habebatur celeberrimus Mabillon thinks he knows both his Name and Time and that he was no meaner a Person than Herigerus Abbat of Lobes who lived about 120 Years after Ratram But if the discovery had never been made it is a slender Argument that he was not worth the Publishing because Sirmondus and Arch-Bishop Vsher could have Published him but did not How many other Authors which they could have Published but did not must be judged worthless Scribblers if this be true reasoning Let M. Boileau despise him as much as he pleaseth he is a far better Witness that Ratram wrote against Paschasius than any he can produce to inform us who those Divines were in the Ninth Century that held the Opinions of Abbaudus and Prior Gaultier the imaginary Adversaries which he makes him to encounter He can neither shew the Books of that time wherein those Opinions are taught nor yet prove by any Author that they were then held by any body That (m) Preface p. 4. neither Sigebertus Gemblacensis nor Trithemius who both mention this Tract say any thing of its being written against Paschasius is no convincing Proof that it was not For those Authors ordinarily give us no further account of Books than the bare Titles afford and they omit many unquestionable Works of those Writers whom they mention F. Mabillon (n) Acta Ben. S. IV. p. 2. Praef. n. 149. 150. makes no doubt but the two Books De partu Virginis were Written by Paschasius against Ratram's Book on that Subject yet neither Sigebert or Trithemius say one Word of that Dispute nor can M. Boileau produce any one Writer from those times to the beginning of this Century who so much as mentions it Neither the Popes nor those Councils which they assembled against Berengarius at Rome and Verceli doubted but Joannes Scotus wrote against Paschasius and yet neither (o) No very accurate Writers who make two Authors of Joannes Scotus and Joannes Erigena as Mr. Sclater or his Printer doth p. 76. Trithem de Script Eccles fol. 63. 65. Quarto Paris 1512. Sigeb cap. 65. cap. 95. Trithemius nor Sigebert (p) He wrote in Defence of the Emperor Henry IV. against Pope Gregory VII Paschal II. And Died A. D. 1113. who lived and was a Writer in the latter daies of Berengarius saith one Syllable of it As for Bishop Fisher he did not as M. Boileau pretends (q) Preface p. 4. Qui le cite cite Bertram he only mentions his Name among other Catholick Writers on that Subject His Second Argument concludes as little as the first for we pretend not that this Tract was written against the Book of Paschasius but only against his Sentiments so that there was no occasion to mention it It was upon the command of his Prince who propounded those two Questions that he medled with this Controversie and if he wrote about the Year 850. whilst Paschasius was Abbot of Corbey there is another obvious Reason for his Silence in that Point But tho' we confess that this Tract confutes not the Book of Paschasius yet we think it too boldly said (r) Preface p. 21. That it makes as little mention of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation as it doth of Stercoranism unless his meaning be that they are not mentioned in those proper Terms which were not then in use He ought to be very well assured that Veritas in Bertram doth not signifie Verity of Nature but such a Verity as is discerned by our bodily Senses otherwise he must retract this confident Assertion and give us leave to believe some other great Doctors (s) Espenceus Genebrard c. of the Sorbon who do acknowledg that he both mentions and denies them But whether he doth or not as also whether he uses Terms proper to establish Transubstantiation I shall have a fitter occasion hereafter of discoursing with our Author and shall therefore proceed to consider What he can fairly collect from the favourable Opinion which some Learned Doctors of the Church of Rome have had of this Piece The Lovain Doctors think he needs a Comment to give him a tolerable Sense And though Writing invisibly for visibly be but the Correction of a Typographical Error yet the Exposition of external Species or Accidents of the Creatures where the Author saith the substance of the Creatures and the other that follows is a Gloss that marrs the Text at least when t Index Exp. Philippi II. Regis Catholici jussu Ant. 1571. p. 7. the Expositors themselves confes that Bertram knew not that the Accidents did subsist without their subjects And when they have done all they can by way of Exposition they think it necessary
its Glorified State. And Christ hath no other Real Body but his Glorified Body In the state of Humiliation when he was Scourged Buffeted and Crucified the Body of our Saviour was visible and palpable and was a true Body with all the sensible Appearances of such a Body yet I am of opinion that M. Boileau will scarce adventure to say that our Saviour's Body was then Impassible Incorruptible or Immortal Whereas if the word Veritas be taken in its genuine and common Sense the Consequence is undeniable For to the Truth of a Proposition it is requisite that the Praedicate do really agree to the Subject and that the Subject be in Truth of Nature what it is affirmed to be And whatever the Subject is not in Reality that is either falsly or improperly affirmed of it I hope this may suffice to shew that Ratram did not use the Term in M. Boileau's sense which is as much as I am obliged to prove But for the further manifestation of his Extravagance in imposing that signification upon it I shall proceed to let you see how contrary it is to the usage of the word Verity in other Ecclesiastical Writers of his own and Elder times I shall give you an Instance or two out of Tertullian who in answering those Hereticks who objected against the Reality of the Incarnation the words of St. Paul Rom. viii 3. God sending his Son in the LIKENESS of sinful Flesh c. thus expresseth himself (a) Non quod Similitudinem Carnis acceperit quasi IMAGINEM Corporis non VERITATEM Sed Similitudinem peccatricis carnis vult intelligi c. Tertul. de Carne Christi c. 16. Not that he assumed the LIKENESS of FLESH as if it were the IMAGE of a Body and not the VERITY i. e. a Real Body Again Answering an Objection of Marcion who said That if the Image of God the Soul sinned in Man the Guilt would affect God himself He saith (b) Porro IMAGO VERITATI haud usque quaque adaequabitur aliud enim est secundum VERITATEM esse aliud IPSAM VERITATEM esse Adv. Marcion l. 2. c. 9. The IMAGE must not be in all respects made equal with the VERITY it is one thing to be made after the TRUTH i. e. in imitation of it and another thing to be the VERY TRUTH it self Again He proves that Christ had a Real Body because the Sacrament was a Figure of it For there could be no Figure unless there were a TRUE Body Irenaeus doth not only use the word in the same sense but establisheth an Essential difference between the Image and Verity (c) Typus enim Imago secundum materiam secundum Substantiam aliquories a VERITATE diversus est secundum autem habitum lineamentum debet servare similitudinem Iren. adv Haer. l. 2. c. 40. A Type and Image saith he is sometimes in Matter and Substance different from the VERITY or TRUTH but it ought to resemble the Shape and Lineaments thereof They differ Substantially St. Cyprian also useth the Term in the same sense where making the deliverance of the First-born in Egypt whose Door-posts were sprinkled with the Blood of the Paschal Lamb a Type of our Salvation by the Cross and Passion of our Lord he saith (d) Quod ante occiso agno praecedit in imagine impletur in Christo secuta postmodum Veritate Cypr. ad Demetrian p. 194. Edit Oxon. That Salvation which antiently in the slaying of the Paschal Lamb went before in the way of an IMAGE is fulfilled in Christ the TRUTH which followed after St. Ambrose frequently useth VERITAS for the Reality speaking of boaring the Ear of the Jewish Servants and the Circumcision of their Flesh c. (e) SIGNA sunt ista non VERITAS Sed ille intelligit qui cor suum Spiritali Circumcisione castificat c. Ambr. in Ps 118. Oct. 13. These things are SIGNS and not the TRUTH which was Sanctification as he tells immediately And in what sense the word Verity must be taken when we find it opposed to Signs he elsewhere teacheth speaking of Abraham's Circumcision (f) Abraham Signum accepit Circumcisionis Vtique SIGNVM non IPSA RES sed ait rius rei est hoc est non VERITAS sed indicium VERITATIS de Abraham l. 1. in Gen. c. 17. The Apostle Paul said that Abraham received the Sign of Circumcision now the SIGN is not the THING IT SELF but the Representation of another Thing that is not the TRUTH but an Indication of the TRUTH where he not only opposeth the TRUTH to a SIGN but also expounds it to be the REALITY So Gaudentius Bishop of Brescia contemporary with St. Ambrose speaking of the Paschal Lamb as a Type of Christ's Death saith (g) Figura erat non Proprietas Dominicae Passionis FIGVRA etenim non est VERITAS sed imitatio VERITATIS Gaudent Brix Serm. 2. in Exod. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 2. Edit Par. 1610. It was a FIGURE of our Lord's Passion and not the PROPRIETY now a FIGURE is not the TRUTH or REALITY but an Imitation of the TRUTH Here he makes a Figure and the REALITY to be Inconsistent in their very Natures I might produce several Passages of St. Austine to the same effect but shall content my self with one or two (h) Hujus Sacrificii Caro Sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas SIMILITVDINVM promittebatur in Passione Christi per IPSAM VERITATEM reddebatur Post ascensum Christi per SACRAMENTVM MEMORIAE celebratur August contra Faustum Manich. l. xx c. 21. Having cited those words of the Psalmist Sacrificium laudis glorificabit me c. He addeth The Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice was promised by Typical Victims before the coming of Christ it was given in VERY TRUTH or Reality in the Passion of Christ and is celebrated in the SACRAMENT which is the MEMORIAL thereof after the Ascension of Christ This is a remarkable Passage not only as it gives us the true sense of the word verity but as it declares the Holy Eucharist to be an Historical Type of our Saviours Oblation on the Cross as the Jewish Sacrifices were Prophetical Types thereof but neither one nor the other his Flesh and Blood in Reality The other place is cited by Gratian whose Decretum the (i) Sed animum hic advertat Sanctitas tua Nam Decretalium Sexti Clementinarum Extravagantium tantum supra Meminimus ac non item Decreti quod minime mirum videri debet Est enim Perniciosus liber Authoritatem tuam valde imminuit c. Concil quorundam Episc de stabilienda Romana Eccles fol. 5. Bishops met at Bononia in their Advice to Pope Julius III. had reason upon account of this and many other Passages of the Antient Fathers and Councils no way favourable to Popery extant in that Collection to call a Pernicious Book The words occur not in the Works of St.