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
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
Teste Mabilioni ebi supr n. 156. de Anima at the instance of Odo sometimes Abbot of Corbey and Bishop of Beauvais against a Monk of the same Convent who taught that all Men had but one and the same Soul which Book is extant in Manuscript in the (c) Vsserio Hist Gottesch c. 2. Library of Bennet College in Cambrige in that of Salisbury Church and of St. Eligius at Noyon in France but not Printed About the Year 868. Pope (a) Vide Mauguin T. 2. Dissert c. 17. Titulus libri sic se habet Contra opposita Graecorum Imperatorum Romanam Ecclesiam infamantium libri quatuor Rathramni Monachi Teste Mabillonio Nicolaus I. having desired Hincmarus and the French Bishops to Consider and Answer the Objections of the Greeks against the Latine Church and Hincmarus having employed Odo Bishop of Beauvais therein it is likely he recommended our Author to the Bishops as a Man fit to underrake such a Work and accordingly he wrote four Books on that Occasion published by (b) Spicileg T. 2. Dacherius He hath also among the (c) Vide Felleri Catal. Codd MSS. Biblioth Paulinae in Acad. Lipsiensi Duod 1686. p. 125. MSS. of Leipsick Library an Epistle concerning the Cynocephali Whether they be truly Men and of Adam's Seed or Bruit Creatures What moved him to discuss this Question or how he hath determined it I know not The Epistle is directed to one Rimbert a Presbyter I am apt to think the same who succeeded Anscharius in the See of Breme and wrote his Life For he was born not far from Old Corbey and bred up by St. Anscharius and therefore more likely to correspond with Ratramn than the other Rimbertus Presbyter who was a Dane and employed in the Conversion of the Northern Nations If the Epistle were addressed to the former it must be written in or before the Year 865. when Rimbert was made Archbishop of Breme and Hambrough I mention this Book of the Lord's Body and Blood in the last place written by him as some guess about the Year 850. or perhaps sooner Of which I shall say no more at present in regard it will furnish matter sufficient for several Chapters CHAP. II. Of his Treatise concerning Christ's Body and Blood and the Author cleared of Heresie and the other Accusations of F. Cellot THis Treatise of the Body and Blood of the Lord was first Printed at Colon A. D. 1532. (a) Cellot saith it was first published from a Copy prepared for the Press by Oecolampadius who died before it was Printed That it was not Printed at Colen but Basil How truly I know not who was the Publisher or what Copy he followed or what became of the Manuscript afterwards I know not The Name of Bertram and the Inscription to Charles the Great are an unquestionable proof that it was not the Lobes MS. but some other not so ancient which it is probable fell into bad hands and is made away The appearance of an Author near 700 years old and so expresly contradicting their Doctrine put the Romish Doctors into great confusion They all saw it was necessary to take some course to deprive the Protestants of the advantage they were likely to make of so material a Witness against them But they were very much divided in their Opinions what course would prove most effectual Some have condemned the Author for an Heretick which is a quick and sure way to invalidate his Testimony in a point of Faith. Others have spared the Author but condemned the Book for Spurious as well as Heretical or at least as corrupted by the Disciples of Berengarius and Wiclef Others say that it is not the Work of Ratramne Monk of Corbey but of Joannes Scotus Erigena And lastly their most Learned Writers of this present Age allow the Book to be Bertram's and notwithstanding some rash expressions in it which may bear a Catholick sense acknowledge the Work as well as its Author to be Orthodox and say he doth not oppose the present Doctrin of the Roman Church being rather for Transubstantiation than against it Wherefore to vindicate this Work from our Adversaries who use so many tricks to wrest it out of our hands I shall endeavour these five things 1. To shew that Ratramnus was Orthodox and free from all just imputation of Heresie 2. To prove that this Treatise is a genuine piece of the IX Century that it hath not been maliciously depraved since those times and that Ratramnus and not Joannes Scotus Erigena is the Author thereof 3. To settle the true sence of our Author in some obscure and controverted terms 4. To prove that the Doctre in delivered in this Book is contrary to that of Paschasius and the present Roman Church but very agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of England 5. To shew that he was not singular in his Doctrine but that other Great Men of that and the next Age were of the same Judgment with him First then let us consider the charge of Heresie which some object against him Turrian saith That to cite Bertram is only to shew that Calvin 's Heresie is not new Bellarmine vouchsafes him no place in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers tho' twice he mentions him on the by and fixes him A. D. 850. But in his (a) Bell. Controv. Tom. 3. de Sacr. Eucharist l. 1. c. 1. sec Tertius Controversies he numbers him among his Hereticks and with Possevine who saith notwithstanding the Belgick Index this Book may not be read but with the Pope's License in order to confute it makes him to have lived under Carolus Crassus A. D. 886. So little exactness do these Great Men observe in their Writings as to Chronology so little do they mind what they themselves elsewhere say that an ill-natur'd Protestant Critick might insult over Possevine and Bellarmine for slips in Chronology as often and as justly as (b) Phil. Labbe de Script Eccles quos possim Onochronos Ardeliones Mataeologos appellat Phil. Labbe doth over Gerhard Hottinger Maresius c. But (a) Praefat. ad Act. Ben. sec 14. p. 2. c. 1. n. 125. F. Mabillon observes other Writers every whit as Learned and Orthodox absolve him from the charge of Heresie and he blames those Zealots for giving away an Author to the Hereticks whom their Ancestors always esteemed a Catholick (b) De Script Eccles T. 1. p. 53. Phil. Labbe numbers him among the Catholick Tractators Radbert Lanfranc and Guitmund And the Authors of the Belgick Index say he was a Catholick Priest. And to condemn him upon the Testimony of so incompetent Witnesses as Turrian Bellarmine Possevine c. who are notoriously Parties and lived many hundred years after him is against all Reason and Equity Especially when they charge him with no Heretical Opinions save in the matter of the Sacrament for which he was never condemned in his own Age and which is the point now in
Controversie between us and them That our Author had the honour to be consulted by Carolus Calvus on very profound Arguments his familiarity with Lupus Abbot of Ferriers (a) Ex Titulo MS. operis de Anima Odo Bishop of Beauvais and Hildegarius Bishop of Meaux the trust reposed in him by the French Prelates who employed him to write an Apology for the Latin Church against the Greeks to which I may add if he were the same Person whom Flodoardus mentions as Abbot of Orbais his Preferment to that Dignity are somewhat more than strong presumptions that he had the repute of an Orthodox as well as a Learned Man. I know no body that offers to make good this charge in particular instances but F. Cellot (b) Lud. Cellot Hist Gottesc l. 2. c. 19. l. 3. c. 7. in quaestione de Eucharistia monstrabitur Haereticus c. a Jesuite whose accusations are home I confess and represent him as Heterodox though not convict of Heresie but he seldom offers in proof any thing save some bold conjectures and those often contrary to the sentiments of the most Learned Writers of his own Church 1. He makes him Heterodox in the matter of (a) Cellot Hist Gottesc l. 2. c. 19. numerat inter causas naufragii miserabilis Monachi Ratramni Magisterium l. 3. c. 7. In Praedestinatione ita se Catholicum exibet ut tamen non levem suspicionem sinistrae doctrinae relinquat Predestination and to have been the Tutor of Gotteschalcus which I conceive is not sufficiently proved from the Complements of that Monk who writes to him as he had done to Lupus and others and calls him Friend and Master That he favoured the sentiments of Gotteschalcus I deny not and that he wrote against Hincmarus but that he was not so rigid in the point as that poor Monk F. Cellot himself confesseth Lupus was of the same judgment so was Prudentius Bishop of Troyes and (b) Vide Vsser Hist Gottesc c. 16. Remigius Archbishop of Lyons who sticks not to censure the punishment of Gotteschalcus as beyond all examples of cruelty and as unmerciful usage unbecoming Religious Men and the proceedings against him at Carisiac as irregular Our Author's judgment seems to be no other than St. Augustine's against the Pelagians and after all F. Cellot's accusations these Books are newly Printed in the last Edition of the Bibliotheca Patrum at Lyons without the least censure 2. He represents him as Heterodox in the * Cellot Hist Gottesc l. 3. c. 7. in explicatione Trinitatis ex errore discipuli ipse errare intelligetur Doctrine of the Trinity for opposing the Alteration of Trina Deitas by Hincmarus in an old Hymn upon pretence that it implied Three God's But this contest was not about any Article of Faith for (a) Trinas Deitates affirmantem ipse Goteschalcus execratur apud Hincmarum de non Trina Deit Hymni Sanstorum mentis Strophe Vetus in Natali plurium Martyrum Te Trina Deitas unaque poscimus Vt culpas abluas noxia detrahas Des pacem famulis nos quoque gloriam Per cuncta tibi saecula Gotteschalcus and Ratramnus did as little believe Three Gods as Hincmarus nor doth he accuse them as Tritheites the Dispute was about the sence of Trina Deitas which they denied to import Three Gods any more than did Trinus Deus and therefore no Alteration need be made in the old usage of the Church And in this Controversie he had the (b) Mauguin Tom. 2. Dissert c. 45. Religiosi S. Benedicti diu multumque reluctati sunt huic immutationi Religious of his own Order on his side who stoutly resisted the Alteration And at last a greater Clerk than Hincmarus I mean (c) Teste N. Alexandro sec 9. p. 2. Diss V. J. 14. in Hymno Sacris Solemniis ab Angelico Doctore edito ubique canit in Festo Corp. Christi in Nocturn Te Trina Deitas unaque poscimus Sic tu nos visita sicut te colimus Per tuas semitas duc nos quo tendimus Ad lucem quam inhabitas Thomas Aquinas composing an Hymn now used in the Roman Church inserts this very expression But saith (d) Hist Gottesc l. 5. c. 5. F. Cellot he refers Trina to the Persons not to the Nature And so notwithstanding his confident denial did Ratramnus and Gotteschalcus too And upon the whole Controversie Mauguin and Natalis Alexander allow them to have had the better of Hincmarus in this Dispute 3. (e) Append. ad Hist Gottesc Opusc 7. in notis passim Cellot accuseth him for writing a crafty and heretical Tract against his Abbot Paschasius Radbertus who had explained the Catholick Doctrine of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament The Fact I admit the Crime I deny him guilty of and shall vindicate him in a proper place 4. He makes him of a busie and (b) Vanum vocat novandi cupidum Ingenium omnium novitatum capax Ratumni lib. 5. cap. 2. pag. 45. Turbae errantis Antesignani Ratramnus Gotteschalcus par Novatorum p. 346. Monachum Corb adversus Metropolitanum Abbatem suum calcitrantem Hist Got. p. 570. pragmatical Humour a Novelist and Rebel against his Superiors viz. his Abbot and his Archbishop but how hard this censure is will appear when we consider that he seems not to have engaged in any Controversie save by the Command of his Prince or some Great Prelate except in his Book de Nativitate Christi That his Book of the Sacrament and Predestination in which he dissents from his Superior were written by the King's Order and that in defence of the old Verse propably at the request of Hildegarius Bishop of Meaux to whom he dedicated it and at the request of the Benedictins who esteemed him the most able Champion of that whole Order but the Book being lost we cannot be positive However he treats them respectfully enough confuting their Opinions without reflecting on their Persons or so much as naming them any where as I remember Nor can he justly be stiled a Novelist who only resisted the Innovating humour of others and supported his own Doctrine by Testimonies out of the Antient Fathers and publick Offices of the Church There appears nothing in all his Writings favouring of Pride or Faction and had he been on the other side I doubt not but F. Cellot would as freely have forgiven him his sentiments touching the Sacrament as he doth John Scotus who doth him service against the Jansenists Though Ratramnus seems to have committed one fault which a Jesuite can hardly forgive he hath betrayed the Popes Supremacy in his Apology against the Greeks He foundeth it not upon any grant from Christ (a) Cellotius Hist Gottesc Append. p. 578. citat haec ex Ratramni l. 4. adversos Graecos Quarta die Imperator Constantinus privilegium Romanae Ecclesiae pontifici constituit ut in toto orbe Romano Sacerdotes ita
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
the New Testament in my Blood which shall be shed for you You see Christ had not yet Suffered and yet nevertheless he celebrated the Mystery of his own Body and Blood. XXVIII For I am confident no Christian doubts but that Bread was made the Body of Christ which he gave to his Disciples saying This is my Body which is given for you or but the Cup contains the Blood of Christ of which he also saith This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which shall be shed for you Wherefore as a little before his Passion he could change the Substance of Bread and the Creature of Wine into his own Body which was to Suffer and his own Blood which was to be shed so also could he in the Wilderness change Manna and Water out of the Rock into his Body and Blood though it were a long time after ere that Body was to be Crucified for us or that Blood to be shed to wash us XXIX Here also we ought to consider how those Words of our Saviour are to be understood He expounds Joh. 6.53 wherein he saith * John 6.53 Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you have not Life in you For he doth not say that his Flesh which hung on the Cross should be cut in pieces and eaten by his Disciples or that his Blood which he was to shed for the Redemption of the World should be given his Disciples to drink For it had been a Crime for his Disciples to have eaten his Flesh and drunk his Blood in the sense that the unbelieving Jews then understood him XXX Wherefore in the following words he saith to his Disciples who did not disbelieve that Saying of Christ though they did not yet penetrate the true Meaning of it * John 6.53 Doth this offend you What if ye shall see the Son of Man ascending up where he was before As though he should say Think not that you must eat my Flesh and drink my Blood corporally divided into small pieces for when after my Resurrection you shall see me ascend into the Heavens with my Body entire and all my Blood Then you shall understand that the Faithful must eat †John 6.69 my Flesh not in the manner which these Unbelievers imagine but that indeed Believers must receive it Bread and Wine being mystically turned into the substance of my Body and Blood. XXXI And after * John. 6.66 It 's the Spirit saith he that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing He saith The Flesh profiteth nothing taken as those Infidels understood him but otherwise it giveth Life as it is taken mystically by the Faithful And why so He himself shews when he saith It is the Spirit that quickneth Therefore in this Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ there is a spiritual Operation which giveth Life without which Operation the Mysteries profit nothing because they may indeed feed the Body but cannot feed the Soul. XXXII Now there ariseth a Question moved by many who say that these things are done not in a Figure but in Truth but in so saying they plainly contradict the Writings of the Fathers XXXIII St. Augustine St. Augustine quoted an eminent Doctor of the Church in his Third Book De Doctrina Christiana writes thus Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man saith our Saviour and drink his Blood you shall not have Life in you He seems to command a flagitious Crime Therefore the Words are a FIGURE requiring us to communicate in our Lord's Passion and faithfully * In the printed Edition of St. Augustine and Bertram we read sweetly and profitably to lay up to lay up this in our Memory that his Flesh was Crucified and Wounded for us XXXIV We see this Doctor saith that the Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood is celebrated by the Faithful under a FIGURE For he saith To receive his Flesh and Blood carnally is not an Act of Religion but of Villany For which Cause they in the Gospel who took our Saviour's Words not Spiritually but Carnally departed from him and followed him no more XXXV Likewise in his Epistle to Boniface a Bishop among other things he saith thus We often speak in this manner when Easter is near we say to Morrow or the next day is the Lord's Passion although he Suffered many Years since and Suffered but once Likewise we say on the Lord's Day This day our Lord rose again when yet so many years are passed since he rose again Why is no Man so foolish as to charge us with Lying when we speak thus But because we call these Days after the likeness of those Days in which these things were really done So that the Day is called such a Day which in truth is not that very Day but only like it in Revolution of Time and by reason of the Celebration of the Sacrament that is said to be done this Day which was not done this very Day but in Old Times Was not Christ offered up once only in his own Person and yet in the Sacrament he is offered for the People not only every Easter but every Day Nor doth that Man tell a Lye who being asked shall answer that he is offered For if Sacraments had not some Resemblance of those things of which they are the Sacraments they would not be Sacraments at all And from that Resemblance they commonly take the Names of the Things themselves Whereas the Sacrament of Christ's Body is in some sort the Body of Christ and the Sacrament of Christ's Blood is in some sort the Blood of Christ so the (a) The Sacrament of the Faith i. e. Baptism as appears by the following words in St. Austin in his 23. Epistle which is here cited Sacrament of the Faith is the Faith. XXXVI We see St. Augustine saith that Sacraments are one thing and the things of which they are the Sacraments are another thing Now the Body in which Christ suffered and the Blood which issued out of his Side are Things but the Mysteries of these things he saith are Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ which are celebrated in Remembrance of our Lord's Passion not only every Year at the great Solemnity of Easter but every day of the Year XXXVII And whereas there was but one Body of the Lord in which he suffered once and one Blood which was shed for the Salvation of the World yet the Sacraments of these have assumed the Names of the very things so that they are called the Body and Blood of Christ And yet are so called by reason of the Resemblance they bear to the things which they signifie As they stile these respective Days which are annually celebrated the Passion and Resurrection of our Lord whereas in truth he suffered and rose again but once in his own Person nor can the very Days return any more being long since past Nevertheless the Days in which the Memory of
cleared of Heresie and the other Accusations of F. Cellot Chap. III. That this Book is neither wholly forged nor yet depraved that Ratramnus is its true Author and not Joannes Scotus Erigena Chap. IV. Of the true sense of the Author in some controverted Expressions Chap. V. That this Treatise expresly confutes the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and is very agreeable to the Doctrin of the Church of England 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 CHAP. I. Of the Author's Name Countrey and Profession of his Eminent Learning With an account of his Works IN regard the Author of this Treatise hath first appeared in Print under the mistaken Name of Bertram and by that Name is best known even to this day I conceive it may not be amiss to see what he is called in the Titles of his own Works and in the Writings of other Authors especially those of his own Time. (a) Serv. Lupus Ep. 79. Servatus Lupus writes to him by the Name of Rotrannus whom (b) Baluz in notis ad Lupum Ad Rotrannum Monachum Corbeiensem Baluzius doubts not to have been our Author and it may be probably collected from the subject of that Epistle Others call him Ratramus so his Name appears to have been written by Sigebertus Gemblacensis from the two Manuscripts mentioned by (c) Ad cap. 96. Sigeberti inter Illustr Eccl. Scriptores ed. 88. Colon. 1580. Suffridus Petrus in his Notes upon him (d) Flodoardi Hist Remens l. 3. c. 15. 28. Flodoardus who flourished about an 100 years after our Author calleth him Ratrannus but in the Inscriptions of his other Works some of which I have seen in Manuscript as also that of this Tract (e) Mabillon Praefat ad Acta Bened. secul 4. p. 2. cap. 1. n. 43. found by F. Mabillon in the Abby of Lobez he is called Ratramnus so in the (f) Ibidem scribitur RATRāNI super posita communi nota literae M vel N unde orta videtur lectio Ratranni Catalogue of that Library taken A. D. 1049. as also by (g) Hincmarus de Praed c. 5. de non trina Deitate Hincmarus Archbishop of Rhemes and (h) In Epistola Metrica edita per Cellotium Append. Opusc II. Amico fer ovans Ratramno Gotteschalcus both contemporary with him and by the Anonymous Writer published by (i) Hist Gotteschalci Praedest F. Cellot who is now discovered to be (k) Mabillon Praef. ad Acta Ben. secul 4. p. 2. c. 1. n. 47 48 49. ex MS. Gemblac Herigerus Abbot of Lobez who flourished in the end of the Tenth Century and died in the Year 1007. His true Name was doubtless Ratramnus which came afterwards to be changed into Bertramus by the error of some Transcriber of Sigebertus who mistook as he easily might the (a) The like mistake hath sometimes happen'd in other Names as Babanus for Rabanus in two MSS. of Cellots Anonymous Writer in the Library of St Victor in Paris when in the preceding Page they call Rabanus Dissert sur Jean Scot Art. 2. p. 6. at the end Mr. Arnaud's Defence in quarto 1669. R in his Copy for a B the letters being not much unlike and Trithemius using a Copy of Sigebert so written hath propagated the mistake which though of no great moment yet ought to be rectify'd and our Author be called by his true Name Ratramnus was in all probability a Frenchman and of the Province of Picardie wherein he became a Monk. He was Educated in the Monastery of Corbey not New Corbey upon the Weser in Saxony but the Old Corbey in the Diocese of Amiens Founded by Batildis Wife to Clodovaeus the Second King of France in the Year 665. This was a very Eminent Monastery of Benedictins in which the (b) Quia in Corbeia Monasterio laudabilis eo tempore Religio Monachorum habebatur Acta Bened. sec 4. p. 1. In translat Viti c. 5. Discipline of that Order was strictly kept up in the Ninth Century when the Monks elsewhere grew very remiss and it was (c) Mabillonius Corbeiam vocat Celebrem Academiam in Act. Ben. sec 4. p. 2. In Elogio Historico Joanis Aethelingiensis c. 5. a famous Academy or Seminary of Learned as well as Religious Men. In this Cloyster our Author was so happy a Proficient in the Study of Divinity that he was esteem'd well qualified for the Holy Order of Priesthood and accordingly received it And after the Death of Bavo the same Ratramnus as it is thought was by Carolus Calvus promoted to the Government of the Monastery of (d) Flodoard Hist Rhem. l. 3. c. 28. ABP Vsher seems to doubt whether he were the same with our Author Hist Gotesc cap. 11. sub finem in margine But Bishop Cosins Dr. Cave and Albertinus doubt not but he was Orbais in the Diocese of Soissons Modern Writers of both the Roman and Reformed Church have been guilty of mistakes touching the time wherein Bertram wrote this Book Some place him in the very beginning of the IX Century and suppose this Tract to be written A. D. 800. or 806. or 810. So (a) Appar Sac. T. 1. Betramus Garetius circa Annum 806. Sir H. Linde in his Preface to Bertram Possevine and others The manifest cause of their mistake is the Inscription To Charles the Great Emperour which they take for the Author's Address to that Prince and therefore conclude this Tract must needs be written before the Year (b) Lambecius in Orig. Hamb tom 2. in tab Chronolog 814. in which he died But that (c) Act. Ben. sec 4. p. 2. Praef. c. 1. n. 129. Inscription is not found in the MS. which F. Mabillon met with in the Abbey of Lobez nor can it be the Author 's For though Carolus Calvus may by some Flatterers be stiled the Great yet the addition of Emperour will by no means permit us to believe it Genuine for he was not Emperour till the Year 875. which was above 20 years after Ratramnus wrote this Book So that what hath passed for the Inscription of the Book is only the conceit of some late Transcriber But as in the first Volume of his 〈…〉 Apparatus (d) Possevin Apar sac t. 2. Paschasius Possevine fixes our Author in the very beginning of the IX Century so forgetting himself in the second Volume he errs as much on the other hand and giving an account of the Works of Paschasius Radbertus thrusts Bertram down into the latter end of that Age and makes him to have written A. D. 886. under Carolus Crassus and saith that Paschasius confuted his error in a Book to Placidus I presume the ground to this conceit was that by this means all objections against the Address to Charles the Great Emperor seem to
be solved in regard of that Prince his Surname Crassus or Grossus which is in some sence Magnus and he was at that time Emperor But this is a meer fetch which will not pass now as it might have done 80 or 100 years since the Author and his time being now much better known No doubt but as Lucas Dacherius tells us (e) Literis fama floruisse Ratramnum Ludovici Pii Caroli Calvi temporibus fidem faciunt quas protulit elucubrationes Dacherius spic t. 1. Lectori nu 5 he lived in great reputation for Learning in the Reign of Ludovicus Pius and Charles his Son as may be easily gathered from the Books written by him on several occasions His two Books of Predestination were written as the President (f) Mauguin tom 2. Disser Hist cap. 17. Mauguin conjectures A. D. 850. which was the next year after Goteschalcus was degraded and condemned in a Synod at Carisiac And his Answer to the Objections of the Greeks could not be well written before the Year 868. in regard the Gallican Prelates were engaged in the work not above two months before the Death of Pope Nicolaus the First which happened in December 867. So that presuming Ratramnus to have lived 60 years his flourishing Time was from 840. to 870. (g) Hincm Rhem. Op. tom 2. Opusc LV. Capitul cap. 1. tradito Hincmaro Laudun in Synodo Attiniaci habita A. D. 870. Hincmarus in a Work published by him in the Year 870. mentions one Ratramnus Presbyter then 90 years of Age but I am apt to believe he was not our Author for first he seems to have been a Secular Priest And again it is very unlikely so Learned a Man should not set up for a Writer till about 60 or 70 years of age or that he should write so smartly as he doth against the Greek Emperors at 88. That he was in great Esteem for Learning in his own Age is past doubt It is an argument of his known Abilities that Charles the bald chose to consult him upon points of so great moment as the Predestination Controversie and that of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament which appears by the Prefaces and Conclusions of his Work on both those Subjects And though (a) Feuguer Opusc Lugd. Praefat. p. 9 10. Quod altem ad Calvi Aulam attinet nullo quod sciam docto uno ornata memoratur Feugueraeus in his Preface to Bertram tells us that Carolus Calvus had no Learned Men in his Court as his Grandfather had Alcuin Claudius Clemens and Joannes Scotus its plain that herein he is very much mistaken as indeed he is almost in every thing he saith in that Preface For Carolus Calvus was a great Patron of Learning and Learned Men Joannes Scotus lived in his Court and not in the Court of Charles the Great and I verily believe that through the Ignorance of some Monk who had read the Names of those Learned Men who were in favour with Charles the Great thus recited Alcuinum Flaccum Claudium Scotum or Claudium Clementem Scotum c. and mistook Scotum whereby the Country of Claudius Clemens who was an Irishman is designed for the Name of a Man Joannes Scotus Erigena hath been made a Domestick of Charles the Great and those other senseless Stories that he was a Scholar of (b) Vinc. Bellovac Spec. Hist l. 23. c. 173. apud Nat. Alex. de Jo. Scoto Erig sec 9. p. 2. diss 14. Fueruntque Parisiis fundatores illius studii quatuor Monachi Bedae discipuli Rabanus Alcuinus Claudius Joannes Scotus V. Bede Companion of Alcuin and an Assistant to him in Founding the University of Paris have been raised For Scotus is ordinarily mentioned next after this Claudius on this occasion But the mistake seems ancient as Berengarius by a MS. Epistle of his to Richardus * Dacherii Spicil t. 2. Concil t. 9 col 1062. published by D'Achery and from him by Labbe in the Councils Besides Scotus that King favoured other Learned Men who have written upon several Arguments by his Command In the matter of Predestination he held two several Councils in his own Palace at Carisiac in the first of which Goteschalcus was Condemned and in the second the Doctrine of the Catholick Church was stated in four short Determinations though not in all points according to the Sentiments of some of the most Learned Men in France He consulted Scotus (a) Vide Serv. Lupi Ep. 128. Servatus Lupus and our Author And (b) Denique sunt multi Domino donante Magistri Haec regione siti ingenio lâ—c plete periti Vnde Palatina plerique morantur in Aula Vide Append. Cellotii Opusc II. Goteschalcus about whom all this Controversie arose in an Epistle to Ratramnus saith that there were many Learned Men then about his Court. And no question but he always consulted Men of eminent note Ratramnus was also in good esteem with Odo Successor to Paschasius in the Abbey of Corbey and afterwards Bishop of Beauvais to whom he dedicates his Book de Anima and who in all probability nominated him as a fit Person to Answer the Objections of the Greeks against the Latin Church Nay F. Cellot acknowledgeth Cellot Hist Gottes l. 3. c. 7. sect 2. That Hincmarus himself had such an esteem of him long after his writing of the Sacrament and Predestination That whn at the desire of Pope Nicolaus I. he sought all France for Learned Men to write against the Greeks he invited Ratramnus by Name to undertake that service Nor had Hincmarus Odo and the other Gallican Prelates a better opinion of his Abilities for that Work than (a) Praefat. ad Act. Ben. secul 4. p. 2. n. 161. Ratramnus vero liâ—ge plura potiora prolatis exproprio genio validis ratiociniis quae argumentis autoritatibus à se adductis lucem ac robur concilient F. Mabillon hath of his Performance who saith That whoever shall compare the work of Ratramnus with that of Aeneas Parisiensis will easily discern how much Ratramnus excelled him in Learning and Eloquence for whereas Aeneas ordinarily produces naked and jejune Testimonies without any considerable Remarks upon them Ratramnus alledges many more and better Authorities inforcing and illustrating them by solid reasonings of his own The same good opinion hath President Mauguin of his Performance in his two Books of Predestination when he calls him (a) Mauguin tom 2. in Dissert Hist c. 17. Non levis armaturae in Ecclesia Christi militem No raw Soldier lightly armed but an undaunted Champion of the Catholick Truth against Innovators And much more he adds in his Praise And though in his writing about the Sacrament (b) Refut du Mr. Claude p. 3. c. 5. Mr. Arnauld is pleased to style him A fantastical obscure and empty Divine whose reasonings are frothy cavils yet in the Controversies of Predestination and Grace both he and his Brethren
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)
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
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
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
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
though (a) Bib. Patrum Tom. 6. Par. 1610. Col. 226 227. Florus Deacon of the Church of Lyons accord not with Scotus in his Sentiments touching Predestination yet he agrees with him in contradicting the carnal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament for in his Exposition of the Mass he saith That when the Creature of Bread and Wine is by the ineffable sanctification of the Spirit translated into the SACRAMENT of Christ's Body Christ is eaten That he is eaten by parts in the Sacrament and remains whole in Heaven and in the Faithful Receiver's heart And again All that is done in the Oblation of the Lord's Body and Blood is a Mystery there is one thing seen and another understood that which is seen hath a Corporal nature that which is understood hath a Spiritual fruit And in the Manuscript (a) In Homiliario MS. Eccles Lugd. apud Mabillon A. B. Sec. IV. Par. 2. Praefat. nu 80. Homilies which F. Mabillon concludes are his expounding the words of our Saviour instituting the Sacrament he saith commenting on This is my Body the Body that spake was one thing the Body which was given was another The Body which spake was substantial that Body which was given was Mystical for the Body of our Lord died was buried rose again and ascended into heaven but that Body which was delivered to the Apostles in the Sacrament is daily consecrated by the Priests hands * Apud Hittorpium De rebus Eccles c. 16. Walafridus Strabo in the same Century teacheth That Christ in his last Supper with his Disciples just before he was betrayed after the Solemnity of the Ancient Passeover delivered the Sacraments of his own Body and Blood to his Disciples in the substance of Bread and Wine †Apud Albertinum de Euchar. lib. 2. pag. 934. Hoc est corpus meum id est in Sacramento Christian Druthmarus a Monk of Corbey and contemporary both with Bertram and Paschasius in his Comment on St. Matthew expounding the words of Institution saith That Christ gave his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body to the end that being mindful of this Action they should always do this in a Figure and not forget what he was about to do for them This is my Body that is Sacramentally or in a Sacrament or Sign And a little before he saith Christ did Spiritually change Bread into his Body and Wine into his Blood which is the Phrase of Bertram a Monk in the same Cloyster with him To these may be added * Apud L' Arroque in Hist Euchar. lib. 2. c. 13. ex Dacherii Spicileg Tom. 6. Ahyto Bishop of Basil in the beginning of this Century whose words cited by Mr. L' Arroque in his History of the Eucharist are these The Priest ought to know what the Sacrament of Baptism and Confirmation is and what the Mystery of the Body and Blood of the Lord is how a visible Creature is seen in those Mysteries and nevertheless invisible Salvation or Grace is thereby communicated for the salvation of the Soul the which is contained in Faith only Mr. L' Arroque well observes that his words relate to Baptism and Confirmation as well as the Lord's Supper he distinguisheth in both the sign from the thing signified and asserts alike in all three that there is a visible Creature communicating Invisible or Spiritual Grace which is received by Faith only Moreover the Question moved by Heribaldus to Rabanus which he answers and upon that score both those Learned and Holy Bishops have been traduced as Stercoranists evidently shews the Sentiments of Heribaldus to have been contrary to those of Paschasius on this Argument For he never could have moved the Question if he had not believed the external part of the Sacrament to be corporal Food as Ratramnus doth The Judgment of Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz whom Baronius stiles the brightest Star of Germany and as Trithemius says who had not his fellow in Italy or Germany agrees with that of Ratramnus and appears in several of his writings He teacheth * Raban de institut Cleric lib. 1. c. 31. That our Lord chose to have the Sacraments of his Body and Blood received by the mouth of the Faithful and reduced to Nourishment on purpose that by the visible Body the Spiritual effect might be shewn For as Material food outwardly nourisheth and gives vigor to the body so doth the Word of God inwardly nourish and strengthen the Soul. Again The Sacrament is one thing and the virtue of the Sacrament is another for the Sacrament is received with the mouth but the inner man is fed with the virtue of the Sacrament In his †Ad Calcem Reginon Prum editi per Baluzium habetur Epistola haec Rabani unde Heribaldum vide c. 33. Quidam nuper de ipso Sacramento corporis Sanguinis Domini non rite sentientes dixerunt hoc ipsum Corpus Sanguinem Domini quod de Maria Virgine natum est in quo ipse Dominus passus est in cruce resurrexit de Sepulchro idem esse quod sumitur de Altari cui Errori c. Penitential he makes the Sacrament subject to all the affections of common food and tells of some of late viz. Paschasius and his followers who had entertained false Sentiments touching the Sacrament of the Lords Body and Blood saying That this very Body of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary in which our Lord suffered on the Cross and rose again from the Grave is the same which we receive from the Altar against which error writing to Egilus the Abbot we have according to our ability declared what we are truly to believe concerning the Lords very Body From which Passage many things of moment may be collected 1. That Paschasius was written against in his life-time and not long after his propounding his Doctrine publickly by sending his Book together with an Epistle to Carolus Calvus For Rabanus died before Paschasius and * In praefat ad Rabani Epist n. 17. Baluzius makes it out very well that he wrote this Answer to the Queries of Heribaldus A. D. 853. In which year Egilus mentioned by him was made Abbot of Promie and the question of the validity of Orders conferred by Ebbo Archbishop of Rhemes after his Deposition was discussed in the Synod at Soissons 2. We learn from this Passage that Rabamus judged the Doctrine of Paschasius to be a Novel Error which he would not have done had there been any colour of Antient Tradition or Authority for it 3. That F. Cellot is mistaken in charging his Anonymous Writer with slandering Rabanus as also in saying that what Rabanus wrote on this Argument he wrote in his youth falsly presuming that Egilus to whom he wrote was Abbot of Fulda and immediate Predecessor to Rabanus in the Government of that Monastry where as it was another Egilus made Abbot of Promie A. D. 853. when Rabanus was
Trithemius in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers BErtram a Priest and Monk a very able Divine and also well skilled in Humane Learning a Person of a subtile Wit and great Eloquence and no less eminent for Sanctity than Learning hath written many excellent Pieces few of which have come to my knowledge To K. Charles Brother to Lotharius the Emperor he wrote a commendable Work. Of Predistination a He wrote two Books of Predestination one Book Of the Lords Body and Blood one Book He flourished in the Reign of Lotharius the Emperour A. D. 840. Here begins the Book of RATRAMNVS Concerning the BODY and BLOOD of the LORD To CHARLES the Great EMPEROUR The Preface I. YOU were pleased to command me Glorious Prince to signifie to your Majesty my Sentiments touching the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ Which Command is no less becoming your Highness than the Performance of it is above my poor Abilities For what can better deserve a Princes Care than to see that he himself be Catholick in his Judgment concerning the Sacred Mysteries of that God who has placed him on the Royal Throne and not able to endure that his Subjects should hold different opinions concerning the Body of Christ wherein it is evident that the sum of our Redemption by Christ consists II. Great disputes concerning the Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament For while some of the Faithful say concerning the Body and Blood of Christ which is daily celebrated in the Church that there is no Vail nor Figure but that the very thing it self is openly and really exhibited and others of them affirm that these things viz the Body the Body and Blood of Christ are present in a Mystery or Figure that it is one thing that appears to our bodily eyes and another thing that our Faith beholds it 's plain there is no small difference in Judgment among them And whereas the Apostle writes to the Faithful * 1 Cor. 1.10 That they should all think and speak the same thing and that there should be no Schism among them there is no small Division and Schism among those who believe and speak differently concerning the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ III. Wherefore your Royal Highness mov'd with Zeal for the true Faith and sadly laying to heart these and being withal desirous that as the Apostle commands The 〈◊〉 Consuâ—â— Ratramnus in the Controversie All Men should think and speak the same thing doth diligently search out this profound Truth that you may reduce those who err from it and for that purpose disdain not to consult the meanest well knowing that so profound a Mystery cannot be understood unless God reveal it who shews forth the Light of his Truth by whomsoever he pleases without Respect of Persons IV. And for my own part your Commands I joyfully obey notwithstanding the great difficulty I find to discourse on a subject so remote from humane Understanding and which no Man unless taught by the Holy Ghost can possibly penetrate Therefore in pure Obedience to your Majesty and with an entire confidence of his aid concerning whom I am to Treat I shall endeavour in as proper Terms as I am able to deliver my Sentiments on this Subject not relying on my own Understanding but following the steps of the Holy Fathers V. The State of the Controversie in two Questions YOur most Excellent Majesty demands Whether the Body and Blood of Christ which is in the Church received by the mouths of the Faithful be such in a Mystery or in Truth That is Whether it contain any secret thing discernable only by the eyes of Faith or whether without the Coverture of any Mystery the same thing appeareth outwardly to the bodily Sight which the eyes of the Mind do inwardly behold so that the whole matter is apparent and manifest to our Senses And whether it be the same Body which was Born of Mary and Suffered Died and was Buried and Rising again and ascending into Heaven sits at the Right Hand of the Father VI. The first Question discussed Let us consider the first of these two Questions And that we be not confounded by the Ambiguity of Terms let us define what a Figure is and what the Truth that having some certain mark in our Eye we may know how the better to direct the course of our Reasoning VII What a Figure is A Figure is a certain covert manner of Expression which exhibits what it intends under certain Vails For example We call the Word Bread as in the Lords Prayer we beg that God would give us our daily Bread Or as Christ in the Gospel speaks * John 6.51 I am the Living Bread that came down from Heaven Or when he calls himself a Vine and his Disciples Branches ‖ John 15.1 5. I am the true Vine and ye are the Branches In all these Instances one thing is said and another thing is understood VIII The Truth is the Representation of the very thing it self not vailed with any Shadow or Figure but expressed according to the pure and naked or to speak more plainly yet natural Signification of the words As when we say that Christ was Born of a Virgin Suffered was Crucified Dead and Buried Here is nothing shadowed out under the coverture of Figures but the very Truth of the thing is expressed according to the natural Signification of the words nor is any thing here understood but what is said But in the forementioned Instances it is not so For †i.e. In propriety of Nature So the Saxon Homily Aefter soðum gecynd nis Crist naþor ne hlaf in Substance neither is Christ Bread or a Vine nor the Apostles Branches These are Figures but in the other the plain and naked Truth is related IX He proves the Sacrament to be a Figure from the notion of a Mystery or a Sacrament Now let us return to the Subject which hath occasioned the saying of all this viz. the Body and Blood of Christ If there be no figure in that Mystery it is not properly called a Mystery for that cannot be said to be a Mystery which hath nothing secret nothing remote from our bodily Senses nothing covered under any Vail But as for that Bread which by the Ministry of the Priest is made Christ's Body it sheweth one thing outwardly to our Senses and inwardly proclaims quite another thing to the minds of the Faithful That which outwardly appears is Bread as it was before in Form Colour and Taste But inwardly there is quite another thing presented to us and that much more precious and excellent because it is Heavenly and Divine That is Christ's Body is exhibited which is beheld received and eaten not by our carnal Senses but by the sight of the believing Soul. X. Likewise the Wine which by the Priests Consecration is made the Sacrament of Christ's Blood appears one thing outwardly and
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
(u) Denique quaedam quae videntur nâ—n obscure ab Haereticis inserta assuta sub libri finem Ibidem p. 5. iterum p. 6. Non male aut inconsulte omittantur igitur omnia hâ—c a fine pag. Considerandum quoque c. to expunge all from the beginning of the 73 number to near the end of n. 77. And again from the beginning of n. 84. to the middle of n. 89. which they say are Interpolations and yet they are as conformable to the Manuscript as any thing else in the Book But because they cannot be so expounded as to reconcile them with the Real Presence therefore forsooth they are Interpolations foisted in by some Heretick What M. De Sainte Boeuve said in the Defence of this Tract I know not nor what Reputation he might get by maintaining a Paradox but it 's plain he made few Proselytes to his Opinion when the great (w) In Epistola praefixa Tomo Secundo Spicileg L. Dacherij de Marca Two Years after father'd it upon Joannes Scotus and said it is the same Book which was condemned in all the Synods against Berengarius and (x) At the end of M. Arnaud's Defence in Quarto Paris 1669. M. Paris wrote a Dissertation to support de Marca's Conjecture That he tells us (y) Pref. p. 10. Since the Manuscripts of it are found it is that Roman Catholick Divines have judged Bertram no Adversary to Paschasius or the Church is an excellent hint and we are much obliged to him for it for it lets us into the Secret if there be any in the matter The naked Truth is this Ratram had alwaies maintained the Character of an (z) Pref. p. 4. Vn Escrivain tres-Catholique Orthodox Writer and is not now to be kicked off as an Heretick The Manuscripts now brought to Light baffle the pretences of Forgery and Corruption as also M. de Marca's Conjecture and therefore to expound him in a Popish Sense is the only Game left them to play As long as there was any colour for saying so Bertram was an Heretick or the Book Spurious or at least grievously Corrupted by the Protestants But now all these Shifts fail them upon appearance of the Manuscripts he is grown on a sudden a very Catholick Writer I profess that it is beyond my reach to comprehend the Reasons Why the sight of the Manuscripts should alter any man's Judgment touching the Orthodoxy of Bertram The Printed Copies differ very little from that which Doctor Boileau now gives us from the Lobez Manuscript which is not without some Faults not committed in the old Editions and they differ not at all in those places which the Belgick Censors and Espenceus suspect to have been inserted by the Hereticks So that it is pure Necessity and not any new Light which they have received from the Manuscripts which makes the French Doctors now contend for an Author whom their Predecessors rejected If the Roman Catholick Divines had formerly entertained that good Opinion of Bertram in M. S. the World had not waited till F. Mabillon obliged us therewith for a Transcript of the Lobez MS. (a) Ant. Sanderi Biblioth Belgica M S S. par 1. p. 303. Quarto Insulis 1641. Antonius Sanderus in his account of the M S S. in the Belgick Libraries mentions this very Book (b) Juxta exemplar Duaci 1629. in Octa. licet suppresso loci Typographi nomine p. 304. from a Printed Catalogue taken near 50 Years before F. Mabillon found it And the President (c) Vide Praef. ad vet Auctores IX Saeculi Libri Ratramni ex M. S. Codice Coenobij Lobbiensis cujus Authenticum exemplar cura Doctoris Lovaniensis R. P. Lucae Dacherij consecuti sumus Vide etiam Testimonium Notarij pub ad calcem utriusque libri Mauguin in the Year 1648. procured a Copy of his two Books of Predestination which immediately follow this Tract in the same Volume by the favour of a Lovain Doctor and M. d' Achery who cannot be presumed ignorant of its being there I say nothing of the Manuscript seen by (d) Le Cardinal du Perron qui a ètè persuade que ces Manuscrits ètoient veritablement conformes a l'imprimè n'a pas laisse de l'abandonner comme un Auteur Hèrètique qui cache ses pensees sous des termes des expressions Catholiques Preface p. 10. 11. Cardinal Perron without operating any change in his Judgment of the Author whom he abandons as an Heretick and a crafty one too that conceals his Heterodox Opinions under Catholick Terms and Expressions So that if the Sorbonists at present have better thoughts of this Tract its Author owes them very little thanks for that Favour Let us now consider what is offered to make good the Affirmative viz. That Ratram's Adversaries held 1. That there is no Figure in the Holy Eucharist but that the Body of our Saviour was exposed naked to our Corporal Senses 2. That what our Senses perceive therein that is the Accidents of Bread and Wine are the self same Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin Crucified c. For proof of the former he cites our (e) Preface p. 22. Author in the Preface to the King n. 2. and in the state of the first Question n. 5. making them to deny that the Body of Christ and his Blood (f) Remarks p. 207. 215. upon n. 2. 5. 9. are under any Figure or Vail and to say that the Sacrament is pure and simple manifestation of the Truth which was not the Sentiment of Paschase or the Church of Rome who teach as expresly as Ratram himself that there is Figure in the Sacrament If you demand who these Divines were He tells you (g) Preface p. 34. Remarks on n. 2. of one Abbaudus and Walter Prior of Saint Victors in the Twelfth Century adding (h) Remarks p. 213. 214. That this Opinion seems to have been common in the Year 1059. when Berengarius made his Recantation And in regard Opinions do not grow common on a sudden it may be reasonably thought that these were the Sentiments of some in the times of Ratram and that as much is intimated by Paschase in his Book of the Lord's Body and Blood in the Twentieth Chapter This is all that I can find either in his Preface or Remarks that looks like a Proof how little it concludes shall presently be shewn 1. Those Passages which are cited do not necessarily infer an absolute denial of any kind of Vail or Figure in the Holy Sacrament but that his Adversaries denied such a Figure or Vail as Ratram and the Ancient alwaies acknowledged therein viz. such a Figure as was a Corporeal Substance as the Water in Baptism is The Pelagians are charged by the Orthodox Fathers as Adversaries of the Doctrine of Grace though they did not utterly deny Grace (i) Vide Pelagium citante August de Gratia Christi lib. 1. c.
falsly that Ratram intended to dispute against the Real Presence yet since he treats his Adversaries as Catholicks and calleth them the Faithful the Question in dispute must necessarily have been some opinion of less moment than the Real Presence the belief thereof or of the contrary could never have been held indifferent by the Faithful Not to spend time in exposing his absurd pretence to suppose a thing when he immediately assumes and concludeth the contrary I deny this consequence viz. Ratram doth not call his Adversaries Hereticks but treats them as Brethren therefore he did not write against the Real Presence All that can be concluded thence is that the Adversaries of that Doctrin were then as they still are Persons of a more charitable and meek Spirit than those who maintain and propagate it There is a great deal of difference between Heresie and some gross Errors whose Patrons do not desert the Communion of the Church and therefore it doth not follow that because Ratram treats these Erring Brethren as Catholicks and includes them with their Adversaries in the common Notion of Faithful he must needs esteem the Question in dispute of so little moment that it was indifferent which way it was held It 's plain he (a) Num. 11. chargeth them with Consequences very absurd (b) Num. 15. with contradicting themselves with subverting what they pretended to believe (c) Num. 32. Sanctorum Scriptis Patrum contraire comprobantur and with contradicting the Authority of the Fathers which are no very slight Accusations and shew plainly that he did not esteem it a matter of no moment whether his own or his Adversaries Opinion were embraced His second Reflection is That Ratram could not possibly write against Paschase because he takes no notice of the Miracle of Christ's Apparition in the form of Flesh alledged by Paschase in the fourteenth Chapter of his Book To which I Answer 1. That there is no necessity that he should take notice of this Miracle any more than he doth of his other Arguments since as it hath been before observed that it is the Notion and not the Book of Paschase against which he disputeth He acts the part of an Opponent throughout and never answers one Argument save that he once N. 56. obviates an Objection from St. Ambrose 2. That admitting us to pretend that Ratram encountered the Book of Paschase we may as fairly from our Author's Silence infer that there were no such Miracles alledged in it but that those Fables were since foisted in M. Boileau saith that Blondel rejects the whole Chapter as spurious I have not his Book at command to see his Reasons but I cannot believe he did it without all Authority as is pretended M. Boileau (d) Pref. p. 52. himself saith enough to shew that the two last Miracles were foisted in when he acquaints us that one Old Manuscript hath all Three but another more Antient only One. If one Superstitious Monk took liberty to Insert those two why might not the first which doubtless was the Fiction of some Greek Monk after the Second Nicene Synod together with the Discourse that ushers it in be a Forgery too As for the Story of Gregory the Great and the Roman Matron which is likewise foisted into our Saxon Homily out of the Life of that Pope it was impossible that Paschase should alledge it Since that Life of Gregory was not written in many years after (e) According to F. Maubillon A. D. 831. Paschase had Published his Book and admitting him to have Lived till 865. which is fourteen Years after the time when Sirmondus saith he Died Paschase must have been at least seven Year in his Grave before (f) Vide Vossium de Hist Latin. l. 2. c. 36. de Joanne Diacono Joannes Diaconus wrote the Life of Gregory in which only it occurs and Dedicated it to Pope John the VIII who was Advanced to the Papal Throne A. D. 872. that is about forty Years after Paschase first Published his Book and above twenty after his (g) A. D. 851. Resignation of the Abby and consequently after his second Publication of it with an Epistle to Carolus Calvus in which he stileth himself Abbot As for the story of Plegils the Saxon Presbyter who prayed to see Christ in the form of a Child and obtained his Request it is a shrew'd Presumption against the Antiquity and Authority thereof that it is omitted by the Interpolator of the Saxon Homily who would hardly have neglected so remarkable a Miracle wrought in Favour of an English Priest But Thirdly not to stand exposing the Falshood and Impudence of these fained Apparitions or rather of their Fabulous Author (h) Joannes Diaconus lived neer 300 years after Gregory's Pontificate is a Fabulous Writer and Author of the story of Trajans Soul being Praid out of Hell by that Pope they all prove too much or else just nothing For either in these Apparitions they saw what really was under the forms of Bread and Wine and what really was Transacted in the Sacrament or they did not If they did not the whole was a meer Illusion and Fancy And on the other hand if they did Then Christ according to the description of the first and third Miracle is still an Infant both the Jew and the Saxon Priest are said to have seen a little Child Again Christ must be divided into several parts as the Jew saw his Body broken in Pieces in St. Basil's Hands Again every Communicant doth not Receive Christ Intire but only some part of him for the Roman Matron saw the Piece which she was to receive turned (i) him bam Æ¿ear ð aeteoÆ¿ed seo snaed ðaes husles ðe heo ðicgan sceolde sÆ¿ylce ðar laeg on ðam disce anes fingres liþ aeal geblodgod Hom. Sax. Fol. 38. into a Joint of the little Finger all Bloody Again at this rate Christ must be actually slain and the Sacrifice of the Altar be a Bloody Sacrifice for the Jew is said to see his Body divided in S. Basils hands and our Saxon Miracle Monger tells us that the two Monks saw an Angel with a Sword at Consecration divide the Childs Body and pour his Blood into the Chalice and if so what becomes of the Doctrin of Concomitancy So that either these Miracles prove nothing at all or else they prove what will as little consist with the Romish Belief as with ours His Third Reflection is this That if Ratram had been against the Real Presenâ—e he would not have failed to have Reproached the Greeks with the Belief of it in his four Books Written against them But this is a very Trifling Remark for this was a point upon which the Greek as well as the Latin Church was at that time divided and as it had been unreasonable to Reproach the whole Church with the Errors of one Party so it had been Imprudently done to object to the Greek a Reproach which might have been