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
BERTRAM OR RATRAM Concerning the BODY and BLOOD OF THE LORD In LATIN With a New English Translation To which is Prefix'd An Historical Dissertation touching the Author and this Work. The Second Edition Corrected and Enlarged with an APPENDIX WHEREIN Monsieur Boileau's French Version and Notes upon BERTRAM are Considered and his Unfair Dealings in both Detected LONDON Printed by H. Clark for Thomas Boomer at the Chirurgeons-Arms in Fleetstreet near Temple-Bar 1688. Imprimatur Liber Ratramni de Corpore Sanguine Domini cum Versione Anglica Praefatione secundum hoc Exemplar ab Interprete recognitum cum Appendice Oct. 6. 1687. H. Maurice Rmo. in Christa P. D. Willielmo Archiepiscopo Cant. a Sacris Amplissimo Viro Generis Eruditions Virtutis Omnigenae Ornamentis Praenobili HENRICO COVENTRY Armigero Serenissimo Regi JACOBO II. uti pridem Fratri Charissimo CAROLO II. A Privatis Consiliis Cui etiam Optimo Principi Ob Fidem Patri Sibi nec non S. Matri Ecclesiae Anglicanae In adversis fortiter servatam Ob munera in S. Palatio honorifica Egregie defuncta Ob res arduas variis apud exteros Legationibus Summa Fidelitate Singulari Prudentia Parique felicitate Gestas Apprime Charus extitit Secretariusque Primicerius Hoc Opusculum Ratramni Corbeiensis De S. Eucharistia Fidei Veteris Ecclesiae Gallicanae Testis luculenti Nec non Nostrae vere Catholicae Anglicanae Vindicis Eximii Vna cum Versione Vernacula Dissertatione praemissa In Testimonium Obsequii Gratitudinis LMQDDDCQ VVHSAEPR Editor THE PREFACE IT is now seven Years and more since I first read over this little Piece of Bertram in Latin and the Satisfaction I had to see so Learned a Writer expresly confute the Error of Transubstantiation at its first rise in the Western Church invited me to a second and third Reading and the Book not being very common I entertained thoughts of Reprinting it both in Latin and English for remembring where I had seen an English Bertram Published by Sir Humphrey Lynd A. D. 1623. I promised my self that Publishing it in English would add but little to my trouble not suspecting that a Translation published by that Learned Gentleman could have been other than accurate I therefore got together as many various Editions of the Book as I could and sent for the English Version upon sight of which I saw my self disappointed For there are some Mistakes in rendring the Latin words two of which may be seen in the Preface For Instance Catholice Sapere is Translated to be universally Wise which should have been rendred to be Orthodox or Catholick in his Judgment and again Non aequanimiter ista perpendens is rendred though perhaps not quietly and indifferently considering of these things instead of sadly laying to heart these things viz. the Schism on occasion of the new Doctrin of Transubstantiation And several other slips of that kind I observed which made me guess the Translation could not be the work of the worthy Knight who recommended it to the Publick But had this been all a little time and pains might have rectified those Mistakes That which rendred the Translation unserviceable to me was the perplexity of the style through unnecessary Parentheses and the multiplying of Synonimous words and in some places by rendring the Author too much word for word so that it doth not give the Reader a clear apprehension of the Author's sense And to justifie this charge I need only refer the Reader to the ninth and tenth Pages of the new Impression of Bertram where he proves that Consecration makes no Physical change in the Bread and Wine but as he is there Translated his reasoning is hardly intelligible Yet I accuse not the Translator of unfaithfulness but freely acknowledge that had his skill been equal to his Fidelity I would have used his Version and saved my self the trouble of a new one which I made and transcribed in Septem 1681. Having finished my Translation I proceeded to collect materials for the Dissertation I intended which I cast into loose Papers and desiring a Learned Friend to assist me with what he knew on that Subject he put into my hands an Edition I had not before met with in French and Latine with a Learned Advertisement prefixed in which I found the Work designed by me was already very well performed so that my Labour might be spared Thus I laid aside my Papers and all thoughts of making them publick till about two Months since and then resumed them upon the request of some worthy Friends who judged it necessary since the Reprinting of the former Translation Besides the faults of the Translator in the new Impression there are great ones committed by the Printer in the Technical words of the Discourse particularly in the beginning of the Eleventh Page he hath printed Verity instead of Variety At the desire of those Gentlemen I resolved to Review and Print my Translation with the Authors Text that the Reader might have it in his Power to judge of my Fidelity therein And though I see no reason to be proud of my performance yet I persuade my self this Book will be somewhat more useful than that which now goes abroad In the Dissertation prefixed I have Collected all the little Historical Passages I have met with any where touching our Author and his Works and perhaps the Reader may think I insist too long upon some matters of no great moment But in regard Ratramnus was an extraordinary Man and no Body that I know hath in our Language given any considerable account of him and his Writings I thought it would not be altogether unacceptable to the Reader Though the French Advertisement be exceedingly well done yet I have had great helps for the clearing the Antiquity and Authority of that Tract which the Author of that Advertisement wanted To mention no other the most Learned and Ingenuous Father Mabillon to whom I acknowledge my self obliged for my best Informations had not then published the Acts of the Benedictines of the IX Century in which our Author lived What I design in my Dissertation the Contents of each Chapter will inform the Reader I shall only add that my design is not to engage in the Controversie of Transubstantiation which is so compleatly handled and clearly discussed by the Learned and Reverend Author of a small Discourse against it that it is wholly needless for me or any one else to write further on that Argument All I intend is with Fidelity to relate what I have upon diligent search been able to Collect touching the Author and Work which I Publish and I hope I have said what may prevail with all Impartial Judges to admit our Author for a competent Witness of the belief of the Church in his Age touching Christs Presence in the Holy Sacrament THE CONTENTS Chap. I. AN Historical Account of the Author and his Writings Chap. II. Of his Treatise concerning Christ's Body and Blood and the Author
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
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
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
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
born of the Virgin Mary in which our Lord suffered on the Cross and rose from the Grave is the same Body which is received from off the Altar against which Errour c. I hence observe 1. That the Opinion censured by him is the express Doctrine of Paschase and the Roman Church at this day Nor is there any colour for M. Boileau to say That he censured men who held the Accidents to be Christs Body for he speaks of the Body received from the Altar which he will not deny to be somewhat besides the sensible Figure and Accidents of the consecrated Elements 2. He censures this Opinion as a Falshood and Error against which he had purposely written 3. He condemns it as a late Opinion so that it had not Antiquity to plead 4. He represents it as no Vniversal Opinion but as the Sentiments of some few (c) 1. Quidam non omnes ubique 2. Nuper non semper 3 Non rite sentientes ergo erronei So that in short the Doctrine which was made an Article of Faith in the Eleventh Century was in the Ninth Century not so much as a Probable Opinion but rejected by Rabanus as a false Novel and private Opinion and by no means the Ancient Catholick and True Belief of Christ's Church If Mr. Boileau could produce any Piece of the Ninth Century wherein the Proposition censured by Rabanus and Ratram is expounded as it is by him or that contradicted Cellot's Anonymus we would readily yield the Point in Dispute But that without any proof nay against so notorious Evidence and so express a Testimony he should hope to obtrude upon us his own Chimera's touching the Design and Adversaries of Bertram in this Book argues a degree of Confidence unbecoming a Divine of his Character F. Mabillon (d) A. B. S. 4. p. 2. Praef. n. 56. Rabanum Ratramnum Anonymum Herigerum aliosque siqui sint Paschasii Adversarios in reali Christi corporis in Sacramento praesentia cum ipso convenisse contentionem hanc in vocum pugna sitam fussse hath more Ingenuity and Discretion than to attempt it and frankly confesseth that both these Writers did dispute against Paschase though to salve all again he pretends that they believed the Real Presence as much as he did that they differed only in Words not in Doctrine so that it was rather a Verbal than a Real Controversie But by this Learned Fathers leave the difference appears much more weighty Paschase and his Adversaries are at as wide a distance as Protestant and Papist and of this the Reader will be satisfied upon perusal of the Fifth Chapter of my Dissertation wherein I have set down the Doctrine of Paschase and the Church of Rome together with Ratram's contrary Doctrines and have from the Author himself shewn in what Sense he hath used those Terms which seem proper to establish Transubstantiation but really overthrow it and this without the help of those new and bold Figures which M. Boileau hath been forced to invent Hitherto I have been detecting the weakness of those Arguments which this Doctor makes use of to prove his Paradox that the Doctrine of Ratram is conformable to that of Paschase and the Faith of the Church of Rome I shall now offer some few Reasons that convince me of the contrary 1. It is a just and strong Presumption of this Authors being against them that for above 120 Years together after his first appearance in Print their most eminent Doctors have with one consent yielded the Point I will not except his Lovain Friends whose Expedient to make him Orthodox is with good Reason by M. Alix declared impracticable since the appearance of Manuscripts for they justifie those passages to be Genuine which the Lovain Divines would have expunged as spurious Mixtures If Bertram be so full and considerable a Witness of the perpetuity of their Faith touching the Presence of Christ in the Holy Sacrament How comes it to pass that their Supream Judge of Controversies hath treated him as a Knight of the Post The Doctors of the Church of Rome in former daies were not unacquainted with the Art of Expounding which is now practised with so much applause but have shewn themselves much greater Masters in it than M. Boileau and have used it with greater dexterity for evading the Testimonies produced out of other Fathers by our Divines against Transubstantiation Nor can we doubt but that they were bred under the strongest Prepossessions and Prejudices for the Real Presence and consequently as well disposed to understand all the obscure and harsh Passages of this Book in the sense of their own Church if the Words could possibly have born it If it be now so plain as (e) Nous avons son livre il ne faut que le lire Pref. p. 24. 25. M. Dean of Sens would have it thought That Bertram wrote neither against the Stercoranists nor the Real Presence If the very reading of the Book be sufficient to convince a man thereof How came it to pass that so many Popes and Cardinals with other eminent Prelates and Doctors have conspired in the Condemnation of so Useful and Orthodox a Work To pass a (f) Pref. p. 5. Sentence quite contrary to its merit and such as no man who had well examined it could reasonably have expected Did they condemn it without Examination Then God preserve us from such Judges Did they not understand the Book Or did they want Skill to try it by the Roman Standard For my part I cannot think so meanly of the Trent Fathers who were employed to censure Books and who composed the Index What pity was it that no Artist of that time could furnish those Fathers with a pair of M. Boileau's Spectacles F. Mabillon (g) A. B. Ubi supra n 126. At cum haec classis contineat libros qui propter Doctrinam quam continent non sanam aut Suspectam rejiciuntur nihil inde in Ratramni fidem inferri potest nisi quod ob duriores quasdam obscuriores sententias suspectam Doctrinam visus est continere tells us that Bertram is not placed in the first Class of the Index which consists of condemned Authors but in the second Class in which the Works of Catholick Writers containing false or suspected Doctrine are prohibited so that nothing can be hence concluded against the Soundness of his Doctrine but only that some harsh and obscure Sentences rendred it suspected To this I Answer 1. That nothing appears in the Censure by which we can learn that the Book was prohibited only for Suspected Doctrine and not for unsound Doctrine which is also assigned as the Reason why some Books of Catholick Divines are rejected 2. If the Censors of Books had only rejected Bertram for the Obscurity of his Expressions or Suspicious Doctrine and not for false and unsound Doctrine why might they not have allowed him as they have done others in the same Class the favour
of a Temporary Prohibition (h) Vide Indicem in Classe 2. B. donec corrigatur till he be corrected or explained I fear those Fathers despaired of softning his harsh Expressions into any tolerable Catholick Sense 3. If we may judge of the Sense of the Pope who published the Index and the Council which ordered it to be made by the Judgment of the most eminent Doctors in and soon after that time we must believe that False and Heretical Doctrine was the fault which the Trent Censors found with it Sixtus Senensis who wrote within three Years after the Council was dissolved calls it (i) Perniciosum Oecolampadii volumen in vulgarunt sub titulo Bertrami Sixtus Sen. in Praef. Biblioth S. a pernicious Book of Oecolampadius against the Sacrament of Christ's Body And saith (k) Aug. Expositionem hujus loci Bertramus detorquet ad Haeresin Sacramentariorum Lib. 6. Annot. 196. n. 1. vide n 2. That he wrests St. Austin's Exposition of these words I am the Living Bread to the Sacramentarian Heresie making the Holy Eucharist to be nothing else but Bread and Wine in substance bearing a Figure and Resemblance together with the Name of Christ's Body which is not truly and corporally present but only in a Spiritual and Mystical way And makes (l) Berengarius ducentis pene post Bertramum annis eandem Haeresin instauravit ib. n. 6. Berengarius to have revived the same Heresie Two hundred Years after him Espencaeus an Author of the same time points out the very Propositions which shew the Pseudo-Bertram (m) Espencaeus de ador Euch. lib. 2. c. 19. as he stiles him to have been no true Son of the Church but the Son of a Strange Woman (n) Vide pref p. 8. Claudius Sainctes who was at the Council of Trent judged the Book full of Errors and Heresies and therefore spurious Gregory de Valentia (o) Greg. Valen. Comment Theol. Tom. IV. Disp VI. Punct 3. tells us that the Book is leaven'd with the Sacramentarian Error and justly sure for false Doctrine condemned in the Trent Index And Possevin (p) Appar T. 1. p. 219. Bertramus Prohibitus est omnino a Clem. VIII Pont. Max. in postremo indice Librorum prohibitorum Itaque amplius legendus non est nisi quis concessus Sedis Apostolicae ad refellendos qui ex illo errores afferuntur Bertramo qui Divinum hoc mysterium haud recte intelligebat neque credebat acquaints us that notwithstanding the favourable Judgments of the Lovain Divines It may by no means be read save by the Pope's special License in order to confute it being utterly Prohibited So that it is not for an obscure Expresson or suspected Proposition but for downright Heresie that he stands condemned M. Boileau (q) Preface p. 8. He might have added Baronius who could not be ignorant of this Work yet never vouchsafeth to mention it nor the Author more than once and that with Disgrace as an Adversary to Hincmare in the Controversie of Predestination confesseth that not only the Trent Censors but Pope Clement the VIII with the Cardinals Bellarmine Quiroga Sandoval and Alan utterly rejected this Book as Heretical But he gives an incredible account of their inducement to do so viz. That the Protestants run them down by the pure dint of Impudence (r) Estant imprime par le soin des Protestants d' Allemagne comme un ouvrage qu'ils s'imaginerent leur estre favourable ils en furent â—rus sur leur parole presque tous les Catholiques le rejetterent comme un tres-mechant livre c. Pref. p. 5. see also p. 12. They first Published it they claimed it as favourable to their Sentiments and made Translations of it into French to serve their own turns and they had the fortune to have their bare word taken and thereupon the R. Cs. generally rejected it as a pernicious Forgery These were Candid Doctors indeed to take an Adversaries bare word and let go so considerable a Champion for the Real Presence This was an extraordinary piece of Civility for those Doctors are not usually so prone to believe us though we produce Scripture and Authentick Testimonies from the Fathers in proof of our Assertions The first Editions of this Book have little appearance of that confidence we are accused of there were no large Prefaces or Remarks printed with the Text no Expositions or Paraphrases but plain Translations for many Years after the Roman Doctors had censured it but the naked Text was fairly left to the Readers Judgment The first Publishers of our Party could not possibly make a more confident pretence to the favour of Bertram than M. Boileau doth and yet we must beg his Pardon that we cannot return the Civility and give him up to the Church of Rome on his bare word Whatever motives prevailed with them it is undeniable and by M. Boileau himself confessed that their greatest Men have judged this Book Heretical and I see no reason to believe that Espenceus Genebrard and other Sorbon Doctors of the last Age were not as competent Judges whether the Doctrine it contains be agreeable to the Faith of the Church of Rome as himself M. le Faure and the other Doctors his Approvers And yet if after all the Judgment of so many great Prelates and Doctors of the Church of Rome must stand for nothing and be no prejudice to the Notion of Ratram's Orthodoxy advanced by Mr. Dean of Sens I think it but a modest and equitable request to him and his Friends that they make no use of the Concession of the Centuriators (s) As Mr. Boileau doth Remarks on n. 15. and some others citing Cent. IX de Doctrina Transubstantiationis habet Semina Bertramus utitur enim vocabulis commutationis conversionis Non sequitur Vide in Dissertationis nostrae cap. 5. quo sensu his Vocabulis utatur Centuriatores etiam objiciunt Mabillonius N. Alexander who acknowledg in this Author the Seeds of Transubstantiation Especially when it is remembred that those Authors being Lutherans have no power to make Concessions for us and being for Consubstantiation which Doctrine is utterly inconsistent with Ratram it was indifferent to them since he was no Friend of theirs whether they gave him up for a Calvinist or Papist if their Inclinations were determined one way rather than the other they must be stronger to allow him for a Transubstantiator who agrees with them in the Belief of a Corporal Presence than to acknowledg him a favourer of our Sentiments which are against both 2. A Second Reason why we cannot understand this Tract in the Sense of M. Boileau and for Transubstantiation is because Aelfric and our Saxon Ancestors who lived in the Tenth Century have taught us to understand it in a contrary Sense And if there be any thing in the Vulgar Plea for Oral Tradition we may justly expect a better account of the Doctrine
able to resolve us I shall only add That had our Saxon Ancestors believed the Housel to be Christ's Natural and true Flesh it is incredible that their Canons should enjoyn fresh Consecrations every Week or Fortnight at longest to prevent such Accidents and that if (c) Canones sub Edgaro apud Spelman Concil Tom. I. vide Canon 38. p. gif hit forheaden sy þat his man brucan ne maege þonne sorbaern hit man on claenum fire I know the Roman Missal in some cases injoyns Burning but not till the Species be wholly corrupted when in the Judgment of the Schoolmen Christ's Body and Blood are retired the Housel grew stale and nauseous it should be burnt in a clear Fire and the Ashes buried under the Altar I say it is incredible that they should order it to be burnt if they believed it the very Body of our Saviour I shall trouble the Reader with nothing further till I come to shew how absurdly Mr. Boileau in his Remarks senseth some terms of Ratram whose true meaning the Saxon words used as equivalent in this Homily will very much illustrate III. My third Reason to shew that Mr. Boileau hath not given us a true account of the Sentiments and Design of Ratram is because his Arguments prove a great deal more than that there is a Figure in the Sacrament or that the Accidents are not the Sensible Truth of Christ's Body The very first Inference he makes is this (d) Claret quia Panis ille Vinumque FIGURATE Christi Corpus Sanguis EXISTIT n. 10. Hence it is evident that this Bread and Wine are Figuratively Christ's Body and Blood which is a great deal more than that there is a Figure in the Sacrament 1. He saith positively that this Bread and this Wine not the Sensible Qualities of them are Christ's Body and Blood. 2. He saith they are Figuratively not simply and in propriety of Nature Christ's Body and Blood. These words Mr. Boileau hath fraudulently Translated IN A FIGURE Again When he hath proved that there is no Physical change upon Consecration neither Generation nor Corruption nor Alteration he thence infers (e) Necesse est jam ut FIGURATE facta esse dicatur scil commutatio n. 16. that of necessity it must be Figuratively changed which is somewhat more than Mr. Boileau will acknowledge to have been in dispute between him and his Adversaries For it determines the Nature of the change to be Figurative and if so the Elements are not Substantially turned into Christ's Body and Blood as the Church of Rome hath defined That a Figurative change infers no Substantial change in Ratram's Judgment we may observe in his Explication of the words Figure and Verity where having said that Christ was by a Figure called Bread and a Vine he tells us however (f) Nam SUBSTANTIALITER nec Panis Christus nec Vitis Christus nec Palmites Apostoli Quapropter hic FIGURA n. 8. that Christ is not Substantially either Bread or a Vine c. And this is in express Terms the Heresie which Chifflet's Anonymous Writer chargeth Berengarius with advancing contrary to the Catholick Faith. He tells us (g) Asserens Panem Vinum in Sacrificio Domini non VERE ESSENTIALITER sed FIGURATE tantum CONVERTI in Corpus Sanguinem Dominicum Concil To. IX col 1050. Edit Labbei that Berengarius taught that the Consecrated Bread and Wine was not Truly and Essentially but only in a Figurative manner turned into Christ's Body and Blood. This Author is said to have written A. D. 1088. in which year Berengarius died and if he misrepresent not his Sentiments and understood what was then esteemed the Catholick Faith we have great reason to believe that had Bertram stood a Trial before the same Judges with Berengarius he would have fallen under the same Condemnation Mr. Boileau hopes to excuse him from asserting in the forementioned Expression that which he takes to be the Doctrine of Berengarius and the Reformed Churches by this shift Saith he (h) Remarks p. 219. II ne dit pas qu'ils sont seulement en Figure le Corpus de J. C. Ratram doth not teach that the Holy Eucharist is ONLY IN A FIGURE Christ's Body But this will not serve the turn For 1. If he intend by adding the word ONLY to make the Asserters of a Figurative change to exclude any Spiritual Efficacy or Grace annexed to this Sacrament and to own no more than empty Signs he grossly abuseth the Reformed Religion as may be seen by our Confessions No sober Protestant ever affirmed it nor did Berengarius who with Ratram owned a Divine Virtue therein conferring Grace (i) Sacramentum quidem transitorium est Virtus vero quae per ipsum operatur Gratia quae insinuatur aeterna Bereng in Ep. ad Ricardum Conc. Tom. XI col 1062. Which words with those that follow are ascribed to Paschase in the Bibl. Patrum Edit Par. 1610. Tom. VI. col 296. the order of the Sentences differs but the words are the same The Sacrament saith he is Transitory but the Virtue that worketh thereby and the Grace conferred is eternal Yet this Declaration did not satisfie the Councils of the XI Century nor did it please Paschase as hath been shewn and the Council of (k) Sed dixerit tantummodo esse in eo ut in Signo vel Figura aut Virtute Anathema sit Conc. Trid. Sess XIII Can. I. Trent hath Anathematized all such as acknowledge not Christ personally present in the Sacrament but only in Sign in Figure or Virtue 2. Ratram doth in effect say That the Consecrated Elements are ONLY in Figure and Virtue Christ's Body and Blood because he denies them to be Corporally or in Nature changed or to be Christ's Body born of the Virgin c. and affirms them to be the Figures Pledges Images Sacraments of Christs true and natural Flesh and Blood which are indeed more express Exclusives than the Conjunction ONLY I shall not here call Mr. Boileau to an account for his sly and fraudulent Translation of the word (l) En Figure instead of en maniere Figurative or par une Figure n. Figurate in a Figure in stead of by a Figure to insinuate that Ratram held Christ's natural Body to be invisibly under the Forms or remaining Accidents of Bread and Wine but remember him of it in another place Again The Parallel which Ratram makes between the Holy Eucharist and Baptism manifestly shews his intention to prove somewhat more than barely that there is a Figure in the Sacrament For the Analogy between the two Sacraments lieth in this as Material Water in Baptism without any Physical change hath through the Blessing annexed to that Institution by our Saviour a Spiritual Efficacy and Sanctifying Virtue which worketh a real effect on the Soul which resembleth the cleansing effect of common Water So in the Holy Eucharist Material Bread and Wine do by the same means obtain
retorton the Latin Church But the true reason of his Silence on that Question is that he had no occasion to mention it since it was none of the Ten Points which F. Mabillon saith were matter of dispute between the two Churches and the Subject of Ratram's Book (k) Capitula ista numero erant omnino decem nempe de Processione Spiritus Sancti ex patre Filioque de jejunio Sabbati de Coelibatu Presbyterorum de Chrismatione Frontis Baptizatorum Presbyteris vetita de Abstinentia octo heb domadarum ante Pascha non inchoata de Barbae rasione Clericorum de Episcoporum Ordinatione per saltum de Primatâ— Romani Pontificis de Confectione Chrismatis ex aqua fluminis de Obâ—atione agni in Festo Paschae A. B. Sec. 4. p. 2. Praef. n. 160. what they were you may see in the Margin As for what he saith touching the Adoration of the Eucharist it is not my Province to consider it tho I see nothing but what hath been long since objected by their Writers and often Answered by ours but my Appendix being already grown to more than double the Bulk first designed I shall desire the Reader to consult our Authors who handled that Question at large and particularly the Answer (l) A Discourse of the Adoration of the H. Eucharist quarto London 1686. published about two years since to M. Boileau's Book on that Subject which he mentions twice or thrice in the Preface And at parting give me leave to offer one Reflection which any man though of no very profound Reach must naturally make upon M. Boileau's design and methods in this Edition of Ratram As there is nothing the Church of Rome boasts more of than a sure Rule of Faith an Infallible Judge in Controversies and their great Unity and agreement in Doctrin so our late Deserters pretend that our Dissentions which can never be Composed for want of a Supreme Tribunal in our Church and our Uncertainty in matters of Faith and want of any certain Rule for the direction either of our Belief or Conscience was â—he Cause why they left our Communion for one in which they pretend there are none of these defects and private Spirits no such liberty of Interpreting the H. Scriptures as among us Now who ever Reads M. Boileau's Preface must needs see that there is nothing like that Unity which Mr. Sclater (m) Consensâ—s Vet. p. 6 7. c. Celebrates in such Raptures of Joy as would make a man imagine that he had been upon his Conversion taken up into the third Heaven and in an excess of Charity when he came down again would have given all he was worth to find in one single Family in England I presume he means his own where the Father is divided against the Son and the Son against the Father c. according to the Letter of our Saviours Prediction But I leave him in his New Atlantis to entertain himself at this juncture with his Chimerique (n) Consens Vet. p. 11. Speculation of France under the Spiritual Tuition of 17 Arch-bishops 107 Bishops c. Italy under one Supreme Bishop Head of Unity Conservator of Peace and Truth c. and return to consider the wonderful Agreement of the Catholick Doctors This small Tract for sixscore year together is forbidden Condemned for Heretical by the general Vote of most of their Great Divines Popes Cardinals and others I may add the Council of Trent too which had as great an Interest in that Index wherein Bertram stands Condemned as it had in the Catechism Now all on a sudden he is acknowledged for a good Catholick But tho he be so in France I doubt in Spain and Italy his Doctrin were he alive to Answer for it would bring him in danger of the Inquisition Nay tho this Tract be pronounced Orthodox at Paris by M. Boileau and his Brethren yet at Lyons it is Rejected as Spurious or at least Adulterated with Heretical mixture such Blessed Agreement is there among their Doctors of this and the last Age and of those of France with their Brethren in Italy and Spain nay in France it self between M. de Marca A. B. of one Metropolitical Church who saith it was written by Jo. Scotus and condemned in the Councils of Rome and Vercellis and M. Dean of (o) See. another Metropolitical Church who saith it is Catholick and written for the real Presence Perhaps it may be said that this is matter of Fact to which the Infallibility doth not extend but not of Faith But by their leave I look upon it a matter of Faith and what neerly concerns mens Consciences especially in an Age of Conversions For the Question is not whether the Book be Genuin or Spurious but whether the Doctrin which it contains be Orthodox or Heretical Suppose a wavering Catholick should come to M. Boileau and propose his doubts concerning the Trent Doctrin having been shocked in his belief thereof by that passage of S. Austine which made Frudegard doubt the Truth of Paschase his Doctrin and make Confession of his Faith in the words of Bertram Set your Heart at rest your Belief is very sound you are a good Catholick would M. Boileau say But then because this is but one Doctors Opinion should he Consult M. Paris who supported De Marca's conjecture he would tell him this is down right Heresie condemned in several Councils and every body knoweth the Importance of that Sin and that such a Declaration must needs disturb the Conscience which was set at ease by M. Boileau's more favourable Sentence Such certain direction have men in the Roman Communion for their Faith and Consciences over what we have I am of opinion few of their doubting Catholicks or New Converts are able to declare their Faith touching the Sacrament so Intilligibly and distinctly as Ratram hath delivered his Judgment in this Book and I fear few of their Spiritual Guides understand what is the Doctrin of their Church better than those Doctors who have Condemned Ratram for an Heretick And withal Where is the Obedience of private Spirits and their deference to Church Authority when three or four Sorbon Doctors confront three Popes five Cardinals besides Archbishops and Bishops with other Doctors almost numberless Methinks it looks like an Argument that private Spirits in that Communion are as Wanton and Ungovernable as among the Protestants And methinks Mr. Sclater seems to resolve his own Conversion into the Dictates of the private Spirit and that whatever opinion he might have of those Divines who carried Church Authority highest yet he had little Reverence for it himself otherwise he would have listened to the Liturgy Articles and Homilies which are the publick Doctrin of our Church rather than the moderate Declarations of Bishop Forbes Bishop Andrews and Bishop Taylor that is one single Bishop in each of those three Kingdoms who notwithstanding believed Transubstantiation no more than we now do And though