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
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
this Author and Work that he doth in his Paper given in to Queen Maries Commissioners at Oxford besides his own Answers and Confirmations insist upon whatever Bertram wrote on this Argument as a further proof of his Doctrine professing that he doth not see how any Godly Man can gain-say his Arguments and that it was this Book that put him first upon examining the old Opinion concerning the Presence of Christ's very Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament by the Scriptures and Elder Fathers of the Churcb and converted him from the Errours of the Church of Rome in that point And Dr. (a) Dr. Burnet's Hist of the Reform p. II. Book I. p 107. Burnet tells us the same adding That Ridley having read Bertram and concluding Transubstantiation to be none of the Ancient Doctrines of the Church but lately brought in and not fully received till after Bertram 's Age communicated the matter with Cranmer and they set themselves to examine it with more than ordinary care Thus he in the account he gives of the Disputation concerning the Real Presence A. D. 1549. which is the year in which the first Common-Prayer-Book of King Edward VI. was published at which time also Bertram was Printed in English by order of Bishop Ridley So that a Reverend and Learned Divine of our Church b had reason in asserting the Doctrine of Bertram was the very same Doctrine which (a) Several Conferences between a Popish Priest c. p. 61. the Church of England embraced as most consonant to Scripture and the Fathers Which is not what our Adversaries would put upon us that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a naked Commemoration of our Saviour's Death and a meer Sign of his Body and Blood but an efficacious Mystery accompanied with such a Divine and Spiritual Power as renders the consecrated Elements truly tho' Mystically Christ's Body and Blood and communicates to us the real Fruits and saving Benefits of his bitter Passion And this is the Doctrine of Bertram in both parts of this Work. CHAP. VI. That Ratramnus was not singular in his Opinion but had several other Great Men in his own and the following Age of the same Judgment with him in this Point BUt after all that I have said if Ratramnus tho' never so Learned or Orthodox were singular in his Sentiments touching Christ's Presence in the holy Eucharist we can make little of his Authority If the general Belief of the Church in his Time were contrary it only sheweth that one Eminent Divine had some Heterodox Opinions Let us therefore examine the Writers of his own Age and the next after him and see whether he or Paschasius delivered the current sence of the Church I shall not stand to examine the Belief of the more Ancient and Pure Times of Christianity but refer my Reader to Albertinus Archbishop Vsher and Bishop Cosins for an account of it I shall confine myself to the IX and X Centuries in which we shall find several of the most Eminent Doctors and Writers of the Church of the same Judgment with Ratramnus and some who were offended at the Doctrine of Paschasius And indeed there are manifest Tokens in his Book but more evident Proofs in his Epistle to Frudegardus that his Doctrine did not pass without contradiction in his own life time When he delivers his Paradox he prepares his Reader for some wondrous Doctrine And so strange was that new Doctrine of his that if the (a) Anonym de Euch. ad finem Sec IV. p. 2. Anonymous Writer published by F. Mabillon be Rabanus his Epistle to Egilo this Great and Learned Bishop professeth That he never heard or read it before and he much wondred that St. Ambrose should be quoted for it and more that Paschasius should assert it But F. Mabillon offers it only by way of conjecture modestly submitting it to the Judgment of Learned Men whether that Tract against Radbertus be the Epistle of Rabanus or not And I conceive there are better reasons to perswade us that it is not than those he offers to prove that it is As that it bears not the Name of Rabanus though himself mention his writing on that Subject to Egilo That it is not in an Epistolary Form Egilo is not so much as named nor doth any address to a second person appear throughout it but it is plainly a Polemical piece To which I may add that in the Anonymous piece there occurs an odd distinction of the same Body Naturaliter and Specialiter and yet in expounding the Doctrine of the Sacrament to Heribaldus it is not used by Rabanus though that Epistle to Egilo were first written But whoever he were that wrote it he was in all likelyhood an Author of the same Time and treats Paschasius very coursly and severely It is not likely that it was written while he was Abbot since the Author flouts him and in an Ironical way calls him Pontificem Among the Writers of the IX Century I shall number (a) Inter scriptores de Divinis Officiis Ed. per Hittorpium Par. 1610. col 303. Charles the Great though perhaps the Epistle to Alcuin was written somewhat before wherein he affirms that Christ supping with his Disciples brake Bread and gave it them with the Cup for a FIGVRE of his Body and Blood and exhibited a Sacrament highly advantagious to us As Venerable Bede before him speaks He gave in the Supper to his Disciples a FIGVRE of his Holy Body and Blood which notion consists not with the carnal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament (a) Apud L' Arroque Hist Euch. l. 2. c. 13. Theodulphus Aurelianensis near the beginning of this Century saith that by the visible offering of the Priest and the invisible consecration of the Holy Ghost Bread and Wine pass into the Dignity not the Substance of the Body and Blood of our Lord. As Jesus Christ is figured by the Wine so are the Faithful People by Water Amalarius (b) Amalarius Fortunatus Ibidem In Praefat. Col. 307. l. 1. c. 24. Fortunatus in the Preface of his Books of Divine Offices makes the Sacramental Bread and Wine to represent the Body and Blood of Christ and the Oblation to resemble Christ's own offering of himself on the Cross as the Priest doth the Person of Christ And elsewhere he saith that the Sacraments of Christ's Body are secundum quendum modum after some sort Christ's Body which is like Bertram's secundum quid not absolutely and properly but in some respect the Body of Christ and Amalarius cites that Passage of St. Augustine which Bertram alledged to render a reason why the Sacramental Signs have the name of the Thing signified What the Doctrine of Joannes Scotus was is hard to say only in the general 't is agreed that it was contrary to that of Paschasius though perhaps he erred on the other extreme making it a naked empty Figure or Memory of our Saviour's Death And
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
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
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
Sacrament made him weary of his Abby is F. Mabillon's conjecture and not mine And if so we have reason to believe that the Doctrine of Ratramnus had rather the Princes countenance and the stronger party in the Convent And it will yet seem more probable when we consider that Odo afterwards Bishop of Beauvais a great Friend of Ratramnus was made Abbot in the room of Paschasius What the Doctrine of Paschasius was I shall now briefly shew He saith * Pasch Radb de Corp. Sang. Dom. c. 1. Licet Figura Panis Vini hic sit omnino nihil aliud quam Caro Christi Sanguis post consecrationem credenda sunt Et ut miâ—abilius loquar non alia plane quam quae nata est de Maria passa in Cruce resurrexit de Sepulchro That although in the Sacrament there be the Figure of Bread and Wine yet we must believe it after consecration to be nothing else but the Body and Blood of Christ. And that you may know in what sence he understands it to be Christ's Body and Blood he adds And to say somewhat yet more wonderful It is no other Flesh than that which was born of Mary suffered on the Cross and rose again from the Grave He illustrates this Mystery further by intimating that whosoever will not believe Christs natural Body in the Sacrament under the shape of Bread that man would not have believed Christ himself to have been God if he had seen him hanging upon the Cross in the form of a Servant And shelters himself against all the Absurdities that could be objected against this Opinion as the Papists still do under God's Omnipotence laying down this Principle as the foundation of all his Discourse That the nature of all Creatures is obedient to the Will of God who can change them into what he pleaseth He renders these two Reasons why the miraculous change is not manifest to sense by any alteration of the visible form or tast of what is received viz. * Sic debuit hoc mysterium temperari ut arcana Secretorum celarentur infidis meritum cresceret de virtute Fidei c. 13. ubi plura ejusmodi cceurrunt That there may be some exercise for Faith and that Pagans might not have subject to blaspheme the Mysteries of our Religion Yet notwithstanding this no man who believes the Word of God saith he can doubt but by Consecration it is made Christ's Body and Blood in Verity or Truth of Nature And he alledgeth stories of the miraculous appearance of Christ's Flesh in its proper form for the cure of doubting as a further confirmation of his carnal Doctrine These are the sentiments of Paschasius Radbertus and differ little from those of the Roman Church at present which I shall deduce from the Authentick Acts of that Church especially the Council of Trent 1. In the Year 1059. there was a Council assembled at Rome by Pope Nicolaus the II in which a form of Recantation was drawn up for Berengarius wherein he was required to declare * Apud Gratianum de Consecratione Dist 2. c. 42. Ego Berengarius c. That Bread and Wine after Consecration are not only the Sacrament Sign and Figure but the very Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which is not only Sacramentally but Sensibly and Truly handled and broken by the Priests hands and ground by the Teeth of the Faithful And this being the form of a Recantation ought to be esteemed an accurate account of the Doctrine of the Church yet they are somewhat ashamed of it as may appear by the Gloss upon Gratian who hath put it into the body of the Canon Law. But the Council of Trents difinitions are more Authentick which hath determined I. If any one shall deny that in the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is contained really and substantially the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently whole Christ But shall say that it is therein contained only as in a Sign or Figure or Virtually let him be accursed II. If any one shall say that in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of Bread and Wine together with the Body or Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and shall deny that singular or wonderful conversion of the whole substance of Bread into his Body and of the whole substance of 1. Concil Trid. sess 13. can 1. 2. Conc. Trid. Ibid. c. 2. Wine into his Blood there remaining only the species i. e. Accidents of Bread and Wine which conversion the Catholick Church very aptly calls Transubstantiation let him be accursed i. e. By faith and not orally III. If any man shall say that in the Eucharist Christ is exhibited and eaten only Spiritually and not Sacramentally and Really let him be accursed These are the definitions of the Church of Rome in this matter and now let us see whether the Doctrine of Ratramnus in this Book be agreeable to these Canons I might make short work of it by alledging all those Authors who either represent him as a Heretick or his Book as forged or Heretical and in so doing I should muster an Army of the most Eminent Doctors of the Roman Church with two or three Popes in the Head of them viz. Pius the IV. by whose Authority was compiled the Expurgatory Index in which this Book was first forbid Sixtus V. who inlarged the Roman Index and Clement the VIII by whose order it was Revised and published They are all competent 3. Conc. Trid. Ibid. can 8. cap. 8. Witnesses that his Doctrine is not agreeable to the present Faith of the Roman Church And our Authors * Vide Indic Belgic in Bertramo Excogitato commento kind Doway Friends are forced to Exercise their Wits for some handsome invention to make him a Roman-Catholick and at last they cannot bring him fairly off but are forced to change his words directly to a contrary sense and instead of visibly write invisibly and according to the substance of the Creatures must be interpreted according to the outward species or accidents of the Sacrament c. Which is not to explain an Author but to corrupt him and instead of interpreting his words to put their own words into his Mouth And after all they acknowledge that there are some other things which it were not either amiss or imprudent wholly to expunge in regard the loss of those passages will not spoil the sense nor will they be easily missed But I shall not build altogether upon their confessions in regard others who have the ingenuity to acknowledge the Author Orthodox and the work Catholick have also the confidence to deny our claim to Bertram's Authority who is as they pretend though obscure yet their own Therefore I shall shew in his own words that his sentiments in this matter are directly contrary to Paschasius
very old and but three years before his death 4. These words the same which is received from the Altar were as * Baluz in notis ad c. 33. Ad calcem Reginonis Baluzius and F. Mabillon observe razed out of the MS from whence Stevartius published that Epistle of Rabanus Which I take notice of because Mr. Arnauds Modest Monk of St. Genouefe makes so much difficulty to believe Arch-bishop Vsher who tells of a Passage of the same importance razed out of an old MS. Book of Penitential Canons in Bennet Colledg Library in Cambridge though he had seen it himself and no doubt the other MS. also out of which the lost passage was restored This Passage is an Authority of the X Century confirming †At the end of the Saxon Homily Printed by Jo. Day Bertram's Doctrine which I shall Transcribe But this Sacrifice is not the Body in which he suffered for us nor his Blood which he shed for us but it is Spiritually made his Body and Blood like the Manna rained down from Heaven and the Water which Flowed from the Rock as c. These words inclosed between two half Circles some had rased out of Worcester book but they are restored again out of a book of Exeter Church as is noted in the Margin by the first Publishers of this Epistle and the Saxon Homily they are both one Authors work viz. Elfric's Thus the Reader may be satisfied how the Passage was recovered And Bishop Vsher did not invent it which had it been lost utterly might also have been restored out of the Saxon Epistle printed immediately before it And now I am speaking of such detestable practices I cannot but add what for the sake of such a Passage hath befallen St. Chrysostom's Epistle to Caesarius The Passage runs thus * Sicut enim antequam Sanctificetur Panis Panem nominamus Divina autem illum sanctificante gratia mediante Sacerdote liberatus est quidem appellatione panis dignus autem habitus est Dominici Corporis appellatione etiemsi natura Panis in ipso permansit non duo corpora sed unum corpus Filii praedicamus sic c. Apud Steph. Le Moine inter Varia Sacra Tom. 1. p. 532. As before the Bread is Consecrated we call it BREAD but after the Divine Grace hath consecrated it by the Ministry of the Priest it is freed from THE NAME OF BREAD and honoured with THE NAME OF THE LORDS BODY though the NATVRE OF BREAD remaineth in it and we do not teach two Bodies but one Body of the Son so c. This Epistle Peter Martyr found in the Florentine Library and Transcribed several Copies of it one of which he gave to Arch-bishop Cranmer the Copies of this Epistle being lost the World was persuaded by the Papists that the Passage was a Forgery committed by Peter Martyr This past current for about a 100 years till at last Emericus Bigotius found it and Printed the whole Epistle with * Palladii vita Chrysostomi Gr. lat c. Quarto Par. 1680. Inter paginas 235. 245. In Schedis signatis G. g. H. h. the Life of St. Chrysostom and some other little things but when it was Finisht this †Vide Expostulationem hac de re editam in Quarto Londini 1682. Epistle was taken out of the Book and not suffered to see Light. The place out of which this Epistle was expunged is visible in the Book by a break in the Signature at the bottom and the numbers at the top of the Page But at length it is published by Mr. le Moine among several other Ancient pieces at Leyden 1685. And since more accurately in the Appendix to the Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England So that notwithstanding the French Monks indignation at the Learned Vsher for charging the Papists with the razure of an old MS. it s plain that such tricks are not unusual with them that they are more ancient than their publick Expurgatory Indices and more mischievous and that some of their great Doctors at this day make no conscience of stifling antient Testimonies against their corruptions when it lies in their power I shall trouble the Reader with no more Citations to prove the concurrence of other Doctors of the Ninth and Tenth Century with Ratramnus in his Sentiments touching Christ's Presence in the Holy Sacrament These are enough to shew that his opinion was neither singular nor novel and that though he be the fullest and most express witness of the Faith of those times yet he is not a single Evidence but is supported by the Testimonies of many of the best Writers of those times And his Doctrine is reproved by no body but Paschasius who reflects a little upon it in his Epistle to Frudegardus and that piece of his commentary on Matthew that is annext to it On the contrary the Doctrine of Paschasius was impugned as Novel and Erroneous by the Anonymous Writer published by F. Mabillon by Rabanus and Ratramnus neither doth it in all things please his Anonymous Friend said to be Herigerus who writes in his favour and collects passages out of the Ancients to excuse the simplicity of Paschasius His own writings shew that he valued himself upon some new discovery which excited many to a more perfect understanding of that great Mystery That his Paradox was in danger of passing for a Dream or * In Epistolis hortatur Placidum Regem Carolum ne existiment illum contexere fabulam de salsura Maronis Poetical fiction and that when he wrote to Frudegardus many doubted the truth of his Doctrine Frudegardus once his Proselite upon reading a Passage in St. †Augustin de Doct. Christ l. 3. c. 16. Augustine which Bertram also cites was dissatisfied with his Explication of Christs Presence and whether this Epistle did effectually establish him in the belief of Radberts Doctrine or whether he adhered to St. Augustine cannot now be known It is evident notwithstanding some gross conceipts which began to possess the minds of men in those dark and barbarous Ages that the Church had not as yet received the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation which was left by Paschasius its Damme a rude Lump which required much Licking to reduce it into any tolerable shape or form as a * The B. of St. Asaph in a Sermon before the late King 1678. Reverend Author observes and was not confirmed by the Authority of any Pope or Council in 200 Years after nor did the Monster receive its name till the Fourth Lateran Council The Writers of the Ninth and Tenth Centuries speak of a change or conversion of the Elements into Christ's Body but it is plain they mean not a Natural but a Mystical or Sacramental change such as happens upon the †See the Saxon Homily Christening of a Pagan they affirm the Elements to be Christs Body and Blood after
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
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
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
consecrated Wine were corporally converted into Christs blood the Water mixt with it must be corporally converted in the blood of the Faithful People I say after all this I would fain know whether it be possible to impose this sense upon Ratramnus I must more than half Transcribe the Book should I collect all Passages which confute F. Mabillion's Notion of the change which Ratramnus owns His sense is very clear to any man who shuts not his Eyes where he enumerates the three several kinds of Physical or Natural Changes and proves that the Sacramental Change which Consecration makes is none of these * Sect. 12. 13 14 15. Not Generation for no new being is produced Not corruption for the Bread and Wine are not destroyed but remain after Consecration in truth of Nature what they were before Not alteration for the same sensible qualities still appear Wherefore since Consecration makes a change and it is not a Natural but a Spiritual change he concludes it is wrought †Sect. 16. Figuratively or Mystically and that there are not together in the Sacrament two different things a Body and a Spirit but that it is one and the same thing which in one respect viz. Naturally is Bread and Wine and in another respect viz. of its signification and efficacy is Christs Body and Blood. Or as he saith presently they are in their nature corporeal Creatures but according to their virtue or efficacy they are Spiritually made Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ And this Spiritual virtue feeding the Soul and ministring to it the sustenance of Eternal Life is that which Bertram means when he saith that it is mystically changed into the substance of his Body and Blood for he calls this virtue Substantiam vitae Aeternae and as he calls our spiritual nourishment the Bread of Eternal Life and the substance of Eternal Life so in the place cited by F. Mabillon he useth the word substance in the same sense viz. for food or sustenance and he elsewhere calls it the Bread of Christs Body and presently after explaining himself calls it the Bread of Eternal Life * Manifestum est de quo pane loquitur de pane videlicet Corporis Christi qui non ex eo quod vadit in corpus sed ex eo quod panis sit vitae aeternae c. Sect. 68. He means by the substance of Christs Body in that place what he here calls the Bread of Christs Body and Sect. 83. Esca illa Corporis Domini Potus ille Sanguinis ejus are terms equivalent to Substantia in the place cited by F. Mabillon If F. Mabillon had observed those two excellent Rules for understanding the sense of Old Authors which he quotes out of Facundus viz. not to interpret them by the chink of words but their intention and scope and to explain dubious and obscure passages by plain ones He could not have concluded him to hold a carnal Presence and Transubstantiation But we are not to wonder that the Romanists attempt to reconcile Bertram with Transubstantiation though he wrote expresly against it when we remember that †Ad calcem libri cui Titulus Deus Natura Gratia. Quarto Ludg. 1634. Franc a sancta Clara about 50 years since had the confidence to attempt the expounding the 39 Articles of our Church so as to make them bear what he calls a Catholick sense though they are many of them levelled by the Compilers point blank against the Errors of the Roman Church 3 To these I may add what by consequence destroyeth Transubstantiation and Christs carnal Presence in the Sacrament I mean he frequently affirms That what the mouth receiveth feeds and nourisheth the body and that it is what Faith only receiveth that nourisheth the Soul and affords the sustenance of Eternal Life I know our Adversaries tell us those Accidents have as much nourishing virtue as other substances So the Authors of the Belgick Index * Index Expurg Belg. in Bertramo answer the Berengarian experiment of some who have lived only upon the Holy Sacrament Sure they must be very gross Accidents if they fill the belly But what if the Trent Faith that the Accidents of Bread and Wine remain without their substances be built upon a mistaken Hypothesis in Philosophy What if there be no such thing in Nature as pure Accidents What if Colours Tasts and Scents are nothing else but matter in different positions lights or motions and little parts of the substance it self sallying out of the body and making impressions apon the Organs of Sense Which Hypothesis is embraced by the most curious Philosophers of our Age who have exploded the former what then becomes of the Species or Accidents imagined to subsist in the Air To close this Digression I shall add * Bell. explic Doct. Christ De Sanctissima Eucharist Quicunque hanc statuam videbat ille speciem figuramque uxoris Loth videbat quae tamen uxor Loth amplius non fuit sed Sal sub specie mulieris delitescens Bellarmines Illustration of a body under species not properly its own He tells his Catechumen Lots Wife was turned into a Pillar of Salt and yet the species and likeness of a Woman remained She was no longer Lots Wife but Salt hid under the Species or outward form of a Woman Thus do Errours and Absurdities multiply without end I have said enough to shew that Bertram expresly contradicts the Doctrine of Transubstantiation but I must add a word or two in Answer to the Evasions of the Romanists Cardinal Perron tells us that the Adversaries whom Ratramnus encounters were the Stercoranists a sort of Hereticks that rose up in the IX Century and (a) Vterque Stercoranistarum Haeresin quae illo tempore orta est confutavit uterque Catholicam veritatem asseruit sed Radbertus Transubstantiationis veritatem clarius expressit Maug Tom. 2. Diss c. 17. p. 134. Mauguin followeth him with divers others They are said to Believe that Christ's Body is corruptible passible and subject to Digestion and the Draught and that the Accidents were Hypostatically united to Christ's Body But we read of no such Errours censured by any Council in that Age we do not find any Person of that Time branding any Body with that infamous hard Name The Persons whom some late Writers have aaccused as Authors of that Heresie viz. Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz and Heribaldus Bishop of Auxerre lived and died with the repute of Learned Orthodox and Holy Men and are not accused by any of their own Time of those foul Doctrines The first I can learn of the Name is that Humbertus Bishop of Sylva Candida calls Nicetas Stercoranist And Algerus likewise calls the Greeks so for holding that the Sacrament broke an Ecclesiastical Fast which is nothing to the Gallicane Church and the IX Century If (a) Vide Labbeum de script Eccles Tom. 1. p. 484. Cardinal Humbert drew up Berengarius his
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
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
diversitas inter eos esse dinoscitur n. 2. In quo nulla permutatio facta esse cognoscitur n. 12. Non iste transitus factus esse cognoscitur ibid. There is no small difference known to be among them Again How can that be called Christ's Body in which no change is known to be made And the same Occurs at least four times over in the same and the next Paragraph and is expounded by the Author himself saying expresly (l) Si ergo nihil hic EST permutatum c. n. 13. Nihil HABENT in se permutatum n. 14. that there IS nothing changed and that the Bread and Wine HAVE NOTHING changed in them Again (m) Num mare secundum quod Elementum VIDEBATVR i. e. fuit Baptismi potuit habere virtutem Vel Nubes juxta quod densioris crassitudinem aeris OSTENDEBAT i. e. aer crassus condensatus fuit n. 20. could either the Sea as it was seen to be an Element have a Baptismal vertue or the Cloud as it did shew condensed Air sanctifie the People Did the Sea only seem to be Water or had the Cloud only an Appearance of condensed Air or were they in substance the one Water and the other thick Air I must needs say M. Boileau plays at small Games when he lays so much stress on nothing and hath the confidence because Ratram saith That the Body and Blood of Christ celebrated in the Church are different from that Body and Blood which now is known to be Glorified to aver that (n) Toute la difference qu'il y etablit entre le Corps de J. C. dans la gloire est que ce dernier per resurrectionem jam glorificatum cognoscitur ae lieu qu'il n'avoit qu' a dire jam glorificatum existit qui est un mot en usage c. Pref. p. 40. all the Difference that Ratram makes between Christ's Body in Heaven and on the Altar is that both being his Glorified Body the former Glorificatum Cognoscitur is known to be Glorified whereas he might as easily have said simply IS Glorified Now if by Cognoscitur M. Boileau means is sensibly Glorified as I presume he doth Christ's Body in Heaven to us appeareth not Glorious being received up out of our sight He likewise mightily vapours with the word (o) P. 40. Pref. p. 224. Rem c. Iste Panis Calix qui Corpus Sanguis Christi nominatur EXISTIT n. 99. Existit as though it imported the Existence of Christ's Natural Body in the Sacrament and ten times over twits us with these words The Bread and Cup is called the Body and Blood of Christ and IS SO. Now all this Flourish hath nothing in it For first Our Author (p) N. 21. Baptismum tamen extitisse pro fuisse n. 26. Angelorum cibus existit n. 40. Mortis Passionis cujus existunt repraesentationes useth the word Existit for Est in forty places of this Book of which see two or three Examples in the Margin 2. Where he useth the word Existit he generally addeth something that is Inconsistent with their Notion of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament (q) Spirituale Corpus Spiritualisque Sanguis existit n. 16. Existum repraesentationes ejus sumunt appellationem cujus existunt Sacramentum n. 40. Secundum quid n. 83. id est Secundum quendam modum nimirum Figurate quemadmodum clarius rem exponit Ratramnus n. 84. Item de Corpore ex Virgine Proprium salvatoris Corpus existit de Mystico Corpus quod per Mysterium existit n. 97. 96. Claret quia Panis ille Vinumque Figurate Christi Corpus Sanguis existunt Telling us either that the Bread and Cup are his Spiritual Body and Blood or they are the SACRAMENT of his Body and Blood. That in some respect not simply they are truly his Body and Blood and elsewhere intimates that they are not his proper Body but only a Figure or Mystery thereof and expresly saith near the beginning of this Tract that it is clear that the Holy Bread and Wine are FIGURATIVELY the Body and Blood of Christ by which Exposition of the Author himself we are satisfied how we must understand that Passage M. Boileau so much Triumphs in But what most amazeth me is to find that in his Remarks on N. 16. and these words whence it necessarily followeth that the change is made Figuratively he makes a Flourish with Authorities and makes a Parallel between Ratram Paschase and the second Nicene Council (r) Rem p. 225. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making them all teach the same Doctrin whereas our Author saith That the Holy Elements are Figuratively the Body and Blood of Christ or the Spiritual Body and Blood which is all one and the Nicene Doctors say that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly his Body and Blood. I would gladly be informed in what Greek Lexicon Mr. Boileau finds that word expounded by Figurate But thirdly Those words of Ratram overthrow the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and by very firm (ſ) Ab est vel existit adjecti tertii ad est adjecti secundi valet consequentia Panis Corpus Christi existit ergo Panis existit consequence infer that the Bread and Wine do remain after Consecration For by the Rules of Logick this Argument is good M. Boileau is Dean of Sens therefore M. Boileau IS in being and in like manner after Consecration Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ Therefore after Consecration Bread and Wine do exist Thus at length I have done with his Exposition of our Author 's controverted Terms which if true Mr. Dean would do well to Publish a Glossary on purpose to assist the Reader who by the help of all the Dictionaries yet extant will never be able to comprehend this Author's sense But I must needs say the difficulties are all Fictions of the Translator who delights to perplex the most plain Expressions and by new and bold Figures and forced Significations invented to serve his design hath offered manifest violence to our Author's words in an hundred Passages of this small Piece I confess he useth so great License and indulgeth his Fancy at so extravagant a Rate that I was almost tempted to think that M. Boileau the Poet had commenced Doctor in the Sorbon and began unluckily to play the Divine as Poets commonly do when they begin their Theological Studies in their Old Age. If it had really been so I could have pitied and forgiven him many Extravagancies which are venial Faults in a Poet but unpardonable in a Professor of Divinity Here I once thought to dismiss him but upon second Thoughts I resolved to attend him a little further and consider the Reflections wherewith he concludeth his Preface I shall say nothing in defence of Protestant Translators three Reflections which stand firm after all his weak assaults upon them His first Reflection is That supposing though