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
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
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
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
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
Wine I know no need Mr. Boileau hath to Translate the word Veritas the Sensible verity as he doth forty times over where Ratram denies that which is orally received to be Christ's Natural Flesh For the meer Accidents are in no sense Christ's Natural Body they are in no way Christs Body in verity of Nature neither the Sensible nor yet the Invisible verity thereof 2. The matter in Question cannot be whether the Holy Eucharist is Christs Body born of the Virgin in its proper state with its Sensible Qualities and Dimensions but whether it be his True and Natural Body which Paschase describes as in the Question The former could not be the Notion opposed by our Author for besides that he no where mentions any such Opinion it doth not any way else appear by any Writer either before or of his time that such an Opinion was ever embraced or vented by any Man. The latter was the Doctrine of Paschase a Doctrine which by his own confession gave offence to many and that Ratram disputes against it seems very clear to any Man who observeth in how accurate Terms he establisheth an Essential Difference between the Consecrated Elements and Christs Natural Body He distinguisheth them as things of vastly different Natures using the words aliud and aliud ONE THING and ANOTHER THING THIS Body and THAT Body which was born of the Virgin. He teacheth that Sacraments are ONE thing and the THINGS whereof they are Sacraments are ANOTHER That Christs Natural Body and Blood are THINGS but the Mysteries hereof are SACRAMENTS Num. 36. Again He proves them to differ I think Essentially because the same Definition doth not agree to both For one of their Canonized Schoolmen teacheth (x) Bonav in Sent. 14. Dist 10. p. 1. q. 4. That even Omnipotence it self cannot separate the Definition and the thing Defined Again He calleth the one Christs PROPER Body the other his MYSTICAL Body N. 94 95. And in a word he distinguisheth the Eucharist from Christs Proper Body in almost the same words wherein St. Hierom (y) Tantum interest inter Panes Propositionis Corpus Christi quantum inter umbram Corpora inter Imaginem Veritatem inter Exemplaria ea quae praefigurabantur Hier. in Titum Cap. I. compares the Shew-bread with the Eucharist calling it Christs Body and declaring how much the latter excels the former N. 89. It appears saith Ratram that they are extremely different as much as the Pledge differs from the Thing for which it is given in Pledge as much as the Image differs from the Thing Whereof it is the Image as much as a Figure from the Truth And if the words do not effectually import an Essential Difference it 's hard to devise words that can do it In a word the Scope of all his Arguments and Authorities is to prove such a Difference between the Holy Eucharist and our Saviours Natural Body And in the close of the Book when he sums up the force of all his Reasonings and comes to determine the Point he concludes thus (a) N. 97. From these Testimonies of the Holy Scriptures and Fathers it is most evidently demonstrated that the Bread and Cup which are called the Body and Blood of Christ are a FIGURE because they are a Mystery and that there is NO SMALL DIFFERENCE between the BODY which is so MYSTICALLY and the BODY that SUFFERED c. For this latter is the PROPER BODY of our Saviour nor is there any FIGURE or Signification therein but the very manifestation of the thing it self (b) N. 98. Whereas in the Body which is celebrated by a MYSTERY there is a FIGURE not only of Christ's PROPER BODY but also of the People who believe on Christ For it bears a FIGURE of BOTH BODIES (c) N. 99. Moreover That Bread and Cup which is called and is Christs Body and Blood represents the Memory of the Lords Passion i. e. as he explains himself in the next Number (d) N. 100. they are placed on the Altar for a FIGURE or MEMORIAL of the Lord's Death And lest his Adversaries should misrepresent his Doctrine as though he taught that Christs Body and Blood were not received by the Faithful but a meer Memorial and Figure of them as the Romanists slander the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches he (e) N. 101 closeth all with a caution against any such Inference adding that Faith receives not what the Eye beholds but what it self believes for it is Spiritual Meat and Spiritual Drink which do spiritually feed the Soul. Which words if Mr. Boileau take to be a Declaration in favour of their Real Presence I shall the less wonder since our Adversaries at Home have the confidence from such Apologies of our own Divines to infer that they and the Church of England are for their REAL PRESENCE Having thus shewn how Mr. Boileau either grossly mistakes or wilfully misrepresents the Authors Design in the account he hath given I shall now proceed to take a view of his Translation Now this Book of Ratram's being a Theological Controversie whosoever shall undertake to turn it into any other Language ought to employ his utmost care in truly expressing the Authors Sense and as much as the Language will bear it in his own words He may not take those liberties of Paraphrase which are llowable in the Translator of a Poem or a Piece of History or Morality He may not to adorn his Version or smooth his Stile add omit or change a word for the Nature of the Subject forbids it And moreover Mr. Boileau hath obliged himself to observe the strictest Laws of Translation having professed to have made this Version with all possible exactness and brought severaâ— of his Brethren of the Sorbon to al vouch its conformity to the Author 's Text. He is severe upon (f) Preface p. 47 48. M. Dacier and the Protestant Translator of Bertram for taking as he conceives undue Liberties He will not allow the (g) Remarques p. 250. and p. 277. latter to express in French what is plainly understood in the Latin and expressed within four Lines before and he cries out Falsification and Corruption because the Protestant Publisher of Bertram doth with an Asterisk refer the Reader to the Margin and there explains a word in the Text by another Latin word which he thought equivalent A Man might therefore reasonably expect that Mr. Boileau had avoided all these Faults and that if his Version had any defect it should be in the grace of his Language only by his keeping too close to the Authors own Terms But I perceive Mr. Boileau is subject to that general Weakness of Humane Nature which makes men very severe against those Vices in others which they discern not in themselves For certainly never did any Man use those undue liberties of adding omitting and altering the Authors words at a more Extravagant rate than he hath done in Translating Bertram Insomuch that