A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

Ratherius Bishop of Verona.

AMong the famous men who flourish'd in Italy during this Century, none was of * 1.1 greater Repute than Ratherius, Bishop of Verona. His life has something in it extraor∣dinary, upon the account of the many cross Accidents which he met with. He was a Monk in the Abbey of Lobbes, where he grew into great esteem for his Learning. Happy had he been, had he stay'd quietly in that peaceable Harbour, and not expos'd himself, as he did, to the Waves of a tempestuous World. But whether he was called to another Post because of his Abilities, or whether he had some other motive to incline him to

it, he follow'd the fortune of that Hilduin, who had usurp'd the Bishoprick of Liege; and was afterwards turn'd out of it. Hilduin retir'd into Italy, and after the Death of Notger, Bishop of Verona, he was put into the possession of that Bishoprick by King Hugh, who promis'd to advance him to a more considerable See when occasion should offer, and then to bestow that of Verona on Ratherius. A while after that Prince having determin'd to translate Hilduin to Milan, sent Ratherius to Rome, to procure Pope John XI. to approve of this Translation. Whilst Ratherius was upon this Negotiation at Rome, King Hugh al∣ter'd his mind, and design'd to bestow the Archbishoprick of Milan upon some other person. However, Ratherius brought a Letter from Rome, whereby the Pope approv'd of the Instalment of Hilduin, in the Archbishoprick of Milan, and granted him the Pall, and another Letter, whereby he requir'd in his own Name, and in the name of the Church of Rome, that Ra∣therius should be made Bishop of Verona. This displeas'd King Hugh, who had other designs in his head: however, he could not tell how to deny the Requests of the holy See, and of the Lords that were about him. He was the more inclin'd to grant it, because Ra∣therius being then sick, he believ'd he would quickly march off to the other world. But he recover'd of his distemper, and was ordain••d Bishop in the year 931. Hugh being very much enrag'd against him, swore that he should be never the better for his Ordination, and would oblige him to be contented with only a part of the Revenue of his Church, and to swear that he would not require any more of it during his Reign and his Son's Reign. Ra∣therius was not willing to submit to such an unreasonable proposition, whereupon this Prince caus'd him to be persecuted, and sought for pretences of turning him out. The War of Ar∣nulphus furnish'd him with a favourable opportunity of doing it; for Arnulphus becoming master of Verona, Ratherius was accus'd of being one of his party; and when Hugh had re-taken the Town, he sent him Prisoner to Pavia, where he was under confinement two years and an half. Being releas'd thence, he was oblig'd to go into exile, where he spent five years, after which he returns into Italy, in hopes of being restor'd to his Bishoprick. In his return he fell into the hands of Berenger, who kept him in prison three months and an half by the Advice of Manasses: afterwards he was brought to Verona, and receiv'd by Milo, Count of that City. He stay'd there two years, under the Government of that Count, who would not allow him any liberty. In the mean time Manasses, Archbishop of Arles, being translated to Milan, bethought himself of ordaining a person for the Church of Verona, and some time after Ratherius receiv'd an Order from the Emperor Lotharius to withdraw. He did very willingly, he says, in obedience to that Order, that which he would have done of himself, if he had not been forbidden by the Gospel to relinquish his Flock. He takes no notice whither he retir'd at this time, but the Abbot Fulcuin tells us, that he stay'd some time at Provence with a Nobleman's Son call'd Roesteing, that af∣terwards he return'd to Lobbes, where he was very kindly receiv'd by Riquier who was still living, and that at last he was sent for by the Emperor Otho, who plac'd him near the person of his Brother Bruno. This Bruno having been made Archbishop of Cologne, in the year 953. bestow'd on Ratherius the Bishoprick of Liege, vacant by the death of Farabert, who had succeeded Hugh, the Successor of Riquier. But bad Fortune always attended him, for he was oppos'd by a prevailing party, who turn'd him out two years after, and put up in his place one Baudrey, a person of Quality in that Country. Spite of these cros∣ses, he had a mind to be re-enstated in his Bishoprick of Verona, and attempted it when Otho came into Italy a second time. At first he met with some difficulty, because the place was filled by Milo's Grandson, whose ordination had been ratified by the Holy See. However, he insisted upon it, wrote very powerfully to Pope John XII. and to the Bishops of France and Germany, cited them to a Council, and prevailed so far as to be re-establish'd in a Synod held at Pavia. But he was no sooner re-enstated in his See, but he had new controversies between himself and his Clergy, so that he took up a Resolution to retire. About the year 966. he came into France, where he purchas'd Lands, and bought the Abbeys of S. Amand of Aumont, and of Alne, in the last of which he dy'd in the year 972.

This Bishop has compos'd several Treatises, a great part whereof hath been recovered and publish'd by Father Dachery, in the second Tome of his Spicelegium.

The first has a very fantastical Title: 'Tis entitul'd, A Treatise of the Perpendiculars of Ra∣therius Bishop of Verona, or the Vision of a Thief, hang'd among several others. It is dedica∣ed to Hubert Bishop of Parma, and he therein reprehends that slight which the Clergy put upon the Canons. The Work is divided into two parts. In the first he complains, that he had formerly been turn'd out by the Clergy of his own Church, who could not endure that he should concern himself with the distribution of the Ecclesiastical Revenues of his own Diocess, tho it was part of the Pastors Duty; and who were not willing he should exercise himself in any other Function, than that of consecrating the Chrism, and of con∣firmation. Being harass'd by their continual Rebellion, he undertook in this Writing to shew that their Attempt was a manifest Contempt of the Canons: and for the proof there∣of, he began by collecting those Canons which related to the Authority of Bishops, and which granted to them the Administration of the Goods belonging to their own Churches.

Afterwards he made it appear by an Argumentation, that Bishops not being only oblig'd to feed their Flocks spiritually, but also corporally, they had a right to take cognizance of the state and distribution of the Church Revenues, so as to divide them among the Clergy according to justice and equity. He shews that this equity had been perverted in the distribution which was made in the Church of Veronae; because the most powerful ran away with the greatest share thereof, and enrich'd themselves at other mens costs, and that the Priests and Deacons kept all to themselves, without parting with any to the rest of the Clergy. He adds, that these latter, in whose behalf he spoke, did not much concern them∣selves about it, upon two accounts: First, because they were very glad they had this pre∣tence to excuse themselves from doing the Church any service: Secondly, because they hop'd hereafter to have the same advantage. Whereas they objected, that the custom of the Church of Verona was quite contrary, he maintains that they ought not to prefer an evil custom to the Intention of the Canons, and to the Laws of the Church. It was again objected to him, that it was a reflection upon a Bishop to degrade himself so far, as to distribute amongst the Clergy, and to appoint each their Allowance of Corn, of Wine, and of Money. He reply'd to this, that it was not at all requisite that the Bishop should do this himself, but that he might do it by his Priests and Deacons, if he could find any a∣mong them whom he could trust: which way was authoris'd by the example of the Apo∣stles, who made use of Deacons to distribute the Alms which were collected by their Or∣der; and by the practice of S. Sixtus, who committed the distribution of the Treasures of the Church to S. Lawrence: upon which he makes this remark, that St. Lawrence speaking to S. Sixtus, told him, that he had disposd of his Treasures, calling the Treasures of the Church, the Treasures of the Bishops; because the Bishop is as it were the Husband of the Church. He proves the same things out of the Civil Laws, which gave the Bishops a power of treating about the priviledges of the Church. He afterwards invieghs against that general contempt, which all sorts of Christians, from the meanest Laick to the Pope himself, cast upon the Canons and Laws of the Church: and he with a great deal of heat declaims against the irregular Lives of the Ecclesiasticks of his time, who made no scruple of violating the Canons openly in matters of moment, as well as in small things. He re∣proves very smartly, and charges them with several Disorders, which he describes in a plain and naked dress. He speaks against those persons of Quality, who were mark'd out for Church Preferments, and advanc'd thereto by all manner of contrivances, how unfit soever they were for such an employ: He calls them Thieves, false Shepherds, whose blessing turn'd to a curse; persons excommunicated by the Canons a thousand times over, who render the Authority of Bishops contemptible, and were the cause why men set so slight by their excommunications and absolutions.

In the Second part of his Treatise, Ratherius more particularly falls upon the Immodesty of the Clergy, which was at such a heighth in his time, that one could scarce (says he) find a man fit to be ordained a Bishop, or any Bishop fit to ordain others, He takes notice that of all the Nations in Christendom, the Italians were the persons who had the least regard for the Canons, and the least esteem for the Clergy: * 1.2 The reason he gives for it is that the Ecclesiasticks of their Country were the most irregular in their Conduct, the most Immodest in their outward behaviour, and the most remiss in the discharge of their Duty. He reckons up several horrible Stories, and charges them chiefly with an Infamous Converse with Wo∣men. In the conclusion he gives them to understand that they had still place left for Repen∣tance, and earnestly exhorts them thereto. This Work was compos'd by Ratherius some time after he was last re-established in his Bishoprick of Verona by the Emperor Otho about the year 962.

The Second Treatise is intituled: A Deliberative Determination made at Liege. He there alleges forty reasons, why he thought himself obliged neither formally nor tacitly to re∣nounce the Government of his Flock, nor to abandon it to those who had robb'd him of it. These Reasons are strong and short, and are of the Nature of Aphorisms: In the conclusion he says that he formerly made use of them for the Bishoprick of Liege; but that the Sixteen first were likewise applicable to that of Verona. He ends with an Imprecation against those who persist to harass and disturb him. This Work was written at that time when he sollicit∣ed his re-establishment in the Bishoprick of Verona.

The third Treatise is intituled: Qualitatis conjectura cujusdam. He therein exposes under an unknown Name, all that his Enemies laid to his charge, and how they construed all his actions in a wrong sense. 'Tis a continu'd piece of Rallery on their Spite and Malice; and wrote about the end of his Life, when he had taken up his resolution to retire: for he therein observes that it was forty years ago since he began to aspire to Greatness and Authority, without being ever able to attain it. Lastly, he complains that the Emperor himself had for∣saken him.

The following Treatise is compos'd upon the variance which hapn'd between him and the Clergy of Verona after his re-establishment. He says that it was no new thing, and that it began at the time of his Ordination: That it proceeded, (1.) because his morals and those of his Clerks were a contradiction to each other. (2.) Because he preferr'd the observation of

the Canons to those Customs which were introduc'd by the Devil. (3.) Because he had restrain'd them from keeping company with Women, according to the Injunction of the Council of Nice. (4.) Because he would not permit the unequal distribution of the Church Goods among the Clergy. That 'tis upon this last account the quarrel between him and them is founded, as he had already demonstrated in a Letter written to Hubert, which is his first Treatise. He declaims very strongly against the general irregularity of all the Clergy, which he describes with very little Caution. He tells us the reason why he undertook to discourse of the distribution of the Goods of his Church, was, because the Clerks, who had received an order from the Emperor to leave off that familiarity which they held with wo∣men, excused themselves from so doing under a pretence of their Poverty. That it was upon this account he entred upon this particular, that they might all have wherewithal to live.

The Apologetick Treatise of Ratherius, is not an Apology of his whole Life, but he therein only gives an account how he had employed a summ of money, which the Emperor put into his hands for the re-building the Church of S. Zeno. One of his Enemies, nam'd Mar∣cian, found fault with what he did, and would have had him distributed it amongst the Poor. Ratherius makes it appear that he ought not to do it. (1.) Because it was design'd for the rebuilding of the Church. (2.) Because there were not very many poor in his Dio∣cess, and that several persons contributed to their subsistance: whereas on the contrary, there were very many Churches demolished, or at least very much out of repair, for the rebuilding of which nothing was bestowed; that thereupon he supposed he might even em∣ploy a part of that Portion of the Church Goods intended for the Poor on such a good work. He tells us, that his Antagonist had ventur'd to go to Rome without his Licence, and that he had by Bribes procur'd Letters from the Pope, which excommunicated him and the Bishops his Successors, in case they should concern themselves with the distribution of the Church Goods. He says, that it was impossible but that this Excommunication would be the cause of a great deal of trouble: for if he should slight the Anathema of the holy See, he should give a very bad Precedent; but on the other hand, if he should submit to it, he should be no longer a Bishop, since he who is made a Bishop, at the same time is made an Overseer, not only in spiritual things, but also in the Temporalities of his Church, as it is ordain'd by a vast number of Canons. This Treatise was compos'd by Ratherius after his last re-establishment.

The following was wrote much about the same time. 'Tis a discourse directed to his Clergy, wherein he upbraids them of their Rebellion. He there tells them that he had resolv'd to excommunicate them, as they had deserved; but he had delay'd doing it, in hopes they would have reform'd of themselves: That he tarryed for a Commission from the Emperor, who should report to his Imperial Majesty the Reasons of both sides, upon which the Emperor should determine what he pleased, and he would obey his Orders.

This Treatise is followed by a Charter, whereby Ratherius institutes several Clerks into a Monastery, in the place of the Abbot and Monks, whom he was oblig'd to turn out, be∣cause of their Irregularities. He therein appoints that they should sing the Office, and that every one of them should have his share of Corn, Wine, Pulse and Money, without dividing the Lands and Vineyards.

The following Treatise is an Injunction of Ratherius against the Marriage of a Clergy-mans Son of Verona, which was perform'd on a Sunday in Lent. He declares that it is irregular, and that no Marriage ought to be celebrated during Lent, nor on Fast-days, nor on Sun∣days, nor on Holydays; and orders that all those who should commit such a fault, should fast for forty days; that is to say, that when others of the faithful eat at nine of the clock, they should stay till noon e're they eat: when others fast till noon, they should fast till till three a clock: and when others fast till three a clock, they shall abstain from eating till night. He exhorts them likewise to be charitable to the poor during this time. He declares that he would undergo the same pennance himself for being backward in opposing such an irregularity. He excommunicates such Offenders as would not submit to this Pennance, and declares that God would consign them over to eternal Damnation.

After this Treatise there are five Letters of his writing. The first is directed to Martin Bishop of Ferrara, wherein he acquaints him that his Clergy laid several Crimes to his charge, particularly that of ordaining several Infants for money. He exhorts him to repent, and to behave himself better for the future.

The second Letter is writ in the name of all the Clergy of Verona, and directed to him, who was then in the Holy Apostolical See, to the Senate, and to all the faithful of the Church of Rome. It was compos'd by Ratherius some time after his Re-establishment, that is about the year 963. during the contest between John XII. and the Emperor. Upon which account in the direction of his Letter he names only in general,

The Bishop who is in the Holy Apostolical See, whoever he be. Domino Sancte Sedis Romanae, quicun∣que est, Apostolico.

In this Letter he desires to know what he ought to do with those Clergymen of Verona, who enter'd into Orders whilst that Church was govern'd by Intru∣ders.

He drew up a collection of those Canons, which declare such Ordinations to be inva∣lid: however, he declares in the name of his Clergy, that their Bishop having referr'd the decision of the case wholly to the judgment of the holy See, they earnestly entreated that See to assist them, and deal favourably with them in that particular.

The Letter which follows precedes in date that which we have been just now speaking of; Ratherius wrote it to Pope John XII. in his own name, to desire his re-establishment. He stiles the Pope the Bishop of the Chief See, i. e. of Rome, Archbishop of Archbishops, and Universal Pope, if it were lawful to give that title to any Mortal. He therein describes his own misfortunes, and the history of his own Life, and entreats the Pope to judge whether he ought to be Bishop of Verona, or no.

The fourth Letter is writ upon the same subject, and directed to the Bishops of Italy, France, and Germany; he therein implores their Assistance, and cites his Adversary to a Council, that his Cause might be determin'd there.

The fifth Letter is imperfect: 'tis a dedicatory Epistle of some Work, directed to a Bishop.

These particular Letters are follow'd by a Synodical Letter, which Ratherius publish'd in a Synod which he held after his last re-establishment, in order to instruct his Clergy, who were very ignorant. He recommends to them at first the getting by heart the Apostle's Creed, that which was sung at Mass, and the Creed of S. Athanasius. He explains to them the mysteries of the principal Festivals of the year, exhorts them to say Mass, and to com∣municate on the Festivals and Sundays; and advertizes those who would enter into Priests Orders of what they ought to know and practice, in order to their Ordination; which he reduces to these heads: They must bring Certificates out of the Church Registers, whe∣ther they be free-born, and of the same Diocess. If they are born Slaves, they must produce their Letter of Freedom: and if they be of another Diocess, Letters of recommendation from their Bishop, call'd now Letters Demissory. They must learn by heart, and be able to explain the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and to read distinctly, and to explain the E∣pistle and Gospel. They must know how to adminster the Sacraments of Baptism, of Pennance, and of Extream Unction, and how to perform the Ceremonies for the Burial of the Dead, and for the Blessing of Holy Water. Thay must be well vers'd in Singing and in the Calender, and they must have a Martyrology and a Penitential. He adds, that he would not admit any into Priests Orders, unless they had spent some time in his Ci∣ty, either in a Monastery, or under the Discipline of some Learned Man, and were men of some Learning themselves. He informs his Clergy that the Ecclesiastical Revenues being divided into four parts, whereof only one belong'd to them, they ought not to en∣croach on those which belong'd to the Bishop, to the Poor, and to Building. He orders that a Regular observation should be made of Lent every day alike, except Sundays; that during Advent they should abstain from eating of Flesh, and from the celebration of Mar∣riage. He requires that abstinence in the last case should likewise be observ'd in the Octaves of Easter and Whitsontide, in the time of publick Prayers, in the Vigils of all the Festivals, on all Fridays and Sundays; that they should fast till † 1.3 None all the Passion-Week; that on Easter Eve no Priest should say Mass before ten a clock, nor solemnly Christen any before that hour. He declares that the Priests can enjoyn Pennance, and give Absolution for secret Sins, but for publick Offences they ought to apply themselves to the Bishop. Last∣ly, he would have them omit the Festivals, which fell out in Lent, except those of the Virgin Mary, the Apostles, and the Saints, whose bodies lay interr'd in their Church. There is inserted in this Synodical Letter, a discourse containing likewise several Advices and Instructions for Ecclesiasticks, the which is attributed to Pope Leo IV. and S. Ulric. 'Tis very plain, that 'tis foreign to this subject, but 'tis difficult to determine whose piece it is.

The Treatise of Ratherius, entituled a Journal of his Travel to Rome, is a piece wherein he threatens his Clergy to go to Rome, and impeach them there, that so he might reduce them to their Duty. He tells them, that tho they might be very sensible that he de∣sign'd to go to Rome, yet they were ignorant of his design in going: That he did not go thither to put up his Prayers there; having read in the Gospel that the time is come, when Men shall no longer Worship God on this Mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, and that God being a Spirit, he ought to be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth, which every one might do at home in his own Closet. That he did not go thither by the Emperor's Order, having re∣ceiv'd no such orders from him, but only to send his Soldiers thither: That he did not go thither to learn any thing, since the Scripture gave him sufficient instructions what to do: but that he went thither to the Synod of Bishops which were to meet at Rome by the Emperor's Order, to know of them how he should behave himself in the Discipline of his Church, and particularly whether he might tolerate his Clergy's having Women amongst them. He observes that he could apply himself to no place so properly as to Rome, for instruction how he ought to demean himself in that case.

For, (says he) where can one be better inform'd of the discipline of the Church than at Rome? There are the most eminent Doctors in the World: 'Tis there the Heads of the Universal Church do flou∣rish: 'Tis there they examine the constitutions of Episcopacy, and the institutions of

other Ecclesiasticks: There they approve of those that ought to be received, and reject those that ought to be rejected. Nothing that is disannull'd there, can be of force elsewhere; and nothing which is ordered there can be abolished. Whither then can I better apply my self for the Cure of my Ignorance, than to the source and fountain-head of all Wisdom?

To this Consideration he adds the Equity and Justice of the Emperour, and the personal Deserts of Pope John (viz. the Twelfth of that Name, who scarce deserved such an Encomium) and the hopes that they would call a general Council, which he wishes might prove beneficial to the Church.

He explains the question he would propose to them; namely, whether those who infring'd and openly contemn'd the Canons, ought to be endur'd in the Church: He adds, that he would not so much as mention the Injuries he had formerly suffer'd from them, nor those which they still conti∣nued to heap upon him; but that he knew not how to refrain speaking of that which passed in the last Synod which he held, wherein he had not the Liberty of Reforming his Clergy, and in which there was not the least notice taken of his Synodical Letter. He enlarges himself very much on the necessity there was of observing the Canons; and was extremely concern'd, upon the account that these Canons prohibited the Clergy, who had been guilty of such Crimes, from Celebrating or dis∣charging their Ministerial Functions. For (says he) if they do not confess their Faults, they are in danger of being Damn'd; and if they do confess them, these Canons prohibit them from discharging their Functions. Since the Case stands thus, the Church would be unprovided of Ministers, since the Number of the Wicked was so great. He exhorts them to Repentance, and to recite a Prayer, which, he says, he met with in the Psalteries, wherein God is to be implored for their Salvation and Conver∣sion, through the Intercession of the Virgin, and all the Saints. However, forasmuch as the Diffi∣culty still remain'd; he concludes, that he goes to Rome for the removal of it.

To those Treatises of Ratherius are annex'd several Sermons. The first and most considerable is a large Instruction upon Lent. He therein blames those who did not observe it according to the Canon, either fasting only one part of that Holy time, or else breaking out into Excess; or lastly, breaking the Fast on Holy Thursday and Saturday. He takes notice, that in his time they fasted in Lent only till Noon: That on Holy Saturday Mass was not Celebrated among the Latins till about Night, and that they fasted that day till Mass was over: But that in the Greek Church they began the Solemnity of Easter at Nine of the Clock in the Morning; that their Lent was longer. After this he recommends Prayer, Alms-giving, and Repentance; and shews with what mind, and after what manner they ought to put these into Practice. Lastly, to these Instructions he adds a Disserta∣tion against the Error of the Anthropomorphites, into which he perceiv'd several of his Priests were fallen out of Ignorance, not being capable of imagining a God unless he had a Body. By several Arguments he Demonstrates that God is a pure Spirit. He likewise refutes a foolish and superstiti∣ous Opinion, that St. Michael Sang Mass in Heaven every Monday. He concludes with Exhorting his Clergy to live regularly.

The Persons, whose Errors he had declar'd against in this Sermon, accus'd him (either out of Ma∣lice or Ignorance) of having deny'd that JESUS CHRIST had a Body, and of having con∣demn'd the Devotion of those who went every Monday to hear Mass in the Church of St. Michael; so that he was oblig'd to explain himself, by declaring that he never said that JESUS CHRIST, that is, the incarnate Wisdom, had not Eyes, Hands, or a Body; but only that the Divine Substance had none; and that he never said, that it was ill done in going to the Church of St. Michael to hear Mass; but that he had said, and would maintain, that it was a great piece of Folly to assert, that St. Michael Sang Mass, and Superstition to believe, that it was better to go to St. Michael's Church on Mondays, and Pray to him on that Day, than on any other day of the Week.

The Second Discourse upon Lent, is a Moral Exhortation to refrain from Vice.

There are besides four Sermons on Easter-day, and three on the Ascension, which likewise contain very useful Instructions of Morality, taken for the most part out of the Holy Scriptures and the Fa∣thers.

These are all the Works of Ratherius, which are extant in the Second Tome of the Spicilegium. There is still in the Twelfth Tome, a Letter of the same Author upon the Eucharist: He wrote it to a Bishop, who having met him in a Convocation of Bishops held by Conrad, had ask'd him, whether he had Sung Mass that Week or no? He complains, that this Question was propos'd to him, rather to try him, than out of Charity; and answers him, that perhaps it were to be wish'd, that neither of them had Celebrated it on Christmas-day; declaring withal, that he had no good Opinion of him. He leaves the World to judge, which of the two who receiv'd the Eucharist unworthily, is most in danger of his Salvation; whether he who receiv'd it seldom, or be who receiv'd it often. He adds, that were they to read the Homilies of St. Chrysostom on the Epistle to the He∣brews, perhaps the One would abstain altogether from Celebrating, and the Other from doing it every day. From this point of Morality Ratherius passes to another of Doctrine, and ask's him, to whom he writ; whether he understands figuratively these words, which are spoken in giving the Sacrament; The Body of JESUS CHRIST preserve thee to Everlasting Life. He tells him, that if he understood them in that Sense, he was miserably blind; and assures him, that he ought to believe, that as in the Marriage of Cana in Galilee, the Change of the Water into Wine was Real, and not Figurative; so the Wine is by the Priest's * 1.4 Benediction made the real Blood of JESUS CHRIST, and the Bread the real Flesh, and not only in a Figure: That if the Tast and the Colour

seem to suggest the contrary, yet we are not to stick here; and that as the Mud whereof Man was form'd chang'd its Figure, tho' the Substance still remained, so we ought to believe, that tho' the Colour and Taste of the Bread and Wine remain, yet we receive the real Flesh; and the real Blood of JESUS CHRIST: That if one should ask, what is become of the Substance of the Bread and Wine? it might be answered, That the Bread perhaps vanishes after an invisible manner; or that 'tis changed into Flesh. But that the Gospel teaches us, that this Flesh and this Blood, are the Flesh and the Blood of the Body of JESUS CHRIST: That we ought not to be over-inquisitive about the rest, since 'tis a Mystery of our Faith: because being a Mystery it cannot be comprehended; and being a Mystery of Faith, we should believe it, without going about to explain it.

Foulcuin Abbot of Lobes, speaks of almost all these Works of Ratherius, which we still have, and likewise makes mention of some others which are lost; viz. a Treatise Entituled The Combat, or the Mental Meditations of one Ratherius, Bishop of Verona, and Monk of Lobes, which he writ during his first Exil, and address'd to the most Learned Prelates of his Time: A Treatise Enti∣tuled, The Frenzy, because he therein talks like a Mad-man against Baudry: Several Sermons for Holy Thursday, for the Feast of Pentecost, and for several Festivals of the Blessed Virgin, and several other pieces. The same Author adds, that Ratherius in his Exile at Cumae, meeting with a Copy of the Life of St. Usmar, corrected the Solecisms thereof, and sent it to Lobes; and that afterwards being in Provence, he Compos'd a Treatise of Grammar, which he Dedicated to Roësting's Son, under the Title of Spera-dorsum, or, A Shelter for the back-side.

The Stile of Ratherius is obscure and intricate, but pure enough in the Terms: his Expressions are lively and smart, and his Reasonings just enough. He was well acquainted with the Canons, had thorowly read the Latin Fathers, and very pertinently made use of their Authority and Prin∣ciples. He reproves with sharpness the Vices and irregularities of his Time, without sparing any Man, and particularly levels against the corrupted Morals of Ecclesiasticks, which he did not stick to detect and describe in very lively Colours, and perhaps with a little too much Picquancy.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Ratherius Bishop of Verona.
• * 1.2

  [This is likewise one great reason of that gene∣ral Con∣tempt which our modern Clergy la∣bor under; and which will in all succeeding Ages cast a scorn and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 reproach on all such ir∣regular Clerks of what Church or Nation soe∣ver they be.]
• † 1.3

  One of the Popish Ca∣nonical hours.
• * 1.4

  [But by this Bishop's and Monsieut Du Pin's leave, this parallel will not hold good; nor is it a sound Ar∣gument to prove Transub∣stantiation. The Fallacy of it is apparent. For the change of Water into Wine, at the Marriage of Cana in Galilee, was reckon'd a Miracle, and such as only a God could do: But the change of Bread and Wine into the real Body and Blood of Christ, by a words speak∣ing of the Priest is more Miraculous, and shews the Priest to be endowed with a greater Power than our Saviour him∣self had, which I presume no Romanist, if he be in his Senses, will be so bold or so blasphemous as to assert. And as for ••his other Argument to elude the Evi∣dence of our Senses, 'tis altogether as vain; unless it can be proved, that we ought to believe things which contradict our Sense and Reason, as well as those which are above them. The One we grant, the Other we deny. The Mystery of the Incarnation, of the Blessed Trinity in Unity, and the like, are above our Sense and Reason, but contradict neither. But the Mystery of the Transubstantiation, is not only above, but contradicts the joynt Testimony of our Senses and Reason at once. So that I leave the World to judge which of the two Opinions is most Orthodox; whether Ours which says, that Christians do by Faith receive very Christ, in the receiving the Elements of Bread and Wine, which remain still the same; or Theirs, which says, that the Bread and Wine are chang'd into the real Body and Blood of Christ, by a Mystical Transubstantiation.]