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.

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 con∣ceive 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) 1.1 Servatus Lupus writes to him by the Name of Rotrannus, whom(b) 1.2 Baluzius doubts not to have been our Author, and it may be proba∣bly collected from the subject of that Epistle. Others call him Ratra∣mus, so his Name appears to have

been written by Sigebertus Gemblacen∣sis, from the two Manuscripts men∣tioned by(c) 1.3 Suffridus Petrus in his Notes upon him.(d) 1.4 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) 1.5 found by F. Mabillon in the Abby of Lobez, he is called Ra∣tramnus, so in the(f) 1.6 Catalogue of that Library taken A. D. 1049. as also by(g) 1.7 Hincmarus Archbishop of Rhemes, and(h) 1.8 Gotteschalcus, both contemporary with him, and by the Anonymous Writer published by(i) 1.9 F. Cellot, who is now discovered to be(k) 1.10 Herigerus Abbot of Lobez, who flourished in the end of the

Tenth Century, and died in the Year, 1007.

His true Name was doubtless Ra∣tramnus, which came afterwards to be changed into Bertramus by the error of some Transcriber of Sigeber∣tus, who mistook, as he easily might, the(a) 1.11 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 mi∣stake, which though of no great mo∣ment, 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 Se∣cond King of France, in the Year 665. This was a very Eminent Monastery

of Benedictins, in which the(b) 1.12 Dis∣cipline of that Order was strictly kept up, in the Ninth Century, when the Monks elsewhere grew very re∣miss, and it was(c) 1.13 a famous Acade∣my, 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) 1.14 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) 1.15 Possevine and others. The mani∣fest 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) 1.16 814. in which he died. But that(c) 1.17 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 Caro∣lus 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 Ra∣tramnus 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) 1.18 Possevine fixes our Au∣thor 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 in∣to the latter end of that Age, and makes him to have written A. D. 886. under Carolus Crassus, and saith, that Paschasius confuted his error in a Book to Placidus. I presume the ground to this conceit was, that by this means, all objections against the Address to Charles the Great Emperor, seem to be solved, in regard of that Prince, his Surname Crassus or Grossus, which is in some sence Magnus, and he was at that time Emperor. But this is a meer fetch, which will not pass now as it might have done 80 or 100 years since, the Author and his time being now much better known.

No doubt but as Lucas Dacherius tells us(e) 1.19 he lived in great reputa∣tion for Learning in the Reign of

Ludovicus Pius, and Charles his Son, as may be easily gathered from the Books written by him on several occasions. His two Books of Pre∣destination were written, as the Pre∣sident(f) 1.20 Mauguin conjectures, A. D. 850. which was the next year after Goteschalcus was degraded and con∣demned in a Synod at Carisiac. And his Answer to the Objections of the Greeks, could not be well written before the Year 868. in regard the Gallican Prelates were engaged in the work not above two months be∣fore the Death of Pope Nicolaus the First, which happened in December, 867. So that presuming Ratramnus to have lived 60 years, his flourish∣ing Time was from 840. to 870.](g) 1.21 Hincmarus in a Work published by him in the Year 870. mentions one Ratramnus Presbyter, then 90 years of Age, but I am apt to believe he was not our Author, for first he seems to have been a Secular Priest. And again, it is very unlikely so

Learned a Man should not set up for a Writer till about 60 or 70 years of age, or that he should write so smartly as he doth against the Greek Empe∣rors at 88.

That he was in great Esteem for Learning in his own Age, is past doubt. It is an argument of his known Abilities, that Charles the bald chose to consult him upon points of so great moment, as the Predesti∣nation Controversie, and that of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament, which appears by the Prefaces and Conclusions of his Work on both those Subjects. And though(a) 1.22 Feu∣gueraeus in his Preface to Bertram, tells us, that Carolus Calvus had no Lear∣ned Men in his Court, as his Grand∣father had, Alcuin, Claudius Clemens, and Joannes Scotus, its plain, that herein he is very much mistaken, as indeed he is almost in every thing he saith in that Preface. For Carolus Calvus was a great Patron of Learn∣ing and Learned Men: Joannes Scotus lived in his Court, and not in the

Court of Charles the Great, and I ve∣rily believe that through the Igno∣rance of some Monk, who had read the Names of those Learned Men who were in favour with Charles the Great, thus recited, Alcuinum Flaccum, Clau∣dium Scotum, or Claudium Clementem Scotum, &c. and mistook Scotum, whereby the Country of Claudius Cle∣mens, who was an Irishman, is de∣signed for the Name of a Man; Joan∣nes Scotus Erigena hath been made a Domestick of Charles the Great, and those other senseless Stories, that he was a Scholar of(b) 1.23 V. Bede, Compani∣on of Alcuin, and an Assistant to him in Founding the University of Paris, have been raised. For Scotus is ordinarily mentioned next after this Claudius on this occasion. But the mistake seems ancient, as Berengarius by a MS. Epistle of his to Richardus,* 1.24 pub∣lished by D'Achery, and from him by Labbe in the Councils. Besides Scotus,

that King favoured other Learned Men, who have written upon several Arguments by his Command. In the matter of Predestination, he held two several Councils in his own Palace at Carisiac, in the first of which Gotes∣chalcus was Condemned, and in the second the Doctrine of the Catholick Church was stated in four short De∣terminations, though not in all points according to the Sentiments of some of the most Learned Men in France. He consulted Scotus,(a) 1.25 Servatus Lu∣pus, and our Author. And(b) 1.26 Gotes∣chalcus, about whom all this Contro∣versie arose in an Epistle to Ratram∣nus, saith, that there were many Lear∣ned Men then about his Court. And no question but he always consulted Men of eminent note. Ratramnus was also in good esteem with Odo, Successor to Paschasius in the Abbey of Corbey, and afterwards Bishop of Beauvais, to whom he dedicates his Book de Anima, and who in all pro∣bability nominated him as a fit Person

to Answer the Objections of the Greeks against the Latin Church. Nay, F. Cellot acknowledgeth,* 1.27 That Hinc∣marus himself had such an esteem of him, [long after his writing of the Sacrament and Predestination,] That whn at the desire of Pope Nicolaus I. he sought all France for Learned Men to write against the Greeks, he invited Ratramnus by Name to undertake that service. Nor had Hincmarus, Odo, and the other Gallican Prelates, a better opinion of his Abilities for that Work, than(a) 1.28 F. Mabillon hath of his Perfor∣mance, who saith, That whoever shall compare the work of Ratramnus with that of Aeneas Parisiensis, will easily discern how much Ratramnus excelled him in Learning and Eloquence, for whereas Aeneas ordinarily produces naked and jejune Testimonies, without any con∣siderable Remarks upon them, Ratram∣nus alledges many more, and better Au∣thorities, inforcing and illustrating them by solid reasonings of his own. The same good opinion hath President

Mauguin of his Performance in his two Books of Predestination, when he calls him,(a) 1.29 Non levis armaturae in Ecclesia Christi militem, No raw Sol∣dier lightly armed, but an undaunted Champion of the Catholick Truth, against Innovators. And much more he adds in his Praise. And though in his wri∣ting about the Sacrament,(b) 1.30 Mr. Ar∣nauld is pleased to style him, A fanta∣stical, obscure and empty Divine, whose reasonings are frothy cavils, yet in the Controversies of Predestination, and Grace, both he and his Brethren the Jansenists acknowledge his Abilities his great Reputation for Learning in France, and style him, That Learned Benedictine, &c. I might add, that Servatus Lupus treats him in his Ad∣dress, as(c) 1.31 an intimate and much esteemed Friend, directing his Epi∣stle, To his most dear Rotrannus; and(d) 1.32 Baluzius numbers him among the

Famous Men who were the familiar Acquaintance of that Learned Abbot. As also the Testimony of the Chroni∣con Hirsaugiense, published by Tri∣themius, That he was a Person well ac∣complished with all sorts of Literature, and many other proofs of his admira∣ble Learning: But I conceive those already produced, will convince all unprejudiced Persons; and since his other Works have appeared in Print, the Adversaries of his Doctrine, touching the Real Presence, are ashamed to deny him right in this point, and betake themselves to other arts for the evading the force of his Testimony of the Belief of the Church in that Age.

To close this Section, I shall give a brief account of his Writings, as well those which are not extant, as those we have in Print.

The first of his Writings extant, is that of the manner of Christ's Birth, or of the Virgins Delivery. This must have been written before the Year 844.(a) 1.33 in which Pascasius Rad∣bertus was made Abbot of Corbey,

if(b) 1.34 F. Mabillon mistake not when he tells us, that his two Books on that Argument, are a Confutation of Ra∣tramne. For he doth not style him∣self Abbot, but only the off-scouring of all Monks, whereas in his(c) 1.35 Epi∣stle to Carolus Culvus, published by F. Mabillon, he styles himself Ab∣bot. Nor could his Book be writ∣ten after his Resignation of that Abbey, being dedicated to Theodrada, Abbess of Soissons, and her Nuns, which(d) 1.36 Theodrada died, A. D. 846. and he resigned not till 851.

The occasion of his writing, was News out of Germany, (as I guess from New Corbey, which had much correspondence with this Corbey in France, of which it was a Colony,) that some in those Parts held strange opinions, touching our Saviour's Birth; as though he came not out of his Mothers Womb, into the World, the same way with other Men. In opposi∣tion

to that Doctrine,(a) 1.37 Ratramnus asserts, That Christ was Born as other Men, and his Virgin Mother bare him, as other Women bring forth, to use(b) 1.38 Tertullian's words, patefacti cor∣poris lege. Those whose opinions he confutes, were perhaps, some of those Novices, for whose use Pascha∣sius had written his Book of the Sa∣crament, and who had not only im∣bibed his Doctrine, touching the Carnal Presence of Christ therein, but might have also heard the manner of our Saviour's Birth, without open∣ing his Mother's Womb, alledged to solve an Objection against it, for our Adversaries of the Church of Rome now say,(c) 1.39 that it is no more impossible for one Body to be in two places than for two Bodies to be in one, which they conceive must have happened in our Saviours Birth, as also in his Resurrection, and coming into his Disciples, the Door being shut. This might provoke Paschasius to write against our Author, as well as Zeal for the Blessed Virgins Integrity.

And having said thus much on this subject, I cannot wave so fair an op∣portunity of doing right to the ever memorable Archbishop Ʋsher, whom Lucas Dacherius having published this Work, reproacheth as a Lyar, for saying,(a) 1.40 That Ratramnus in this Work maintaineth the same Doctrine, which he hath delivered in his Book touching the Lord's Body and Blood, whereas he makes no mention of the Eucharist in it. And F. Mabillon, who for his Candor is no less to be honoured than for his great Learn∣ing, imputes it to prejudice or mi∣stake.

But I need not use(c) 1.41 Conringius his shift to vindicate him, and sup∣pose Dacherius hath suppressed those passages which induced the Learned Primate to say what he did. It is enough to justifie him, that(d) 1.42 Ratram∣nus asserts two things, which by consequence oppose Transubstantia∣tion, and establish the contrary Do∣ctrine; (b) 1.43

and this he notoriously doth, 1. In the very scope and drift of his Book, contradicting an Illustration of that Doctrine by the manner of Christ's Birth. 2. By Denying that Christ (though Omnipresent in his Di∣vinity) can in his Body be in more than one place, so that when he comes to a new place, he leaves the place where he was before. This Opinion in its consequences, maintains the Doctrine of his Book concerning Christ's Body, though not expresly in Terms.

And this is as much as the Primate saith. And when we consider where the Dispute concerning Christ's Birth began, and that Paschasius defended it, what I have said will appear not improbable. This Book is also in Manuscript in Salisbury Library, and that of Bennet College in Cam∣bridge.

On what occasion he wrote his two Books of Predestination, I have already related. They are published by Mauguin, and in the new Biblio∣theca Patrum, Printed at Lyons, 1677. Tom. XV. p. 442.

He likewise wrote a Book, about the Year 853. to justifie an old Hymn

which(a) 1.44 Hincmarus of Rhemes had commanded to be altered, and that instead of Te Trina Deitas, they should sing Te Summa Deitas, imagining the former expression to make Three Gods, against which Order of Hinc∣marus, Ratramnus wrote a large Book, asserting the expression to be Ortho∣dox by the Authority of St. Hilary and St. Augustine, but this piece is lost.

He wrote another Book(b) 1.45 de Ani∣ma, at the instance of Odo, sometimes Abbot of Corbey, and Bishop of Beau∣vais 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) 1.46 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) 1.47 Ni∣colaus 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 like∣ly 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) 1.48 Dacherius.

He hath also among the(c) 1.49 MSS. of Leipsick Library, an Epistle con∣cerning 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 suffi∣cient for several Chapters.

CHAP. II. Of his Treatise concerning Christ's Body and Blood, and the Au∣thor 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) 1.50 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 In∣scription 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 con∣tradicting 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 di∣vided 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 Spuri∣ous as well as Heretical, or at least as corrupted by the Disciples of Beren∣garius 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 not∣withstanding 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 im∣putation of Heresie.

2. To prove that this Treatise is a genuine piece of the IX. Century, that it hath not been maliciously de∣praved since those times, and that Ratramnus, and not Joannes Scotus Eri∣gena, is the Author thereof.

3. To settle the true sence of our Author, in some obscure and contro∣verted terms.

4. To prove, that the Doctre in de∣livered 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 singu∣lar 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 ob∣ject 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 Cata∣logue of Ecclesiastical Writers, tho' twice he mentions him on the by, and fixes him, A. D. 850. But in his(a) 1.51 Controversies he numbers him among his Hereticks; and with Possevine (who saith notwithstand∣ing the Belgick Index, this Book may not be read but with the Pope's Li∣cense, in order to confute it) makes him to have lived under Carolus Crassus, A. D. 886. So little exact∣ness do these Great Men observe in their Writings, as to Chronology, so little do they mind what they them∣selves elsewhere say, that an ill-na∣tur'd Protestant Critick might in∣sult over Possevine and Bellarmine, for slips in Chronology, as often and as justly as(b) 1.52 Phil. Labbe doth over Gerhard, Hottinger, Maresius, &c.

But(a) 1.53 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 Catho∣lick.(b) 1.54 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 Wit∣nesses, as Turrian, Bellarmine, Posse∣vine, &c. who are notoriously Par∣ties, and lived many hundred years after him, is against all Reason and Equity. Especially when they charge him with no Heretical Opinions save in the matter of the Sacrament, for which he was never condemned in his own Age, and which is the point now in Controversie between us and them.

That our Author had the honour to be consulted by Carolus Calvus, on very profound Arguments, his fami∣liarity

with Lupus Abbot of Ferriers,(a) 1.55 Odo Bishop of Beauvais, and Hil∣degarius Bishop of Meaux; the trust reposed in him by the French Prelates, who employed him to write an Apo∣logy for the Latin Church against the Greeks; to which I may add (if he were the same Person whom Flodoar∣dus mentions as Abbot of Orbais) his Preferment to that Dignity, are some∣what more than strong presumptions that he had the repute of an Ortho∣dox, as well as a Learned Man.

I know no body that offers to make good this charge in particular instances, but F. Cellot(b) 1.56 a Jesuite, whose accusations are home, I con∣fess, and represent him as Heterodox, though not convict of Heresie, but he seldom offers in proof any thing, save some bold conjectures, and those often contrary to the sentiments of the most Learned Writers of his own Church.

1. He makes him Heterodox in the

matter of(a) 1.57 Predestination, and to have been the Tutor of Gotteschalcus, which I conceive is not sufficiently proved from the Complements of that Monk, who writes to him, as he had done to Lupus and others, and calls him Friend and Master. That he favoured the sentiments of Gottes∣chalcus, I deny not, and that he wrote against Hincmarus, but that he was not so rigid in the point as that poor Monk F. Cellot himself confesseth. Lu∣pus was of the same judgment, so was Prudentius Bishop of Troyes, and(b) 1.58 Remigius Archbishop of Lyons, who sticks not to censure the punishment of Gotteschalcus as beyond all examples of cruelty, and as unmerciful usage unbecoming Religious Men, and the proceedings against him at Carisiac as irregular. Our Author's judgment seems to be no other than St. Augu∣stine's against the Pelagians, and after all F. Cellot's accusations, these Books are newly Printed in the last Edition

of the Bibliotheca Patrum at Lyons, without the least censure.

2. He represents him as Heterodox, in the* 1.59 Doctrine of the Trinity, for opposing the Alteration of Trina Deitas by Hincmarus in an old Hymn, upon pretence that it implied Three God's. But this contest was not about any Article of Faith, for(a) 1.60 Got∣teschalcus and Ratramnus did as little believe Three Gods, as Hincmarus, nor doth he accuse them as Tritheites; the Dispute was about the sence of Trina Deitas, which they denied to import Three Gods, any more than did Trinus Deus, and therefore no Alteration need be made in the old usage of the Church. And in this

Controversie, he had the(b) 1.61 Religi∣ous of his own Order on his side, who stoutly resisted the Alteration. And at last, a greater Clerk than Hinc∣marus, I mean(c) 1.62 Thomas Aquinas, composing an Hymn, now used in the Roman Church, inserts this very expression. But, saith(d) 1.63 F. Cellot, he refers Trina to the Persons, not to the Nature. And so (notwithstanding his confident denial) did Ratramnus and Gotteschalcus too. And upon the whole Controversie, Mauguin and Natalis Alexander, allow them to have had the better of Hincmarus in this Dispute.

3.(e) 1.64 Cellot accuseth him for writing a crafty and heretical Tract against his Abbot Paschasius Radber∣tus,

who had explained the Catholick Doctrine of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament. The Fact I admit, the Crime I deny him guilty of, and shall vindicate him in a proper place.

4. He makes him of a busie and(b) 1.65 pragmatical Humour, a Nove∣list, and Rebel against his Superiors, viz. his Abbot and his Archbishop; but how hard this censure is, will appear, when we consider, that he seems not to have engaged in any Controversie save by the Command of his Prince, or some Great Prelate, except in his Book de Nativitate Christi. That his Book of the Sacra∣ment and Predestination, in which he dissents from his Superior, were written by the King's Order, and that in defence of the old Verse, propably at the request of Hilde∣garius Bishop of Meaux, to whom he dedicated it, and at the request

of the Benedictins, who esteemed him the most able Champion of that whole Order, but the Book being lost, we cannot be positive. However, he treats them respect∣fully enough, confuting their Opi∣nions without reflecting on their Persons, or so much as naming them any where, as I remember. Nor can he justly be stiled a No∣velist, who only resisted the In∣novating humour of others, and sup∣ported his own Doctrine by Te∣stimonies out of the Antient Fa∣thers, and publick Offices of the Church.

There appears nothing in all his Writings favouring of Pride or Fa∣ction, and had he been on the other side, I doubt not but F. Cellot would as freely have forgiven him his senti∣ments touching the Sacrament, as he doth John Scotus, who doth him ser∣vice against the Jansenists.

Though Ratramnus seems to have committed one fault, which a Je∣suite can hardly forgive, he hath betrayed the Popes Supremacy in his Apology against the Greeks. He foundeth it not upon any grant from

Christ,(a) 1.66 but on Ecclesiastical Con∣stitutions, 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 Prehemi∣nence 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 vindi∣cate 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 unde∣praved 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 Ere∣gina.

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* 1.67 late forgery, that it was written by Oecolampadius, and published under the venerable Name of an Author of the IX Cen∣tury by the Hereticks. This Sixtus Senensis, and after him Possevine, with extreme impudence pretend. But for want of good memories, they else∣where 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 Radber∣tus. Sure Sixtus Senensis forgot him∣self very much, when in the very next Page he accused Oecolampadius for re∣jecting St. Ambrose his Books of the Sacrament, which are cited by Ber∣tram in this Work. It is withal pleasant to observe, that Bishop Fisher(a) 1.68 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 expound∣ing 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 Berenga∣rius and Wiclef, it is come down to us wretchedly corrupted and depraved. This is the Opinion

of* 1.69 Espencaeus,† 1.70 Gregory of Valentia, and many others, particularly the Publishers of the last Bibliotheca Pa∣trum at Lyons, who give this reason why they have not inserted it into that Collection, viz.‖ 1.71 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 be∣ginning of the XVI. Century? Have not the Popish Clergy had the keep∣ing all famous Libraries, and have they kept them so negligently, that Hereticks have had access and oppor∣tunity of depraving all the Copies in the World? If they say, their num∣ber 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 passa∣ges 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 corrup∣ted, 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 possi∣bility of contradiction, make out, that those passages which we alledge in favour of our Doctrine against Transubstantiation, are near an hun∣dred 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) 1.72 Ʋsher, who hath col∣lected several, and I having with care compared Bertram and that Ho∣mily, have observed several others, and I conceive it will not not be un∣acceptable to the Reader to see them set in parallel, which I shall do, fol∣lowing the(b) 1.73 Edition Printed by John Day in 12^o about the year 1566. And it is remarkable, that after the Homilist comes to treat of the Sacra∣ment (for a good part of their di∣scourse is about the Paschal Lamb) there scapes hardly one Page without somewhat out of Bertram till he re∣sume his former discourse.

I shall only note by the way, that the old word† 1.74 Housel, which is fre∣quently used in this Homily, to signifie the Holy Eucharist, is of Gothick Ex∣traction, and derived from Hunsl, a Sacrifice, in Saxon Husel, the letter N. being here, as in some other In∣stances, left out to soften the Pro∣nunciation. Our Saxon Ancestors stiled the Holy Eucharist a Sacrifice, as the Fathers, both Greek and Latin antiently did in a large and improper Sense, viz. Either as it is a Comme∣moration of that proper Sacrifice once offered on the Cross, or as Alms, Prayers, and Thanksgiving are some∣times called a Sacrifice.

Ratramnus, As Bertram defines what a Figure is, and what the Truth. § 6, 7, 8.

§ 8. VEritas—utpote cum Christus dicitur natus de Virgine, Passus, Crucifixus, mortuus & sepultus. One of his Instances of a Figure is, when Christ calleth himself Bread, whereas substantialiter nec Panis Chri∣stus, &c.

§ 9. At ille panis qui per Sacerdotis ministerium Christi corpus efficitur aliud exterius humanis sensibus ostendit, aliud interius Fidelium mentibus clamat. Ex∣terius quidem panis quod ante fuerat, formae praetenditur, color ostenditur, sa∣por accipitur—

§ 10. Cum tamen post Mysticam con∣secrationem, nec panis jam dicitur nec vinum, sed Christi corpus & sanguis.

§ 17. Consideremus fontem Sacri Bap∣tismatis, qui fons vitae non immerito nuncupatur—in eo tamen fonte si con∣sideretur

solummodo quod corporeus aspi∣cit sensus, elementum fluidum conspicitur, corruptioni subjectum, nec nisi corpora la∣vandi potentiam obtinere; sed accessit Sancti Spiritus per Sacerdotis consecra∣tionem virtus, & efficax facta est non solum corpora, verum etiam animas di∣luere, & spirituales Sordes spirituali potentia dimovere.

§ 18. Ecce in uno eodemque elemento duo videmus in esse sibi resistentia — in proprietate est humor corruptibilis, in Mysterio vero virtus sanabilis.

§ 19. Sic itaque Christi corpus & sanguis superficie tenus considerata, crea∣tura est, mutabilitati corruptelaeque ob∣noxia, si Mysterii vero perpendis virtu∣tem, vita est participantibus se tribuens immortalitatem.

§ 69. Multa differentia separantur corpus in quo passus est Christus— & hoc corpus quod in mysterio Passionis Christi, quotidie a fidelibus celebratur—

§ 72. Illa namque Caro quae Cruci∣fixa est, de Virginis carne facta est ossibus & nervis compacta, humanorum membrorum lineamentis distincta; ra∣tionalis animae spiritu vivificata in pro∣priam

vitam. At vero caro spiritualis quae populum credentem pascit secun∣dum speciem quam gerit exterius, fru∣menti granis manu artificis consistit, nul∣lis nervis, obsibusque compacta, nulla mem∣brorum varietate distincta, nulla ratio∣nali substantia vegetata: Quicquid enim in ea vita praebet substantiam spi∣ritualis est potentiae & invisibilis effici∣entiae, divinaeque virtutis. Atque aliud longe consistit secundum quod exterius conspicitur, & illud secundum quod in Mysterio creditur.

§ 76. Corpus Christi quod mortuum est, resurrexit & immortale factum est jam non moritur & mors illi ultra non dominabitur. Aeternum est jam, non passibile. Hoc autem quod in Ecclesia celebratur, temporale est non aeternum, corruptibile est non incorruptum— sed § 77. negari non potest corrumpi quod per partes comminutum dispartitur ad su∣mendum & dentibus commolitum in cor∣pus trajicitur.

§ 88. Hoc Corpus [sc. quod in My∣sterio celebratur] pignus est & species, illud veritas. Hoc enim geritur donec

ad illud perveniatur, ubi vero ad illud perventum fuerit, hoc removebitur.

§ 60. Corpus Christi est, sed non cor∣poraliter, sanguis Christ est, sed non corporaliter.

§ 25. Nec istic ratio qua fieri potuit est disquirenda, sed fides quod factum sit adhibenda.

§ 25. Ipse namque qui nunc in Eccle∣sia omnipotenti virtute Panem & Vinum in sui corporis carnem & proprii cruoris undam spiritualiter canvertit, ipse tunc quoque Manna de Coelo datum Corpus suum & Aquam de Petra profusam pre∣prium sanguinem invisibiliter operatus est.—

§ 27. Dominus Jesus Christus pri∣usquam pateretur accepto pane gratias egit & dedit discipulis suis dicens, Hoc est Corpus meum, &c. Videmus nondum passum esse Christum, & jam tamen sui corporis & sanguinis Mysterium opera∣tum fuisse.—§ 28. Sicut ergo paulo an∣tequam pateretur panis substantiam & vini creaturam convertere potuit in pro∣prium corpus quod Passurum erat, & in

suum sanguinem qui post fundendus ex∣tabat, sic etiam in deserto Manna & Aquam de Petra in suam carnem & san∣guinem convertere praevaluit, quamvis longe post & caro illius in Cruce pro nobis pendenda, & sanguis ejus—fundendus superabat.

§ 78. Manducavit & Moses Manna, manducavit & Aaron, manducavit & Phinees, manducaverunt & multi qui Deo placuerunt & mortui non sunt: Quare? quia visibilem cibum spirituali∣ter intellexerunt, spiritualiter esurierunt, spiritualiter gustaverunt, ut spiritualiter satiarentur.

§ 39. Quod fecit semel nunc quotidie frequentat, semel enim pro peccatis populi se obtulit, celebratur tamen haec eadem oblatio singulis per fideles diebus, sed in mysterio, ut quod Dominus Jesus Christus semel sese offerens adimplevit, hoc in ejus Passionis memoriam quotidie geritur per mysteriorum celebrationem.

§ 73. Considerandum quoque quod in illo pane non solum corpus Christi, verum corpus etiam in eum credentis populi figu∣retur.

§ 95. Et—sic dicit in conse∣quentibus, Corpus ergo Christi vultis In∣telligere

Apostolum audite dicentem vos estis corpus Christi & Membra— My∣sterium vestrum in mensa Domini posi∣tum est. Mysterium Domini accipitis ad id quod estis Amen respondetis, & respondendo subscribitis. Audis ergo Corpus Christi & respondes Amen esto membrum Christi ut verum sit A∣men—ipsum Paulum dicentem audia∣mus, unus Panis & unum Corpus mul∣ti sumus.

§ 75 Sic in vino qui Sanguis Christi dicitur, aqua misceri jubetur, nec unum sine altero permittitur offerri quia nec populus sine Christo, nec Christus sine populo sicut nec caput sine corpore, nec corpus sine capite valet existere. Aqua denique in illo Sacramento populi gestat imaginem.

The Saxon Homily.

SO Aelfric saith, some things are spoken of Christ by signification,* 3.1 i. e. figuratively, and some in pro∣priety.

A true thing and certain it is, that Christ was born of a Maid, suffered death of his own accord. He is cal∣led Bread by signification, i. e. figura∣tively, but Christ is not so in true nature, neither Bread, &c.

p. 32. Truly the Bread and Wine, which through the Mass of the Priest is hallowed, sheweth one thing out∣wardly to human Senses, and another thing they inwardly call to believing minds.* 3.2 Outwardly they appear Bread and Wine, both in figure and in taste.

And they be truly after their hal∣lowing Christ's Body and Blood through Ghostly Mistery.

p. 33. So the Holy Font-Water, which is called the Well-Spring of Life, is like in shape to other Water,

and subject to corruption, but the Holy Ghosts might cometh to the corruptible Water through the Priest blessing, and it may after∣wards wash the Body and Soul from all sin through Ghostly might.

Behold, now we see two things in this one Creature. After true nature, that Water is corruptible moisture; and after Ghostly Mystery, hath hal∣lowing might.

So also if we behold the Holy Housel [or Sacrament] after bodily sense, then we see that it is a Crea∣ture corruptible and mutable; if we acknowledge therein Ghostly might, then understand we that Life is there∣in, and that it giveth immortality to them that eat it with Faith.

p. 35. Much difference is betwixt the Body in which Christ suffered, and the Body which is hallowed to hou∣sel. The Body truly in which Christ suffered, was born of the Flesh of Mary, with Blood, with Bones, with Skin, with Sinews, with human Limbs, and with a reasonable Soul

living. And his Ghostly Body, which we call the Housel,* 3.3 is gathered of many Corns without Blood and Bone, without Limb, and without Soul— whatsoever is in that Housel that giveth the substance of Life, that is of the Ghostly might and invisible operation. And there∣fore is the Holy Housel called a My∣stery, because there is one thing in it seen, and another thing understood.

p. 37. Certainly Christ's Body, in which he suffered Death, and rose again from Death, never dieth henceforth, but is Eternal and Im∣passible. But that Housel is Tempo∣ral, not Eternal; corruptible, and divided into several parts, chew'd betwixt the Teeth, and sent into the Belly.

p. 38. This Mystery is a pledge and a* 3.4 Figure, Christ's Body is the Truth itself. This Pledge we keep mystically, until we be come to the * 3.5

Truth itself, then is that Pledge ended.

Truly it is so as we said before, Christ's Body and Blood not Bodily but Ghostly. See p. 35.

You should not search how it is done, but hold in Faith that it is so done.

p. 43. We said to you erewhile, that Christ hallowed Bread and Wine to Housel before his Suffering, and said, This is my Body and my Blood. He had not suffered as yet, he turned through invisible might that Bread to his own Body, and that Wine to his own Blood, as formerly he did in the Wilderness before that he was born to Men, when he turned that Heavenly Meat to his Flesh, and that Water flowing from the Rock to his own Blood.

That which next follows, is a quo∣tation out of St. Augustine, which it is very likely that Elfrick took from Bertram, and not at first hand from that Father.

p. 44. Moses and Aaron, and many others of that People which pleased God, eat that Heavenly Bread, and they died not that Everlasting death, [though they died the common death] they saw that the Heavenly Meat [viz. Manna] was visible and corrup∣tible, and they understood somewhat Spiritual by that visible thing, and Spiritually received it.

p. 46. Once Christ suffered in him∣self, and yet nevertheless his suffer∣ing is daily renewed, through the Mystery of the Holy Housel at the Holy Mass.

p. 47. We ought also to consider diligently, how this Holy Housel, is both Christ's Body, and the Body of all Faithful Men after Ghostly My∣stery, as Wise Augustine saith, If you will understand of Christ's Body, hear

the Apostle Paul thus speaking, Ye truly be Christ's Body and his Members. Now is your Mystery set on God's Table, and ye receive your Mystery,* 3.6 which Mystery ye be yourselves, be that which you see on the Altar, and receive that which yourselves be. And again, St. Paul saith, We many, be one Bread, and one Body.—

* 3.7 Holy Books command that Water be mingled with Wine, which shall be for Housel, because the Water sig∣nifieth the People, and the Wine Christ's Blood, therefore shall not the one without the other be offered at the Holy Mass. That Christ may be with us, and we with Christ; the Head with the Limbs, and the Limbs with the Head. p. 51.

And after these words our Homi∣list resumes his former Discourse of the Paschal Lamb.

Thus have I at large set down in Parallel, the Passages of that Saxon Homily taken out of Bertram. The(a) 3.8 Sermon was originally Latin, which Elfrick translated into Saxon; whether he were the Compiler in Latin, I cannot be positive. But it seems the succeeding Ages would not bear this Doctrine, for which reason the Latin is utterly lost; either being wilfully made away, or the Gover∣nors of our Church not thinking it fit to transcribe and propagate what, after the condemnation of Berenga∣rius, and the promotion of his great Adversary Lanfranc to the Archbi∣shoprick of Canterbury, was generally reputed Heresie. But through the wonderful good Providence of God, the whole is preserved in the Saxon Tongue, which few understood.

By this account of that Homily, you learn Two things, and a Third Observation I shall add.

1. That Bertram's Book was neither forged by Oecolampadius, nor yet de∣praved by Berengarius or Wiclef his Disciples, since the most express Pas∣sages against the Popish Real Presence

are read in that Homily 70 or 80 years before Berengarius made any noise in the World.

2. What I design to insist upon more largely in the last Chapter of this Discourse, viz. That Ratramnus or Bertram stood not alone, but had others of the same judgment with him in the IX and X Century, and that Paschasius his Doctrine had not recei∣ved as yet the stamp of publick Au∣thority, either by any Popes or Coun∣cels confirmation.

3. Nevertheless this carnal Do∣ctrine of Paschasius did daily get ground in that obscure and ignorant Age next that he lived in, as may ap∣pear by some Passages in this Homily (which I have not recited, because they are not in Bertram) the absurd consequences of that errour. For in∣stance, p. 39 and 40, there are two Miracles inserted to prove the Carnal Presence contrary to the scope of the whole Discourse, and the one contrary to their own Doctrine of Christ's Pre∣sence.(a) 3.9 They tell you of a Wo∣man whofe doubts touching the Real

Presence, were cured at the Prayers of St. Gregory, at whose request God caused the Host she was about to re∣ceive, to appear as though there lay in the dish a joynt of a Finger all Bloo∣dy. Whereas, according to the Po∣pish Doctrine, Christ's(b) 3.10 whole Body, Soul and Divinity is in every bit of the Host, and drop of the consecrated Wine; and this Miracle, if it proves any thing, must prove the contrary.

Again, our Homilist in the begin∣ning of p. 47. saith immediatly after those words cited by me out of the 46 page. Therefore the Holy Mass is profitable both to the quick and to the dead. The propitiatory Sacrifice was by this time set on foot, which neces∣sarily supposeth the Corporal Pre∣sence of Christ. But it is worth ob∣serving, however, that the Adorati∣on of the Sacrament sprang not up till some Ages after, it being not men∣tioned either by Radbertus or Ratram∣nus, or Elfrick in this Homily.

3. The Third Opinion, maintained by those who do not condemn our Author, though they do this Book, is, that it is not the Work of Ratramnus, but of Joannes Scotus. And so it may

be for ought I have hitherto said, in regard he was more Ancient than our Saxon Homilist, and equal with Bertram.

This Opinion was first delivered by the Learned(a) 3.11 Peter de Marca, and is urged with great confidence by a(b) 3.12 Monk of St. Genouefe, whose Mo∣desty M. Arnaud tells us caused him to conceal his Name.

This Dissertator makes a great dust with his Conjectures, and would perswade us that Bertram and Ra∣tramnus are not the same Person, by reason of the variety of Names given him, as I have shewn in the beginning of this Discourse; but this is a poor shift, for every one knows how diffe∣rently Writers report the Names of Men who flourish'd in that Age, and in those Parts of France; and where the Authors make no difference, it often happens by the Transcribers mistake: One would think the In∣stance he gives of Cellot's Anonymous Writer, who in his first leaf calls the Adversaries of Paschasius, Rabanus and

Ratramnus, and in the next Babanus and Intramus, might have suppressed that Objection.

In the next Section, he saith, Tri∣themius and Sigebert make Bertram to have written but one Book of Prede∣stination, whereas Ratramnus wrote two, and that the two MSS. mentio∣ned by Suffridus Petrus, may be false written: And I may better say, they are not; for he names neither more, nor elder Copies that make it out. As for the precise number of Books, Sigebert, and more curious Men, are not always exact, but many times, where the Work is small, call two Books,* 3.13 because one Work, a Book, so Sigebert saith, and not one Book.

In his Third Section, this Monk of St. Genouefe gives us nothing but a taste of his Modesty, in taxing the incomparable Ʋsher of false dealing, and telling the World that his Testi∣mony is of no credit concerning a ra∣sure out of a Manuscript he had seen at Cambridge, and wonders he hath the confidence to hope that his bare word should be taken for it, after his false dealing about Ratramnus his Book of Christ's Birth, without telling how the Passage rased was recovered.

In the last Section, he offers to∣ward an Answer to the Reasons that induced Father Cellot to conclude Ra∣tramnus Corbeiensis the Author of those Books which pass under the Name of Bertram; I could, were it worth while, shew the insufficiency of his Answers, and would do it, but that I have in reserve such Testimonies from F. Mabillon, as will baffle all his amusing Conjectures, and to which any man of modesty will submit.

This he offers to prove, that Ber∣tram is not Ratramnus. To make good the other part of his undertaking, and shew that Joannes Scotus is the Au∣thor of this Book, he suggests Three things.

1. That this Book is agreeable to the account that is given of Scotus his Book, whose Authority Berengarius used.

2. That the style and manner of arguing, are Scotus his peculiar way.

3. That the Disciples of Berenga∣rius, after Scotus his Book was con∣demned, in the Synods at Vercelli and Rome, gave it the disguised Name of

Bertram, to preserve it from the flames.

His Arguments from the account given of Scotus his Book, are well answered by F. Mabillon; and all I shall say, is, what he omits, viz. That the Doctrine of Scotus, according to the best accounts we can have of it, is not agreeable to that of Bertram; for if F. Alexander and others are not Mistaken in(a) 3.14 Hincmarus his mean∣ing, he taught that the Sacrament was only a Memory of Christ's Body and Blood, which this Dissertator, to give us a Specimen of his Honesty, as he did before of his Modesty, changes into a naked figure without any sort of Truth, and expresly contrary to his Sentiments, imputes to Bertram as his Doctrine.

2. The style of Bertram and Scotus are not at all alike: Scotus is full of Greek words, and notions and cita∣tions out of the Greek Fathers, which Bertram is free from. His way of

Arguing is not Syllogistical, as Ber∣tram's, so far as I can observe by his Books De Naturis. And his notion,* 3.15 That Christ's glorified Body is absorpt in the Divine Nature, and is not local, nor visible, nor had the same Members after its Resurrection which it had be∣fore, will quite overthrow many of Bertram's Arguments, to prove that in the Sacrament is not exhibited the same Body in which he died and rose again.

His Third suggestion is a meer Conjecture, and a very weak one. For if Berengarius his Disciples feign∣ed that Name to preserve the Book from the fire, What use did they pre∣serve it for? What service did it ever do them? Who ever mentions any of them that alledged Bertram's Authority? How comes it to pass that no Copies of it were preserved in the Southern Parts of France, where the Albigenses and Waldenses, Berengarius Disciples, have abounded in all times ever since? It is much they should not save one Copy of Bertram.

But since he is Conjecturing, Why may not I offer a Conjecture or two in this matter? 1. Why might not

Bertram's Book through mistake both with Berengarius and his Adversa∣ries, pass under the Name of Scotus? It is not impossible, but I insist not upon it. 2. It is very probable that when the Synods of Vercellis and Rome condemned Scotus his Book to the flames, those who had the execution of the Decree, especially in Normandy and England, Lanfranc's Province, might burn Bertram for company, and occasion the present scarcity of Manuscripts.

But to silence all these pretences, and shew that Bertram's Book is no Forgery, not corrupted by Heretical mixtures, nor yet written by Scotus, but Ratramnus, Monk of Corbey; I shall close this Chapter, with the in∣ingenuous acknowledgment of the Learned and honest F. Mabillon, who saith,* 3.16 Travelling in the Netherlands, I went to the Monastery of Lobez, where, among the few Manuscripts now remain∣ing, I found two. One Book written 800 years since, containing two pieces, one of the Lord's Body and Blood, and the other of Predestination; the former one Book, the latter two. The Inscription and beginnings of both were thus in the Manuscript; Thus begins the Book

of RATRàNƲS,* 3.17 of the Body and Blood of the Lord. You comman∣ded me, Glorious Prince. At the end of this Book. Thus begins the Book of RATRAMNƲS concerning God's Predestination. To his Glorious Lord, and most Excellent King Charles, RATRAMNƲS, &c. As in the Prin∣ted Book. The other Book was a Cata∣logue of the Library of Lobez, with this Title, A. D. 1049. The Friars of Lobez taking an account of the Li∣brary, find in it these Books— Ra∣tramnus of the Lord's Body and Blood one Book. The same Author of God's Predestination, two Books, which gives us to understand, that the Book which contains these pieces of Ratramnus is the very same set down in the Cata∣logue A. D. 1049. and written before that time; and by the hand, it appears to have been written a little before the IX Century. And I doubt not but it is the very Book which Herigerus Abbot of Lobez used at the end of the X Cen∣tury.

This is full proof that Ratramnus is the Author, and that the Book is no modern Forgery, being 800 years old.

Well, but hath it not been cor∣rupted and interpolated by Here∣ticks? Let F. Mabillon answer again touching the sincerity of the Edi∣tions of this Book; I compared (saith he) the Lobez Manuscript with the Printed Books;* 3.18 and the reading is true, except in some faulty places, which I corrected by the Excellent Lobez Ma∣nuscript. There is(a) 3.19 one word of some moment omitted— which yet I will not say, was fraudulently left out by the Hereticks, the first Publishers of it, in regard, as I said before, there appears not any thing of unfaithfulness in other places.

Thus doth this Learned and In∣genuous Benedictine testifie, that the Book we now publish, is a genuine piece of the IX Century, that Ratram∣nus, Monk of Corbey, is the true Au∣thor, and that his Work is come to our hands sincere, and without Here∣tical mixtures either of Berengarius or Wiclef's Disciples.

(a) 3.20 Beside the Lobez MS. the same Father in his Germain Voyage met with another in the Monastery of Salem Weiler, which he judgeth by the hand to be 700 years old. This gives the Title in the end, as the Lobez MS. but in the begin∣ning, styleth it, The Book of Ra∣tramne, of Receiving the Lords Body and Blood. To Charles the Great.

CHAP. IV. Of the the true Sense of the Author in some controverted Expres∣sions.

BEfore we can comprehend the Sentiments of Ratramnus in the Controversie depending between us and the Church of Rome, touching Christ's Presence in the Sacrament, it will be necessary to settle and clear his true meaning in some Terms, which frequently occur in this Tract: Because our Adversaris, by abusing the ambiguity of them, and expound∣ing them according to the Prejudices wherewith Education hath possest them, seem to think Bertram their own, and charge us with impudence and folly in pretending to his Autho∣rity.

Those Terms which are in the state of the Question, are the princi∣pal Keys of the whole Discourse, and well understood, will open our Au∣thor's mind therein.

That* 3.21 which the mouth receiveth, is the Subject of both Questions. Not what the Faithful receive any way, but what their Teeth press, their Throat swalloweth, and their Bellies receive. In what sense the consecrated Elements are Christ's Body and Blood? and whether his natural Body or not?

In the first Question there are two opposite Terms,† 3.22 Figure and Truth.* 3.23

The word Figure, when applied to Terms or Propositions, is taken in a Rhetorical sense, and implies those Expressions not to be proper, but ei∣ther Metaphors, or Metonymies, &c. as when Christ is called a Vine. When applied to things, as the consecrated Elements, Figure and Mystery are of the same signification, and imply the thing spoken of to be a Sign or Re∣presentation of some other thing.* 3.24 And on the contrary, Verity or Truth in

this Tract, when applied to Terms or Propositions, signifies Propriety of Speech; but when applied to things, it im∣ports* 3.25 Truth of Nature. So then Ratramnus determines the first Que∣stion to this effect. That the words of our Saviour in the Institution of the Holy Eucharist, are not to be taken properly, but figuratively; and that the consecrated Elements orally received by the Faithful, are not the True Body of Christ, but the Figure, or Sacra∣ment of it; though not meer empty figures, or naked signs, void of all Efficacy, but such as through the Blessing annext to our Saviour's Insti∣tution, and the powerful operation of the Spirit of Christ working in and by those Sacred Figures, is the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ.

Besides this,* 3.26 Verity or Truth hath yet another sence, as it stands opposed to a Lye or Falshood: For a Propositi∣on is not immediately false, where the Praedicate is a Metaphor or Meto∣nymy, and doth not in its first and na∣tive signification agree to the subject; for unless the Trope be too obscure, it conveys the Speakers true meaning into the mind of such as hear him.

Now in this sence(a) 3.27 St. Augustine, cited by our Author, saith, he tells no Lye, who giveth the Name of the thing itself to the Sign and Sacra∣ment of it; and that this manner of speaking was perfectly understood. And I may add, it was very familiar among the Jews, and is Authorised by a multitude of Scripture Exam∣ples. Now in this sence Ratramnus in some places affirms, that the con∣secrated Elements are truly Christ's Body and Blood, and this without the least contradiction to himself, though in the other sence he more frequently denies it. And a due regard to these two sences of Verity or Truth, will

clear the obscurity of which the Ro∣manists accuse our Author in many Pas∣sages of this Work.

There is another term of the same importance,* 3.28 viz. Manifestation; but our Adversaries pretend it is a Key of the whole Work, because Ratramnus defines Truth to be rei manifestae de∣monstratio, and charge the(a) 3.29 French Translator of falsifying the Author, because he renders manifestae & mani∣festa participatione, real and really. They say, whatever is manifest is real, but the word real doth not ex∣press the full notion of manifest, which further includes evidence, many things being real which are not manifest. And this is true. But yet Bertram's sence of the word must be judged by his own use of it, which will appear by inspecting the several places of the Book where it occurs; and I must needs say, that I cannot make sence of him, if he mean not as the French Translator hath rendred him.

In the state of the question, where he explains Verity, by that which ap∣pears manifestationis luce, in a mani∣fest

light, or naked and open, his mean∣ing in that Question, (or rather the meaning of those against whom he writes, and whose error the first part of this Discourse is intended to recti∣fie) cannot be; whether the Sacra∣ment was the Body of Christ appear∣ing in its own shape to our bodily Eye: For that Cardinal Perron, or Mr. Ar∣naud do not pretend the Stercorarists, or whoever else Bertram opposeth, to have believed, but that the accidents of Bread and Wine affected, or were subjected in the natural Body and Blood of Christ. Now as to the mat∣ter of the Manifest appearance of Christ's Body, it is all one, whether the accidents of Bread and Wine be subjected in the Body and Blood of Christ, or subsist without a subject; for the bodily Eye doth not behold the Body of Christ, the more or less manifestly for that; nor doth it at all manifestly behold Christ's Body, unless it see him in the form of a Man. And therefore if they meant any thing, it must be, whether the sensible Object in the Sacrament were Christ's very Body, though under the figure of the Sacramental Elements.

But to clear the point, we need only compare the two Prayers in the close of Bertram's Discourse on the second Question, and we shall find, that what in one Prayer they beg of God to receive by a manifest participa∣tion, in the other they pray to be made really partakers of; and in the same Collect, manifest participation is op∣posed to Receiving in a Sacramental Image: Now there is nothing more na∣turally opposed to an Image, than the very thing whose Image it is, or to a Sacrament, than the res Sacramenti, the real Object signified and exhibited under it. The Reader will find the word bears the same sence in those few other places where Ratramnus useth it, which are all near the end of the Book.

Another controverted Term is Species,* 3.30 which hath two sences in this Book. It is most commonly used to signifie the kind, and specifical nature of any thing, and is always so taken where it is set in opposition to a Fi∣gure, or Sacrament, or where the Au∣thor is declaring the nature of the consecrated Elements.

Sometimes it signifies the appea∣rance or likeness of a thing; so it is

taken when it is opposed to Truth, as in the Post-Communion Prayer cited by Ratramnus, and in his Inferences from it.

Besides these, the Romanists have another acceptation of the word, ma∣king it to signifie the sensible qualities of the consecrated Elements subsist∣ing without their substance, in which sence I positively affirm, that Species is no where used in this Treatise. And herein the Authors of the(a) 3.31 Belgick Index will bear me out, who acknow∣ledge that Bertram did not exastly know how Accidents could subsist out of their Subjects, which subtil Truth latter Ages have learnt out of the Scripture.

As Species ordinarily signifies Na∣ture,* 3.32 so the addition of Visibilis alters not its signification. For Ratramnus doth not speak of those qualities which immediately affect the sence abstracted from their Subject. And I know nothing in Reason, nor yet in the Holy Scriptures, which are the Rule of our Faith, that can inforce us to believe that our Senses are not

as true Judges of what the Mouth receiveth in the Sacrament, as they are of the nature of any other Object whatsoever, and may as easily discern whether it be Bread or Flesh, as they can distinguish a Man from a Tree.

Our Author frequently mentions the Divine Word,* 3.33 by whose power the Sacred Elements are Spiritually changed into Christ's Body. Now when he thus speaks, we must not imagine, that he means a natural change of the Substance of the thing consecrated by the efficacy of the words of consecration, but a Spiritual change effected by the Power and Spirit of Christ, who is God the Word, as he explains himself.

The last Term that needs explain∣ing,* 3.34 is Christ's Spiritual Body; this he affirms the Sacrament to be in many places. Now by a Spiritual Body, we are not to understand the natural Bo∣dy of Christ, but existing after the manner of a Spirit, or as our Adver∣saries love to speak, not according to its proper existence, that is to say, it is Christ's Natural Body, but nei∣ther visible nor local, nor extended; this is not Bertram's sence of Christ's Spiritual Body, but that the thing so

called, is Figuratively and Mystically Christ's Body, and that it Spiritually communicates to the Faithful, Christ with all the benefits of his Death.

I may also add, that Bertram uses great variety of Phrases to express that which we call the outward sign in the Sacrament, that which the out∣ward 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 out∣wardly, importing the sensible quali∣ties 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 Sym∣bols 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 e∣ternal life, all expressions equivalent to

the thing signified, or the grace wrought by the Sacrament. Also invisibly and inwardly are generally of the same sig∣nification with spiritually.

These are the Terms whose Am∣biguity Popish Writers commonly abuse, when they go about to per∣suade us, that Ratramnus in this Book asserts the Real Presence, in the sence of the Roman Church, and is for Tran∣substantiation, which any Man that reads him, will find as difficult to be∣lieve, as Transubstantiation itself.

CHAP. V. That this Treatise expresly Confutes the Dostrine of Transubstantia∣tion, and is very agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of England.

IT being acknowledg'd by(a) 3.35 Bel∣larmine, that the first who wrote expresly and at large, concerning the Verity of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, was Paschasius Rad∣bertus, (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) 3.36 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 pro∣pose 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 Transub∣stantiation 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 pub∣lished. And(a) 3.37 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 un∣contradicted. If we look into the

Preface of* 3.38 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 Christia∣nity, as in the Religion of St. Bene∣dict, 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 Chri∣stianity among the Pagan Saxons, lately Conquer'd by Charles the Great, and Ludovicus Pius. And therefore

this Book of* 3.39 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 Opi∣nion that prevailed till the Lives of Adelardus and Wala, written by Rad∣bertus, were published by F. Mabillon, viz. That† 3.40 Arsenius, mentioned in the Prologue, was Adelardus, where∣as now it appears that Radbertus con∣stantly 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 sup∣posed to have been written A. D. 831. that is, thirteen years later than for∣merly it was thought.

But though the Book was then first written on this occasion,* 3.41 Paschasius to recommend his Doctrine with the better advantage by his own Dignity, and the Authority of his Prince, some∣time after his Promotion to the Abby of Corbey, writes an Epistle to Caro∣lus 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 high∣ly probable, that Carolus Calvus pro∣pounded those two Questions to Ratramnus, and upon his Answer those feuds might grow in the Mo∣nastery of Corbey, which made Pas∣chasius 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 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 Ratram∣nus had rather the Princes counte∣nance, 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,* 3.42 That although in the Sa∣crament 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 under∣stands 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 Sa∣crament 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 him∣self against all the Absurdities that could be objected against this Opi∣nion, 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 alte∣ration of the visible form or tast of what is received, viz.* 3.43 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 fur∣ther confirmation of his carnal Do∣ctrine.

These are the sentiments of Pas∣chasius 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 Be∣rengarius, wherein he was required to declare,* 3.44 That Bread and Wine after Consecration, are not only the Sa∣crament, 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 bro∣ken by the Priests hands, and ground by the Teeth of the Faithful: And this be∣ing 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 Gra∣tian, who hath put it into the body of the Canon Law. But the Coun∣cil 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 substanti∣ally, 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 Virtu∣ally, 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 de∣ny that singular or wonderful conversion of the whole substance of Bread into his Body, and of the whole substance of * 3.45 * 3.46

Wine into his Blood, there remaining only the species, i. e. Accidents of Bread and Wine, which conversion the Catholick Church very aptly calls Tran∣substantiation, let him be accursed.

* 3.47III. If any man shall say, that in the Eucharist Christ is exhibited, and eaten, only Spiritually, and not Sacra∣mentally 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 agree∣able 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 Ar∣my 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 Autho∣rity 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 * 3.48

Witnesses that his Doctrine is not agreeable to the present Faith of the Roman Church. And our Au∣thors* 3.49 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 di∣rectly to a contrary sense, and in∣stead of visibly write invisibly, and ac∣cording to the substance of the Creatures, must be interpreted according to the outward species or accidents of the Sa∣crament, &c. Which is not to ex∣plain an Author, but to corrupt him, and instead of interpreting his words, to put their own words into his Mouth. And after all, they acknow∣ledge that there are some other things, which it were not either a∣miss or imprudent wholly to ex∣punge, in regard the loss of those passages will not spoil the sense, nor will they be easily missed.

But I shall not build altogether up∣on their confessions, in regard others who have the ingenuity to acknow∣ledge the Author Orthodox, and the

work Catholick, have also the con∣fidence to deny our claim to Ber∣tram'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 Radbertus, and to the Council of Trent in three particu∣lars.

1. He asserts that what is orally received, is not the true and natural Body of Christ.

2. He asserts that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Con∣secration.

3. That what is orally received feeds the body, and that Christ is eaten Spiritually, and not Orally.

1. It is very plain from the de∣termination of the second Question, that Bertram expresly contradicts Paschasius, for the words of the Question, are taken out of his book, and Bertram denies flatly what Pas∣chasius affirms, viz. That in the Sa∣crament we receive the same Body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin, Crucified, and rose again. He urges a multitude of Authorities out of the Fathers to confirm his own judgment

herein, and in short, but pithy expo∣sitions, sheweth how they are perti∣nent to the business. In obviating an objection from the Testimony of St. Ambrose, he tells us, That the sen∣sible object is Christs body and blood, not in nature or kind, but virtually. He observes that St. Ambrose distin∣guisheth between the Sacrament of Christs Flesh, and the Verity of Christs Flesh, affirming the latter to be that Flesh which was born of the Virgin, and the Holy Eucharist to be the Sacrament of that true Flesh in which he was Cru∣cified, mystically representing the former. Again upon an objection, that St. Ambrose calls it the body of Christ, he answers, That it is the bo∣dy and blood of Christ, not corporally, but Spiritually. He shews that what is orally received in the Sacrament is not Christ's Natural body, because Christs natural body is incorruptible, whereas that which we receive in the Holy Eucharist, is corruptible, visible and to be felt. He farther proves a great difference between Christs Natural and Sacramental Body and Blood in this, that his Natural Body really was what it appeared to our senses, whereas the Eucharist is one thing

in nature and appearance, and another thing in signification. Likewise ex∣pounding St. Hieroms Testimony, he saith, Christs natural body had all the organical parts of an humane body, and was quickened with a reasonable soul, whereas his body in the Sacrament hath neither. He makes the body of Christ in the Sacrament to be only an Image or Pledge, but the Natural body of Christ to be the Truth signi∣fied. And in the first part he proves that the words of Christ Instituting this Sacrament are Figurative, and that the thing orally received, or the Symbols had the name of the things signified thereby, it being usual to give Signs or Sacraments the name of the very thing represented under them. And this he proves from St. Augustine. It must be acknowledged, that Bertram sometimes saith, that it is truly Christs body and blood; but mark how he ex∣plains himself, he saith, they are not so as to their visible nature, but by the power of the Divine Word, i. e. not cor∣porally, but spiritually: And he adds, the visible creature feeds the body, but the virtue and efficacy of the Divine Word, feeds and sanctifies the soul of the Faithful. So that when he affirms

the Sacrament to be truly Christs body, he means truly in opposition to falshood, not truly as that word is op∣posed to Figuratively.

But F. Mabillon, and F. Alexander, make Bertram and Paschasius to say the same thing, and tell us that the former doth not deny the Truth of Christs natural body in the Sacra∣ment, which he as well as Paschasius holds, but only that it is there pro∣pria specie, i. e. in its proper shape, and visible form, or in its natural existence; I must now requite the candour of F. Mabillon to Archbishop Ʋsher, and impute this Opinion of his, to the prejudice of Education. For its very evident, that what Ratramnus labours to prove, is an essential diffe∣rence between the Sacrament recei∣ved by the Faithful and Christs bo∣dy, as great a difference, as between a body and a spirit, between a cor∣ruptible and an incorruptible thing, between the Image and the Original Truth, between Figure and Verity: And it is as plain, that he admits these sensible qualities to be clear proofs of an essential difference, and also allows our outward senses to be proper Judges in the case, appealing

to our eyes, our taste and smell,* 3.50 as our Saviour did to the outward senses, to prove the Verity of his body after his Resurrection. Behold, my hands and my feet, that it is I my self; Handle me, and see, for a Spirit hath not FLESH and BONES as you SEE me to have. So that in his Opinion we have the same evidence, that the Sacramental Elements after Conse∣cration are not Christs natural body in which he suffered, which the Dis∣ciples had that the body in which he appeared to them after his Resur∣rection, was the same body in which he was Crucified and buried.

2. Ratramnus contradicts the Council of Trent, in affirming the substance of Bread and Wine to remain after Consecration, which those Fa∣thers deny, with an Anathema to all that affirm it.

He tells us, expounding a citation out of St. Ambrose, As to the substance of the Creatures, what they were before

Consecration, they remain after it. Bread and Wine they were before, and after Consecration we see they continue beings of the same kind or nature.

F. Mabillon conceives Ratramnus to assert Transubstantiation in using the words turn, conversion, and that it is made Christs Body invisibly by the powerful operation of the Holy Ghost. That the Bread and Wine after Con∣secration are not what they were before, That they are truly by the Mystery turned into the substance of his body and blood, &c. which last is the most plausible sentence he quotes.

But I would fain know, whether when he denies it to be a natural change, and affirms it to be a Spiritu∣al, and which is all one, an invisible change, also, that the substance of Wine is seen after Consecration, and that by Consecration the Wine is made the Sa∣crament of Christs blood, that it is made Christs Blood divini significa∣tione Mysterii, by the signification of the Divine Mystery. That there was in the Manna and Water a spiritual power of the Word, viz. Christ, which fed the Souls of the believing Israe∣lites. That the Psalmist teacheth us both what the Fathers received in the

Heavenly Manna, and what the Faith∣ful ought to believe in the Mystery of Christs body, in both certainly Christ is signified. And in express terms, that as he could before his Passion turn the Bread and Wine into his body which was to suffer, &c. So [before his In∣carnation] in the Wilderness, he turned the Manna and Water into his body and blood.

And that as the Bread is Christs body, so is it the body of the Faithful People, and that if the 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 af∣ter all this, I would fain know whe∣ther 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.* 3.51 Not Generation, for no new being is produced. Not corrup∣tion, for the Bread and Wine are not destroyed but remain after Con∣secration in truth of Nature what they were before; Not alteration, for the same sensible qualities still ap∣pear: Wherefore since Consecration makes a change, and it is not a Natu∣ral but a Spiritual change, he con∣cludes it is wrought† 3.52 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 cor∣poreal Creatures, but according to their virtue, or efficacy, they are Spi∣ritually made Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ. And this Spi∣ritual virtue feeding the Soul, and ministring to it the sustenance of Eternal Life, is that which Bertram means, when he saith, that it is mysti∣cally changed into the substance of his Body and Blood, for he calls this vir∣tue Substantiam vitae Aeternae, and

as he calls our spiritual nourish∣ment 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 explain∣ing himself, calls it the Bread of Eter∣nal Life* 3.53.

If F. Mabillon had observed those two excellent Rules for understand∣ing 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 car∣nal Presence and Transubstantia∣tion.

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† 3.54 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 le∣velled by the Compilers point blank against the Errors of the Roman Church.

3 To these I may add what by consequence destroyeth Transubstan∣tiation, and Christs carnal Presence in the Sacrament. I mean, he fre∣quently affirms, That what the mouth receiveth, feeds and nourisheth the body, and that it is what Faith only recei∣veth, that nourisheth the Soul, and af∣fords the sustenance of Eternal Life. I know our Adversaries tell us, those Accidents have as much nourishing vir∣tue as other substances. So the Au∣thors of the Belgick Index* 3.55 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 re∣main, without their substances be built upon a mistaken Hypothesis in Philosophy? What if there be no such thing in Nature as pure Acci∣dents? What if Colours, Tasts, and Scents, are nothing else but matter in different positions, lights or mo∣tions, and little parts of the sub∣stance it self sallying out of the bo∣dy, and making impressions apon the Organs of Sense? Which Hypothe∣sis is embraced by the most curious Philosophers of our Age, who have exploded the former; what then be∣comes of the Species or Accidents imagined to subsist in the Air?

To close this Digression, I shall add* 3.56 Bellarmines Illustration of a bo∣dy 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 out∣ward form of a Woman.— Thus do Errours and Absurdities multiply without end.

I have said enough to shew, that Bertram expresly contradicts the Do∣ctrine 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 encoun∣ters, were the Stercoranists, a sort of Hereticks, that rose up in the IX Cen∣tury; and(a) 3.57 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 Per∣sons 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 Can∣dida 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) 3.58 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 Ab∣juration upon him, were Stercora∣nists to some purpose; who taught him,(b) 3.59 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) 3.60 F. Mabillon waves this Pre∣tence 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 ge∣nuine) 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 re∣main, 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 Questi∣ons propounded to the King.

Who were the Adversaries of Pas∣chasius (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) 3.61 That they were such as denied the Pre∣sence 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 other∣wise than Bertram doth. And to vin∣dicate the Reformed Church of Eng∣land 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 de∣sire to be made partakers of his most bles∣sed 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 Pre∣sence in the Sacrament, that our Church denies, but the rash and pe∣remptory determination of the man∣ner of his Presence by the Roman Church. 'Tis 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) 3.62 to adore any corporal Pre∣sence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. That the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain in their very natural Substances after Consecration. Also, that the na∣tural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here, it being against the truth of Christ's natu∣ral Body, to be at one time in more pla∣ces than one. Our(b) 3.63 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 re∣ceived and eaten in the Supper, is Faith only. These are Authentick Testi∣monies of the Doctrine of our Church, out of her publick Acts. I might add others of very great Au∣thority, out of the Apology for our Church, written by the Learned Jewel,

together with its Defence by the Au∣thor, Bishop(a) 3.64 Andrews against Bel∣larmine, the Testimony of King James in(b) 3.65 Casaubon's Epistle to Cardinal Perron,(c) 3.66 Hooker, Bishop(d) 3.67 Montague against Bulengerus, &c. but for brevity's sake, I refer the Reader to the Books themselves. And also for a Vindication of the For∣reign Reformed Churches in this mat∣ter, I desire the Reader to consult their Confessions, and the Citations collected by Bishop(e) 3.68 Cosins, out of their Confessions, and their most Eminent Writers.

Both we and they assert the Ve∣rity 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 acknow∣ledge

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 Arti∣cles of Faith, which Bertram rejected; though since that time they are en∣creased 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) 3.69 Ridley, who had a great hand in compiling the Liturgy and Articles, in King Edward VI. his Reign, had such an esteem of 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 Ber∣tram wrote on this Argument, as a fur∣ther 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 examin∣ing the old Opinion, concerning the Pre∣sence of Christ's very Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament, by the Scriptures and El∣der Fathers of the Churcb, and converted him from the Errours of the Church of Rome in that point. And Dr.(a) 3.70 Bur∣net tells us the same, adding, That Ridley having read Bertram, and con∣cluding 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 concern∣ing the Real Presence, A. D. 1549. which is the year in which the first Common-Prayer-Book of King Ed∣ward VI. was published; at which time also Bertram was Printed in English, by order of Bishop Ridley. So that a Reverend and Learned Di∣vine of our Church, (b) had reason, in asserting the Doctrine of Bertram was the very same Doctrine which (a) 3.71

the Church of England embraced, as most consonant to Scripture and the Fathers. Which is not what our Ad∣versaries would put upon us, that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a naked Commemoration of our Sa∣viour's Death, and a meer Sign of his Body and Blood, but an efficacious Mystery, accompanied with such a Di∣vine 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 Do∣ctrine 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 Lear∣ned or Orthodox) were singular in his Sentiments touching Christ's Pre∣sence 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 shew∣eth, 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 Be∣lief of the more Ancient and Pure Times of Christianity, but refer

my Reader to Albertinus, Archbishop Ʋsher, 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 To∣kens in his Book, but more evident Proofs in his Epistle to Frudegardus, that his Doctrine did not pass with∣out contradiction in his own life time. When he delivers his Para∣dox, he prepares his Reader for some wondrous Doctrine. And so strange was that new Doctrine of his, that (if the(a) 3.72 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 Specia∣liter, and yet in expounding the Do∣ctrine of the Sacrament to Heri∣baldus, 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 se∣verely, 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 Cen∣tury, I shall number(a) 3.73 Charles the

Great, though perhaps the Epistle to Alcuin was written somewhat before, wherein he affirms, that Christ sup∣ping with his Disciples, brake Bread, and gave it them with the Cup for a FIGƲRE of his Body and Blood, and exhibited a Sacrament highly advanta∣gious to us. As Venerable Bede before him speaks, He gave in the Supper to his Disciples, a FIGƲRE of his Holy Body and Blood, which notion consists not with the carnal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament.

(a) 3.74 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 Dig∣nity [not the Substance] of the Body and Blood of our Lord.— As Jesus Christ is figured by the Wine, so are the Faith∣ful People by Water.

Amalarius(b) 3.75 Fortunatus, in the Preface of his Books of Divine Offi∣ces, 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 else∣where he saith, that the Sacraments of Christ's Body are, secundum quen∣dum 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 Sacramen∣tal Signs have the name of the Thing signified.

What the Doctrine of Joannes Sco∣tus was, is hard to say, only in the general 'tis agreed, that it was con∣trary to that of Paschasius, though perhaps he erred on the other ex∣treme, making it a naked, empty Figure or Memory of our Saviour's Death.

And though(a) 3.76 Florus, Deacon of the Church of Lyons, accord not with Scotus in his Sentiments touching Pre∣destination, yet he agrees with him in contradicting the carnal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament; for in his

Exposition of the Mass, he saith, That when the Creature of Bread and Wine is by the ineffable sanctification of the Spirit translated into the SACRA∣MENT of Christ's Body, Christ is eaten. That he is eaten by parts in the Sacra∣ment, and remains whole in Heaven, and in the Faithful Receiver's heart. And again, All that is done in the Oblation of the Lord's Body and Blood, is a Mystery; there is one thing seen, and another un∣derstood; that which is seen, hath a Cor∣poral nature; that which is understood, hath a Spiritual fruit.

And in the Manuscript(a) 3.77 Homi∣lies, which F. Mabillon concludes are his, expounding the words of our Saviour instituting the Sacrament, he saith commenting on, This is my Body: the Body that spake was one thing, the Body which was given was another. The Body which spake was substantial, that Body which was given was Mystical; for the Body of our Lord died, was bu∣ried, rose again and ascended into hea∣ven, but that Body which was delivered to the Apostles in the Sacrament, is daily consecrated by the Priests hands.

* 3.78 Walafridus Strabo, in the same Century teacheth, That Christ in his last Supper with his Disciples just before he was betrayed, after the Solemnity of the Ancient Passeover, delivered the Sa∣craments of his own Body and Blood to his Disciples in the substance of Bread and Wine.

† 3.79 Christian Druthmarus a Monk of Corbey, and contemporary both with Bertram and Paschasius, in his Com∣ment on St. Matthew, expounding the words of Institution, saith, That Christ gave his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body— to the end that being mindful of this Action, they should al∣ways do this in a Figure, and not forget what he was about to do for them. This is my Body, that is, Sacramentally, or in a Sacrament or Sign: And a little before he saith, Christ did Spiritually change Bread into his Body, and Wine into his Blood, which is the Phrase of Bertram a Monk in the same Cloyster with him.

To these may be added* 3.80 Ahyto Bi∣shop

of Basil, in the beginning of this Century, whose words cited by Mr. L' Arroque in his History of the Eu∣charist are these— The Priest ought to know what the Sacrament of Baptism and Confirmation is, and what the My∣stery of the Body and Blood of the Lord is, how a visible Creature is seen in those Mysteries, and nevertheless invisible Salvation, or Grace, is thereby commu∣nicated for the salvation of the Soul, the which is contained in Faith only. Mr. L' Arroque well observes, that his words relate to Baptism and Confir∣mation as well as the Lord's Supper; he distinguisheth in both the sign from the thing signified, and asserts alike, in all three, that there is a vi∣sible Creature, communicating Invi∣sible, or Spiritual Grace, which is re∣ceived by Faith only.

Moreover, the Question moved by Heribaldus to Rabanus, which he answers (and upon that score both those Learned and Holy Bishops have been traduced as Stercoranists) evi∣dently shews the Sentiments of Heri∣baldus to have been contrary to those of Paschasius on this Argument. For

he never could have moved the Que∣stion if he had not believed the ex∣ternal part of the Sacrament to be corporal Food, as Ratramnus doth.

The Judgment of Rabanus, Arch∣bishop of Mentz, whom Baronius stiles the brightest Star of Germany, and as Trithemius says, who had not his fellow in Italy or Germany, agrees with that of Ratramnus, and appears in several of his writings. He teach∣eth,* 3.81 That our Lord chose to have the Sacraments of his Body and Blood re∣ceived by the mouth of the Faithful, and reduced to Nourishment, on purpose that by the visible Body the Spiritual effect might be shewn. For as Material food outwardly nourisheth, and gives vigor to the body, so doth the Word of God in∣wardly nourish and strengthen the Soul. Again, The Sacrament is one thing, and the virtue of the Sacrament is ano∣ther, for the Sacrament is received with the mouth, but the inner man is fed with

the virtue of the Sacrament. In his† 3.82 Pe∣nitential, he makes the Sacrament subject to all the affections of com∣mon food, and tells of some of late, viz. Paschasius and his followers, who had entertained false Sentiments touching the Sacrament of the Lords Body and Blood, saying, That this very Body of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary, in which our Lord suffered on the Cross, and rose again from the Grave, [is the same which we receive from the Al∣tar] against which error writing to E∣gilus the Abbot, we have according to our ability, declared what we are truly to believe concerning the Lords very Body.

From which Passage many things of moment may be collected.

1. That Paschasius was written a∣gainst in his life-time, and not long after his propounding his Doctrine publickly, by sending his Book, toge∣ther with an Epistle, to Carolus Calvus.

For Rabanus died before Paschasius, and* 3.83 Baluzius makes it out very well, that he wrote this Answer to the Queries of Heribaldus, A. D. 853. In which year Egilus mentioned by him was made Abbot of Promie, and the question of the validity of Orders conferred by Ebbo Archbishop of Rhemes, after his Deposition, was dis∣cussed in the Synod at Soissons.

2. We learn from this Passage, that Rabamus judged the Doctrine of Paschasius to be a Novel Error, which he would not have done, had there been any colour of Antient Traditi∣on or Authority for it.

3. That F. Cellot is mistaken, in charging his Anonymous Writer with slandering Rabanus, as also in saying, that what Rabanus wrote on this Ar∣gument, he wrote in his youth, falsly presuming that Egilus, to whom he wrote, was Abbot of Fulda, and im∣mediate Predecessor to Rabanus in the Government of that Monastry, where as it was another Egilus made Abbot of Promie, A. D. 853. when Rabanus was very old, and but three years be∣fore his death.

4. These words [the same which is

received from the Altar] were as* 3.84 Ba∣luzius and F. Mabillon observe, razed out of the MS, from whence Ste∣vartius published that Epistle of Ra∣banus. Which I take notice of, be∣cause Mr. Arnauds Modest Monk of St. Genouefe, makes so much difficulty to believe Arch-bishop Ʋsher, who tells of a Passage of the same impor∣tance razed out of an old MS. Book of Penitential Canons in Bennet Col∣ledg 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† 3.85 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 Wa∣ter which Flowed from the Rock, as) &c. These words inclosed between two half Circles, some had rased out of Worcester book, but they are re∣stored 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 Ʋsher did not invent it, which had it been lost utterly, might also have been restored out of the Saxon Epi∣stle printed immediately before it. And now I am speaking of such de∣testable 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,* 3.86 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 NA∣TƲRE 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 Flo∣rentine Library, and Transcribed se∣veral 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 com∣mitted by Peter Martyr. This past current for about a 100 years, till at last Emericus Bigotius found it, and Printed the whole Epistle with* 3.87 the Life of St. Chrysostom, and some o∣ther little things, but when it was Finisht, this† 3.88 Epistle was taken out of the Book, and not suffered to see Light.

The place out of which this Epi∣stle 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 se∣veral 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 Ʋsher for charging the Papists with the razure of an old MS. its plain, that such tricks are not unusual with them, that they are more ancient than their publick Expurgatory In∣dices, 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 con∣currence of other Doctors of the Ninth and Tenth Century with Ra∣tramnus, in his Sentiments touching Christ's Presence in the Holy Sacra∣ment. These are enough to shew that his opinion was neither singu∣lar, 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 suppor∣ted 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 Wri∣ter published by F. Mabillon, by Ra∣banus, and Ratramnus, neither doth it in all things please his Anonymous Friend said to be Herigerus, who writes in his favour, and collects pas∣sages out of the Ancients to excuse the simplicity of Paschasius. His own writings shew, that he valued himself upon some new discovery, which ex∣cited many to a more perfect understand∣ing of that great Mystery. That his Pa∣radox was in danger of passing for a Dream, or* 3.89 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.† 3.90 Augustine, which Bertram also cites, was dissa∣tisfied with his Explication of Christs Presence, and whether this Epistle did effectually establish him, in the

belief of Radberts Doctrine, or whe∣ther he adhered to St. Augustine, can∣not now be known.

It is evident, notwithstanding some gross conceipts which began to pos∣sess 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 tole∣rable shape or form, as a* 3.91 Reverend Author observes, and was not con∣firmed 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† 3.92 Christening of a Pagan; they affirm the Elements to be Christs Body and Blood after Consecration,

in the sence of* 3.93 St. Augustine, not in Truth of Nature, but by Mystical signi∣fication: And, according to the Do∣ctrine of that Father, teach† 3.94, that in the Sacraments we are not to mind the nature of the visible Object, but its signification; in regard Sacraments are Signs which ARE one thing, and SIGNIFIE another.

They all, according to the Lan∣guage of St. Paul, stile the Con∣secrated Elements Bread and Wine, our Saxon* 3.95 Homilist saith, this Bread is my Body, and† 3.96 Bertram in the place where F. Mabillon thinks the adding of existit is of some moment, saith, Bread and Wine is Christ's Body and Blood. They make the Sacrament to be a Figure, they speak of a con∣version of the Elements into the Sa∣craments of Christ's Body and Blood, they distinguish between Christ's na∣tural Body and his mystical Body, the Body which spake, and the Body which

was given to his Disciples, and deny that the nature of the Ele∣ments is altered by Consecration, which if any man can reconcile with Transubstantiation, I shall acknow∣ledge that Miracles are not ceased in the Roman Church.

Notes

• (a) 1.1

  Serv. Lupus, Ep. 79.
• (b) 1.2

  Baluz. in notis ad Lupum. Ad Rotrannum Monachum] Cor∣beiensem.
• (c) 1.3

  Ad cap. 96. Sigeberti, inter Illustr. Eccl. Scriptores ed. 88. Colon. 1580.
• (d) 1.4

  Flodoardi Hist. Remens. l. 3. c. 15. & 28.
• (e) 1.5

  Mabillon Prae∣fat. ad. Acta Bened. secul. 4. p. 2. cap. 1. n. 43.
• (f) 1.6

  Ibidem, scribitur RATRāNI super posita communi nota literae M vel N unde orta videtur lectio Ratranni.
• (g) 1.7

  Hincmarus de Praed. c. 5. & de non trina Deitate.
• (h) 1.8

  In Epistola Metrica edita per Cellotium. Append. Opusc. II. Amico fer ovans Ratramno.
• (i) 1.9

  Hist. Gotteschalci Praedest.
• (k) 1.10

  Mabillon Praef. ad Acta Ben. secul. 4. p. 2. c. 1. n. 47, 48, 49. ex MS. Gemblac.
• (a) 1.11

  The like mistake hath sometimes hap∣pen'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.
• (b) 1.12

  Quia in Corbeia Monasterio laudabilis eo tempore Religio Monachorum habebatur. Acta Bened. sec. 4. p. 1. In translat. Viti, c. 5.
• (c) 1.13

  Mabillo∣nius Corbeiam vocat Celebrem Academiam in Act. Ben. sec. 4. p. 2. In Elogio Historico Joanis Aethelingiensis, c. 5.
• (d) 1.14

  Flodoard. Hist. Rhem. l. 3. c. 28. ABP. Ʋsher 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.
• (a) 1.15

  Appar. Sac. T. 1. Betramus, Garetius circa Annum 806. Sir H. Linde in his Preface to Ber∣tram.
• (b) 1.16

  Lambecius in Orig. Hamb. tom. 2. in tab. Chronolog.
• (c) 1.17

  Act. Ben. sec 4. p. 2. Praef. c. 1. n. 129.
• (d) 1.18

  Possevin. Apar. sac. t. 2. Paschasius.
• (e) 1.19

  Literis & fama floruisse Ratramnum Ludo∣vici Pii & Caroli Calvi temporibus fidem faciunt quas protulit elucubrationes. Dacherius spic. t. 1. Lectori nu. 5
• (f) 1.20

  Mauguin. tom. 2. Disser. Hist. cap. 17.
• (g) 1.21

  Hincm. Rhem. Op. tom. 2. Opusc. LV. Capitul. cap. 1. tradito Hincmaro Laudun. in Synodo At∣tiniaci habita, A. D. 870.
• (a) 1.22

  Feuguer. Opusc. Lugd. Praefat. p. 9, 10. Quod altem ad Calvi Aulam attinet, nullo quod sciam docto uno ornata memoratur.
• (b) 1.23

  Vinc. Bellovac. Spec. Hist. l. 23. c. 173. apud Nat. Alex. de Jo. Scoto Erig. sec. 9. p. 2. diss. 14. Fueruntque Parisiis fundatores illius stu∣dii quatuor Monachi Bedae discipuli. Rabanus & Al∣cuinus, Claudius & Joannes Scotus.
• * 1.24

  Dacherii Spicil. t. 2. Concil. t. 9 col. 1062.
• (a) 1.25

  Vide Serv. Lupi, Ep. 128.
• (b) 1.26

  Deni{que} sunt multi, Domino donante, Magistri Haec regione siti, ingenio l••c. plete periti, Ʋnde Palatina pleri{que} morantur in Aula. Vide Append. Cellotii, Opusc. II.
• * 1.27

  Cellot. Hist. Gottes. l. 3. c. 7. sect. 2.
• (a) 1.28

  Praefat. ad Act. Ben. secul. 4. p. 2. n. 161. Ratramnus vero li••ge plura & potiora prolatis ex∣proprio genio validis ratiociniis quae argumentis & autoritatibus à se adductis lucem ac robur con∣cilient.
• (a) 1.29

  Mauguin. tom. 2. in Dissert Hist. c. 17.
• (b) 1.30

  Refut. du Mr. Claude, p. 3. c. 5.
• (c) 1.31

  Clarissimo suo R. Lupus, Ep. 79.
• (d) 1.32

  Fa∣miliares habuit Praestantissimos quosque sui seculi viros, Hincmarum Rem. Rhabanum Mog. Weni∣lonem Senon: Heriboldum — Ratbertum Cor∣beiensem, Ratramnum Monachum Corbiensem, &c. Baluz. in notis at titulum [Beati Lupi] p. 340.
• (a) 1.33

  Sirmondus in Vita Paschasii Radberti operi∣bus praefixa. Par. 1618.
• (b) 1.34

  Mabillon in Praef. ad Acta Ben. sec. 4. p. 2. c. 3. nu. 150.

  Monachorum omnium peripsema.
• (c) 1.35

  Ibidem inter Acta Ben. p. 135. — Humi∣lis & exiguus Radbertus vester, etsi indignus, Abbas & Levita Christi Monachorum omnium perip∣sema.
• (d) 1.36

  Mabil. ubi supra.
• (a) 1.37

  Vide Librum Ratramni apud Dacherium Spicil. Tom. 1.
• (b) 1.38

  Tertul. de Carne Christi, c. 23.
• (c) 1.39

  Vide Guil. Forbesii Consider. Modest. de Sacr. Euchar. l. 1. c. 2.
• (a) 1.40

  Ʋsserius in Hist. Gottesc. c. 11.
• (c) 1.41

  Conringius ad Antiquit. Acad. Supple∣mento 39. apud Mabillon. ibid.
• (d) 1.42

  Apud Dacherium Spicil. Yom. 1. p. 333.
• (b) 1.43

  Ma∣billon. Act. Ben. Praef. sec. 4. p. 2. c. 3. nu. 153.
• (a) 1.44

  Teste ipso Hincmaro in libro De non Trina Deitate, operum T. 1. 450.

  Et Mauguin. Dissert. Hist. c. 17. Dehinc post aliquot annos cum Hincmarus in Ecclesia Remensi vetustissimum & receptissimum Hymni Ecclesiastici hunc versiculum Te Trina Deitas unaque posci∣mus, cantari vetuisset Ipse Ratramnus volumine non modicae quantitatis ad Hildegarium Melden∣sem Episcopum edito ex libris SS. Hilarii & Au∣gustini de Trinitate veterem Ecclesiae Traditionem confirmavit.
• (b) 1.45

  Teste Mabilioni ebi supr. n. 156. &
• (c) 1.46

  Ʋs∣serio. Hist. Gottesch. c. 2.
• (a) 1.47

  Vide Mauguin. T. 2. Dissert. c. 17. Ti∣tulus libri sic se habet. Contra opposita Graecorum Imperatorum Romanam Ecclesiam infamantium li∣bri quatuor Rathramni Monachi. Teste Mabillo∣nio.
• (b) 1.48

  Spicileg. T. 2.
• (c) 1.49

  Vide Felleri Catal. Codd. MSS. Biblioth. Paulinae in Acad. Lipsiensi Duod. 1686. p. 125.
• (a) 1.50

  Cellot saith, it was first published from a Copy prepared for the Press by Oecolampa∣dius, who died before it was Printed: That it was not Printed at Colen, but Basil. How truly, I know not.
• (a) 1.51

  Bell. Controv. Tom. 3. de Sacr. Eucharist. l. 1. c. 1. sec. Tertius.
• (b) 1.52

  Phil. Labbe de Script. Eccles. quos possim Onochronos, Ardeliones, Mataeologos, appellat.
• (a) 1.53

  Praefat. ad Act. Ben. sec. 14. p. 2. c. 1. n. 125.
• (b) 1.54

  De Script. Eccles. T. 1. p. 53.
• (a) 1.55

  Ex Titulo MS. operis de Anima.
• (b) 1.56

  Lud. Cellot. Hist. Gottesc. l. 2. c. 19. l. 3. c. 7. in quaestione de Eucharistia monstrabitur Haereticus, &c.
• (a) 1.57

  Cellot. Hist. Gottesc. l. 2. c. 19. numerat inter causas naufragii miserabilis Monachi, Ra∣tramni Magisterium, l. 3. c. 7. In Praedestinatione ita se Catholicum exibet ut tamen non levem suspi∣cionem sinistrae doctrinae— relinquat.
• (b) 1.58

  Vide Ʋsser. Hist. Gottesc. c. 16.
• * 1.59

  Cellot. Hist. Gottesc. l. 3. c. 7. in explica∣tione Trinitatis ex errore discipuli, & ipse errare intelligetur.
• (a) 1.60

  Trinas Deitates affirmantem ipse Gotes∣chalcus execratur, apud Hincmarum de non Trina Deit.

  Hymni Sanstorum mentis Strophe Vetus in Natali plurium Martyrum.

  Te Trina Deitas unaque poscimus. Ʋt culpas abluas, noxia detrahas, Des pacem famulis, nos quoque gloriam, Per cuncta tibi saecula.
• (b) 1.61

  Mauguin. Tom. 2. Dissert. c. 45. Religiosi S. Benedicti diu multumque reluctati sunt huic im∣mutationi.
• (c) 1.62

  Teste N. Alexandro, sec. 9. p. 2. Diss. V. J. 14. in Hymno Sacris Solemniis ab Ange∣lico Doctore — edito ubique canit, in Festo Corp. Christi in Nocturn.

  Te Trina Deitas unaque poscimus, Sic tu nos visita sicut te colimus, Per tuas semitas duc nos quo tendimus, Ad lucem quam inhabitas.
• (d) 1.63

  Hist. Gottesc. l. 5. c. 5.
• (e) 1.64

  Append. ad Hist. Gottesc. Opusc. 7. in notis passim.
• (b) 1.65

  Vanum vocat & novandi cupidum,—Inge∣nium omnium novitatum capax Ratumni, lib. 5. cap. 2. pag. 45.

  Turbae errantis Antesignani Ratramnus & Got∣teschalcus, par Novatorum, p. 346. Monachum Corb adversus Metropolitanum & Abbatem suum calcitrantem. Hist. Got. p. 570.
• (a) 1.66

  Cellotius Hist. Gottesc. Append. p. 578. citat haec ex Ratramni, l. 4. adversos Graecos. Quarta die Imperator Constantinus privilegium, Ro∣manae Ecclesiae pontifici constituit, ut in toto orbe Romano Sacerdotes ita hunc caput habeant, ut Ju∣dices Regem. — Quando quidem sit Romana Ci∣vitas omnibus imperii Romani civitatibus honora∣bilior, & Romanus Pontifex principatum obtineat Sacerdotii super omnes Episcopos, utpote cum sit Civitas haec Domina omnium & illi civitati quis∣quis praefuerit Episcopus ex antiquitatis consti∣tutione [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.
• * 1.67

  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.
• (a) 1.68

  Praef. lib. 4. De veritate Corp. & Saug Christi contra Oecolam. Colen. 1527.
• * 1.69

  Espenc. De Ador. Euchar. l. 4. c. 19.
• † 1.70

  Greg. De Valentia in Thom. Tom. 4. disp. 6. q. 3. punct. 1.
• ‖ 1.71

  Bibliothecae Patrum. Lugd. 1677. T. XV. ad finem libri secundi de Praedest.
• (a) 1.72

  Answer to the Jesuits Challenge, ch. 3 of the Real Presence.
• (b) 1.73

  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.
• † 1.74

  Husel ab Hostia derivari modeste conjicit Eruditissimus Somnerus; at re∣ctius omnino Cl. Junius in Glossario a Gothico HUNSL deducit Saxonicum Husel, litera N, euphoniae gratia, uti in nonnullis aliis origine Gothicis e medi•• Sublata, ex. gr. Tunth Gothice, Saxo∣nice Toð Anglice Tooth, Munth Gothice, Saxonice Muð, Anglice, Mouth, &c.
• * 3.1

  p. 31.
• * 3.2

  clyp••aþ.
• * 3.3

  p. 36.
• * 3.4

  Hip, and not as above getac∣nunge, which is a figure in speech.
• * 3.5

  p. 68. Quod dente premitur, fauce glutitur, quod receptaculo ventris fuscipitur.
• * 3.6

  p. 48.
• * 3.7

  i. e. Can∣nons Eccle∣siastical, not the Holy Scri∣pture.
• (a) 3.8

  See the Preface of the Homily.
• (a) 3.9

  This Miracle is found in Paschas Radbert. de Corp. & Sang. Dom. in Bibl. Patrum. Par. 1610. Tom. VI. c. 14.
• (b) 3.10

  Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. Can. 3.
• (a) 3.11

  P. de Marca in Epistola. Apud Dacherium in Spicil. Tom. 2.
• (b) 3.12

  At the end of Mr. Ar∣naud's Defence, in quarto. Par. 1669. Dissert. 1. The Author is Mr. Paris.
• * 3.13

  Ad Carolum librum de Praedestin.
• (a) 3.14

  Quod Sacramenta Altaris non verum Corpus & verus Sanguis sit Domini, sed tantum memo∣ria veri Corporis & Sanguinis ejus, de Praed. c. 31.
• * 3.15

  Scotus de Divisione Naturae, l. 5 N. XX. I∣tem l. 2. n. XI.
• * 3.16

  Act. Ben. Sec. IV. p. 2. Praef. p. 45. n. 83.
• * 3.17

  Therefore it is not Jo. Scotus.
• * 3.18

  Ibid. p. 64. nu. 130.
• (a) 3.19

  That word is & existit p. which I have inserted into the Text upon F. Mabillon's Authority. Let the Papists make their best of it.
• (a) 3.20

  Mabil. Iter Germanicum praefixum Analect. Tom. IV. Incipit Liber Ratramni de perceptione Corporis & Sanguinis Domini ad Carolum Mag∣num.
• * 3.21

  Quod in Ecclesia ore fidelium sumitur Corpus & Sanguis Christi. Qu. 1. § 5.

  Quod ore fidelium per Sacramentorum Mysterium in Ecclesia quotidie sumitur. Q. 2. sect. 50.
• † 3.22

  See them explain'd by Bertram himself. sect. 7, 8. and him determining the Sacramen∣tal change to be Figuratively wrought, not cor∣porally, sect. 9, 16. and supporting himself by the Testimony of St. Augustine de Doctr. Christ. l. 3. c. 16.
• * 3.23

  Figure.
• * 3.24

  Verity or Truth.
• * 3.25

  In Proprietate, Substantialiter, in manifesta∣tionis, Luce in veritatis simplicitate, in this Tract, are equivalent to naturally, and in Verity of Nature. This the Saxon Homily very well clears, and as superficie tenus conside∣rata answers to in proprietate a little before in Bertram, sect. 19. so in the Saxon Homily su∣perficie tenus considerata is rendred after bodily understanding, which answers to true Nature immediately preceding.
• * 3.26

  Another sence of Verity.
• (a) 3.27

  Non utique mentitur, &c. sect. 35. & supra, cur nemo tam ineptus est ut nos ita loquentes arguat esse mentitos, &c.
• * 3.28

  Manifesta∣tion.
• (a) 3.29

  Mabilonius A.B. Sec. IƲ. P. 2. Praef. n. 101.
• * 3.30

  Species.
• (a) 3.31

  Index Expurg. Belg. in Bertramo. tametsi non diffitear Bertramum tunc temporis nescivisse exacte accidentia ista absque omni substantia sua subsistere, &c.
• * 3.32

  Species Vi∣sibilis.
• * 3.33

  Divine Word.
• * 3.34

  Spiriutal Body.
• (a) 3.35

  Bellarm. de Script. Eccles. de Paschasio Radberto ad A. D. 850
• (b) 3.36

  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.
• (a) 3.37

  Contra quem [i. e. Paschasium] satis ar∣gumentantur & Rabanus in Epistola ad Egilo∣nem Abbatem & Ratramnus libro composito ad Carolum Regem. Apud Cellotium Opusc. Il. cap. 1.
• * 3.38

  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 commu∣nius volui stilo temperare subulco, ut ea quae de Sacramento Corporis & Sanguinis Christi sunt necessaria rescire, quos necdum unda liberalium attigerat literarum, vitae pabu∣lum & salutis haustum planius caperent ad medelam. Ibidem.
• * 3.39

  Vide Mabillonium A. B. sec. 4. p. 2. Praef. de Paschas. Radberto, & in Elogio Historico ejusdem.
• † 3.40

  Ex vita S. Walae à Paschasio Rad∣berto scriptae.
• * 3.41

  Nunc autem dirigere non timui vobis, quate∣nus nobis operis praestantior per vos exuberet fructus mercedis pro sudore, cum per vos ad plurimos perve∣nerit commendatus. Pasch. Radbert. in Ep. ad Ca∣rolum, apud Mabillon, sec. 4. p. 2. p. 135. & p. 136. Et ut hoc diligentius perlegat vestre Sagax intelligentia — prostatis imploro precibus, qua∣tenus vestro examine comprobatus Codex, etsi jam∣dudum ad plurimos pervenit, deinoeps securius ha∣beri possit.
• * 3.42

  Pasch. Radb. de Corp. & Sang. Dom. c. 1. Licet Figura Panis & Vini hic sit, omnino nihil aliud quam Caro Christi & Sanguis post consecratio∣nem credenda sunt. — Et ut mi••abilius loquar, non alia plane, quam quae nata est de Maria & passa in Cruce, & resurrexit de Sepulchro. —
• * 3.43

  Sic debuit hoc mysterium temperari, ut & arca∣na Secretorum celarentur infidis & meritum cre∣sceret de virtute Fidei, c. 13. ubi plura ejusmodi cceurrunt.
• * 3.44

  Apud Gratianum de Consecratione. Dist. 2. c. 42. Ego Berengarius, &c.
• * 3.45

  1. Concil. Trid. sess. 13. can. 1.
• * 3.46

  2. Conc. Trid. Ibid. c. 2.
• * 3.47

  i. e. By faith and not orally.
• * 3.48

  3. Conc. Trid. Ibid. can. 8. & cap. 8.
• * 3.49

  Vide Indic. Belgic. in Bertramo. (Excogitato commento.)
• * 3.50

  Sect. 99. He shews that our Saviours bo∣dy after its Resurrection, was visible and pal∣pable, and cites Luke 24.39. Compare this with what he saith, Sect. 72. where he shew∣eth the difference between Christs Natural and Spiritual Body.
• * 3.51

  Sect. 12. 13, 14, 15.
• † 3.52

  Sect. 16.
• * 3.53

  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 ae∣ternae, &c. Sect. 68. He means by the sub∣stance 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 Sub∣stantia in the place cited by F. Mabillon.
• † 3.54

  Ad calcem libri cui Titulus, Deus, Natura Gratia. Quarto Ludg. 1634.
• * 3.55

  Index Expurg. Belg. in Bertramo.
• * 3.56

  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.
• (a) 3.57

  Ʋterque Stercoranistarum Haeresin, quae illo tempore orta est, confutavit, uterque Catholicam veritatem asseruit, sed Radbertus Transubstantia∣tionis veritatem clarius expressit. Maug. Tom. 2. Diss. c. 17. p. 134.
• (a) 3.58

  Vide Labbeum de script. Eccles. Tom. 1. p. 484.
• (b) 3.59

  Of the Stircoranists, an Imaginary Sect, first discovered by Cardinal Perron; see Con∣ferences 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.
• (a) 3.60

  Mabillon. Praef. ad sec. IV. p. 2. nu. 93.
• (a) 3.61

  Paschasius in Epist. ad Frudegardum.
• (a) 3.62

  At the end of the Communion Service.
• (b) 3.63

  Art. 28.
• (a) 3.64

  Eliensis Apolog. contra Bellarm. p. 11.
• (b) 3.65

  Casaubonus nomine Jacobi Regis in Epistola ad Card. Perronum, p. 48. & 51. ubi exscribit verba Eliensis.
• (c) 3.66

  Hooker Eccles. Policy, lib. 5. sect. 67.
• (d) 3.67

  Montacutius in Antidiatrib. contra Bulenger. p. 143.
• (e) 3.68

  Hist Transub. c. 2.
• (a) 3.69

  In Praef. libri de Coena Domini Latine excusi Genev. 1556.
• (a) 3.70

  Dr. Burnet's Hist. of the Reform. p. II. Book I. p 107.
• (a) 3.71

  Several Conferences between a Popish Priest, &c. p. 61.
• (a) 3.72

  Anonym. de Euch. ad finem Sec IV. p. 2.
• (a) 3.73

  Inter scriptores de Divinis Officiis Ed. per Hittorpium Par. 1610. col. 303.
• (a) 3.74

  Apud L' Arroque Hist. Euch. l. 2. c. 13.
• (b) 3.75

  Amalarius Fortunatus Ibidem In Praefat. Col. 307. & l. 1. c. 24.
• (a) 3.76

  Bib. Patrum, Tom. 6. Par. 1610. Col. 226, 227.
• (a) 3.77

  In Homiliario MS. Eccles. Lugd. apud Ma∣billon A. B. Sec. IV. Par. 2. Praefat. nu. 80.
• * 3.78

  Apud Hittorpium. De rebus Eccles. c. 16.
• † 3.79

  Apud Albertinum de Euchar. lib. 2. pag. 934. Hoc est corpus meum id est in Sacramento.
• * 3.80

  Apud L' Arroque in Hist. Euchar. lib. 2. c. 13. ex Dacherii Spicileg. Tom. 6.
• * 3.81

  Raban. de institut. Cleric. lib. 1. c. 31.
• † 3.82

  Ad Calcem Reginon. Prum. editi per Balu∣zium habetur Epistola haec Rabani, unde Heribal∣dum vide c. 33.

  Quidam nuper de ipso Sacramento corporis & Sanguinis Domini non rite sentientes, dixerunt hoc ipsum Corpus & Sanguinem Domini quod de Ma∣ria Virgine natum est, & in quo ipse Dominus pas∣sus est in cruce, & resurrexit de Sepulchro [idem esse quod sumitur de Altari] cui Errori, &c.
• * 3.83

  In praefat. ad Rabani Epist. n. 17.
• * 3.84

  Baluz. in notis ad c. 33. Ad calcem Reginonis.
• † 3.85

  At the end of the Saxon Homily Printed by Jo. Day.
• * 3.86

  Sicut enim antequam Sanctificetur Panis, Pa∣nem nominamus, Divina autem illum sanctificante gratia, mediante Sacerdote, liberatus est quidem appellatione panis; dignus autem habitus est Domi∣nici Corporis appellatione, etiemsi natura Panis in ipso permansit, & non duo corpora, sed unum cor∣pus Filii praedicamus sic, &c. Apud Steph. Le Moine inter Varia Sacra. Tom. 1. p. 532.
• * 3.87

  Palladii vita Chrysostomi Gr. lat. &c. Quarto. Par. 1680. Inter paginas 235. & 245. In Sche∣dis signatis G. g. & H. h.
• † 3.88

  Vide Expostulationem hac de re editam, in Quarto. Londini. 1682.
• * 3.89

  In Epistolis hortatur Placidum, & Regem Carolum ne existiment illum contexere fabulam de salsura Maronis.
• † 3.90

  Augustin. de Doct. Christ. l. 3. c. 16.
• * 3.91

  The B. of St. Asaph in a Sermon before the late King, 1678.
• † 3.92

  See the Saxon Homily.
• * 3.93

  Non rei veritate, sed significante mysterio. S. Aug. apud Gratianum de Consecr. Dist. 2. c. 48. Hoc est Sect. Sicut.
• † 3.94

  Aug. contra Maxim. l. 3. c. 22.
• * 3.95

  Fol. 28.
• † 3.96

  Sect. 99. Panis & Calix qui Corpus & San∣guis Christi nominatur & existit.