The Catholick doctrine of the Eucharist in all ages in answer to what H. Arnaud, Doctor of the Sorbon alledges, touching the belief of the Greek, Moscovite, Armenian, Jacobite, Nestorian, Coptic, Maronite, and other eastern churches : whereunto is added an account of the Book of the body and blood of our Lord published under the name of Bertram : in six books.

CHAP. I.

An Account of the several Opinions which the Doctors of the Roman Church have offered touching this Book, to hinder the advantage which we draw from it.

THE Book of Bertram, of the Body and Blood of our Lord ha∣ving been Printed at Cologn in the year 1532. the Doctors of the Roman Church have judg'd it so little favourable to 'em, that they have thought themselves necessitated to deprive it of all its authority, and to cry it down either as an Heretical Book, or a for∣ged piece, or at least as a Book corrupted by the Protestants.

IN the year 1559. those that were employed by the Council of Trent * 1.1 for the examining of Books, placed this in the rank of Heretical Authors of the first Classis, the reading of which ought to be forbidden. Their judg∣ment was publish'd by Pius IV. and follow'd by Cardinal Bellarmin and Quiroga, and by Pope Clement VIII. and Cardinal Sandoval.

SIXTƲS of Sienne treats this Book no better in 1566. he tells us 'tis a pernicious piece, wrote by Oecolampadus, and publish'd by his Disci∣ples under the name of Bertram, (an Orthodox Author) to make it the better received. Possevin the Jesuit, and some others, followed the opini∣on of Sixtus, and carried on the same accusation against the Authors of * 1.2 the impression of this Book.

BUT besides that the Bishop of Rochester cited it against Oecolampadus himself in the year 1526. which is to say, six years before 'twas Printed, the several Manuscripts which have been since found in Libraries, have * 1.3 shewed that this accusation was unjust and rash, which has obliged the Au∣thor of the Dissertation (which I examin) to leave it, and confess, that this Impression was true.

IT was without doubt from the same reason that in 1571. the Divines of * 1.4 Doway took another course than that of the entire proscription of the Book; Altho, say they, we do not much esteem this Book, nor would be troubled were it wholly lost; but seeing it has been several times Printed, and many have read it, and its name is become famous by the Prohibition which has been made of it, the Hereticks knowing it has been prohibited by several Catalogues, that moreover its Author was a Catholick Priest, a Religious of the Convent of Corbie, beloved▪ and considered not by Charlemain, but by Charles the Bald, That this Writing serves for an History of all that time, and that moreover we suffer in ancient Catholick Authors several Errors, extenuating them, ex∣cusing them, yea often denying 'em by some tergiversation invented expresly, or giving them a commodious sense when they are urged against us in Dis∣putes which we have with our Adversaries, we therefore see no reason why Bertram should not deserve the same kindness from us, and why we should not review and correct him, cur non eandem recognitionem mereatur Bertram∣nus, lest the Hereticks should scoffingly tell us we smother Antiquity, and pro∣hibit enquiries into it, when 'tis on their side; and therefore we ought not to be troubled that there seems to be some small matters which favor them, see∣ing we Catholicks handle Antiquity with so little respect, and destroy Books as soon as ever they appear contrary to us. We ought likewise to fear lest the Prohibition which has been made of this Book, should cause its being read with greater greediness, not only by Hereticks, but also by disobedient Catholicks, that it be not alledged in a more odious fashion, and in fine, do more hurt by its being prohibited than if 'twere permitted.

THUS do the Divines of Doway ingeniously declare their opinion how Books ought to be dealt with, that do not favour their belief. They would not have Bertram's Book prohibited, but corrected.

GREGORY of Valence and Nicholas Romoeus follow the sentiment of * 1.5 the Doway Divines, but this expedient is become wholly impossible since there have been several Manuscripts found in places unsuspected, and that

these Manuscripts appear wholly conformable to the Prints, as we are in∣form'd * 1.6 by Cardinal Perron and several others after him. Thus the Doctors of the Roman Communion finding 'emselves faln not only from their hopes of making the world believe this was a false piece, but also of persuading 'em 'twas corrupted, have been forced to have recourse to fresh Councils to elude the advantage we make of it.

THE President Mauguin seeing then on one hand the Book could not * 1.7 be denied to be true, and, acknowledging moreover that this Bertram to whom 'tis attributed, is no other than Ratramnus whom he lately mention'd with such great Elogies, as being the defender of the Doctrin of the Church concerning Divine Grace, he, I say, believ'd 'twas best to attempt the justify∣ing him by any means from the crime of Heresie touching the Eucharist. And for this effect has bethought himself of maintaining that Ratramnus in the Book in question, defends the same Doctrin which Paschasus Ratbert defended in that which he wrote on the same subject; that both one and the other, to wit, Ratramnus and Paschasus had to deal with the same Here∣ticks, to wit, certain Stercoranists (who according to Cardinal Perron, ap∣peared in the 9th. Century) that they both of 'em admirably well agree in defending the Catholick Church; so that there can be no charge of Heresie brought against Bertram, as they of his Communion had hitherto done without any reason.

Mr. HERMAN Canon of Beauvais has approved of this sentiment of Mr. Mauguin in a Letter to Mr. De St. Beuve, Printed in 1652. under the name of Hierom ab Angelo forti; and 'tis by this means he endeavours to defend Jansenius his Disciples against Mr. Desmarests, Professor in Divinity at Groningue, who argued against Transubstantiation from the authority of this same Ratramnus, whom the Gentlemen of the Port Royal quoted as one of the most famous Witnesses of the Belief of the Church against the novelties of Molina.

IT seems also that Mr. De St. Beuve does not disapprove of this opinion of Mr. Mauguin and Mr. Herman in his Manuscript Treatise of the Eucha∣rist, as we may collect from the Preface of D' Luc d' Achery, on the second Tome of his Spicilege. Yet by a strange kind of injustice after the testi∣mony of Cardinal Du Perron, and others who have seen Bertram's Manu∣script, he still suspects it to have suffered some alteration. Howsoever he would have us remember that Ratramnus died in the bosom of the Church, and bear with his offensive expressions. This is the part which these two Gentlemen have taken for the preservation of Ratramnus his authority, whose testimony is useful to 'em in other matters.

CELLOT the Jesuit on the contrary, designing in his History of Gottheschalc, and in his Appendixes, to oppose the sentiments of Mr. Mau∣guin in the subject of Grace, and to discredit its Champions, has attackt the person of Ratramnus. He does indeed acknowledg him for the true Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, but he does all that he is able to discredit it, and bereave it of all the Authority which these other Gentlemen attribute to it. Howsoever, he yields it to the Pro∣testants as being for them, and maintains with Possevin, that altho this Book may be read with corrections, yet Pope Clement VIII. has done well in prohibiting it.

OTHERS of better judgments in the Romish Communion have clear∣ly foreseen that if what Cellot the Jesuit offers against Ratramnus is of use to him against the Disciples of Jansenius, and if his way of proceeding be ad∣vantageous against the Adversaries which he had at his back, 'twas not the same in respect of us. For as fast as he deprived his Adversaries of so fa∣mous an Author as Ratramnus, in decrying him for an Heretick on the sub∣ject of the Eucharist, he yielded him to us without any dispute, and by this means does himself furnish us with a very authentick Author against Transubstantiation and the Real Presence. They have believed then that to prevent the falling into this inconveniency, they must invent some other new means, which on one hand might be less bold, and more likely than is that of Mr. Mauguin, which cannot reasonably be maintain'd, and which on the other would not give us so great advantage as Father Cellot has given us in placing Ratramnus absolutely on our side.

AND this is what Mr. Marca the deceased Arch-Bishop of Paris has seem'd to have done, when he offered as a new discovery that the Book in question is of John Scot, or Erigenus. For by means of this opinion he preten∣ded to secure to Ratramnus his whole authority and reputation, and attribute at the same time to the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, the infamy of an heretical piece, according to the Decree of the Roman Censurers. We may charge Mr. De Marca with inconstancy, seeing that in his French Trea∣tise of the Eucharist, which was publish'd since his death by the Abbot Fa∣get his Cousin-german, he acknowledged that Bertram and Ratram were but one and the same Author, and that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is truly of Ratramnus.

HOWSOEVER Mr. De Marca affirms in his Letter to De Luc d' * 1.8 Achery, wrote in 1657. First, That the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is not of Ratramnus, as the learned have thought. Secondly, That 'tis John's, surnamed Scot, or Erigenus. Thirdly, That John Scot acknow∣ledging this Book was contrary to the Doctrin of the Church, publish'd it under the name of Ratramnus, by a famous Imposture, to give it the more weight. Fourthly, That this Book is then the same which was condemned in the Council of Verseile by Leo IX. as Lanfranc reports, and was at length burnt in the Council of Rome under Nicholas II. in 1059. And thus does he reject his former opinion thro human weakness, from which the greatest Wits are not exempt, and wherein a man easily falls when 'tis his interest to be of another mind.

Mr. De Marca well perceiv'd what a troublesom thing it was to the Ro∣man Faith, to say that Paschasus, which is, as it were, the head of it, ac∣cording to the Hypothesis of the Protestants, was opposed by all the learn∣ed and famous men which were then in the Church. He also well foresaw that those who would reflect on the person of Ratram, would be extremely surpriz'd to see that upon the contests to which the Doctrin of Paschasus gave birth, Charles the Bald having consulted Ratram, this great man took part with Paschasus his Adversaries. He knew likewise that 'twas this same Ratram, who was consulted on the subject of Grace by the same Charles the Bald, and who shew'd himself so zealous for the truth, that he feared not to withstand three times Hincmar his Arch-Bishop, as Mr. Mauguin has * 1.9 observ'd, That this Ratram was so famous in his time, that after these bick∣erings

with Hincmar, Hincmar himself and the other French Prelates, com∣mission'd him to answer in their name the objections of the Greeks in the dispute which arose between them and the Latins. There was no likelihood of making such a one pass for an Heretick. Moreover, Mr. Marca could not deny but that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood ought to be attri∣buted to Ratram, should we refer our selves to the testimony of Sigebert. He himself calls it the little Book published by the Protestants, under the name * 1.10 of Bertram, and attributed to Ratram by Sigebert and Trithemius. He be∣lieved likewise he had gotten a certain proof that since the 9th. Century this Book bore the title of Ratram, because the anonymous Author publish'd by Cellot, reckons Ratram one of Paschasus's Adversaries. And Mr. De Marca took this anonymous Author for an Author of the 9th. Century, as Perron also thought. What remedy is there to these inconveniencies which appear to be of so great consequence? For, for to take the part of Mr. Mauguin, and to say that the Book in question contains nothing but what is conformable to the belief of the Roman Church, is even according to him an unwarrant∣able assertion.

TO extricate himself out of these perplexities, Mr. Marca believ'd it best to maintain that John Scot was the true Author of this Book, that 'twas John Scot himself that fathered it on Ratram, and that Cellot's anonymous Author being ignorant of this fact was deceived in what he wrote of it. And this is the happy invention by which Mr. De Marca thought he might procure great advantages to his Party. First, He reduces both Paschasus his Adversaries to one, which already diminishes the number of 'em. Second∣ly, He delivers Paschasus from the hands of an adversary who was constant∣ly held for a most Orthodox Divine in his time. Thirdly, By this means he decries this Book it self by attributing it to an Author, who in the 9th. Century drew on himself some Censures from the Councils of Valence and Langres touching the questions of Grace, and whom the Roman Church condemned in the 11th. at Verceil, and at Rome on the matter of the Eu∣charist. Fourthly, He discharges his Church of the reproach of having condemned in the 11th. Century, and still at this day condemning a Do∣ctrin which was taught in the 9th. by an Orthodox Author, such as was Ra∣tram. Again, the name of John Scot has appeared to him very proper for the giving some colour to his discovery, because that in effect John Scot wrote likewise a Book on the subject of the Eucharist which he dedicated to Charles the Bald, and that this Book is lost, whether by chance or on purpose, as it has also hapned to others, we cannot guess.

WE may with great likelihood say that Mr. Arnaud and his friends have had the same interests as Mr. De Marca. But we may also add that they have had a particular reason which much contributes to make 'em embrace Mr. De Marca's opinion, and maintain with him that Ratram is not the Au∣thor of the Book in question, but John Scot, or Erigenus. Mr. Claude has * 1.11 shewed them in the famous Dispute which they have had, that having once esteemed Ratram for the Oracle of his time, and for the great defender of the Orthodox Doctrin of Divine Grace, 'tis not fair to refuse his testimony now on the Eucharist, and treat him as an Author of small importance, that this is an exposing of a man's self plainly to the reproach of injustice and lightness. They must then deliver themselves at any rate from the im∣portunity of this Book, and absolutely deny that 'tis Ratram's. But the way to do it handsomly is difficult, seeing the Author of the Perpetuity seems to

have acknowledg'd that Bertram and Ratram were but one and the same person, and that he was the real Author of the Book in question. To get out of this vexatious suit, a Religious of S. Genevieve, whose name is not mention'd, opportunely offers himself. He sends a Dissertation touching John Scot and Bertram, wherein he makes a third Party between Mr. De Marca and the Author of the Perpetuity, to wit, that the Book is John Scot's; but an obscure and perplex'd piece. Mr. Arnaud adopts this Dissertation, and publishes it at the end of his Book. So that properly neither the Au∣thor of the Perpetuity retracts, nor Mr. Arnaud who contradicts him; but an anonymous Religious who gives us his conjectures. And by this means all is made whole again, and the Confession which the Author of the Per∣petuity has made is no more at farthest than the error of one man.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Book 1. of Euch. c. 1. Indic. Quirog. Ind. Clem. VIII. Indic. Sandov. An. 1612. Praefat. in Bibl. Sanct.
• * 1.2

  Proleg in appar.
• * 1.3

  Joan. Rosseus. proleg. in 4. lib. adv. Oecolamp. Artic. 2.
• * 1.4

  Indic. Belgic. voce Bertramus.
• * 1.5

  Lib. 1. de Praes. Chr. in Euch. c. 2. p. 10.
• * 1.6

  In Calvini ef∣fig. spect. 3. Col. 21. & Spect. 8. col. 72. Book 2. of Euch. Auth. 39. p. 666. and Usher de success. Eccl. c. 2. p. 41.
• * 1.7

  Dissert. Hist. c. 17. p. 134, 135.
• * 1.8

  Tome 2. Spicil.
• * 1.9

  Dissert. Hist. c. 17. p. 135.
• * 1.10

  Epist. ad De Luc d' Ach. T. 2. Spicil.
• * 1.11

  Answer to the Perpetuity, part 3. ch. 1.