nor even for a long time afterwards. This is acknowledged by a Calvinian professor at Leyden, in these words: "it is probable that the book of Ratramn was not published, because, otherwise, Lanfrancus would not have failed to mention it; Bertramni scriptum editum non fuisse credibile est, de quo alioquin Lanfrancus non fuisset taciturus." (Perpétuité de la Foi, 18mo, pp. 369, 370, and 4to, vol. i, b. xii, p. 29 of the Appendix.) The English author of the second preface, might also have ascertained from these accurate sources, that neither was Paschasius Radbertus the first who propounded transubstantiation, nor was the treatise of Ratramn written against this dogma which, on the contrary, he and Paschasius alike admitted with the whole Church; he might have learned from these authorities that the object of Ratramn's book was to discuss a question which was a mere matter of opinion, and which occupied the attention of scholars at that time. The question among them was to know whether, besides the reality of the body and blood of the Lord in the eucharist, there should also be admitted a figure of their actual presence; namely, whether the outward appearances of bread and wine which remain after the consecration, were to be considered as a figure of Christ concealed under them, and as a sort of veil destined to prevent him, though really present, from being perceptible to the senses. It was in reference to this and similar questions that Ratramn composed his treatise, as he himself states, in the first and second paragraphs.

5. We cannot but admire the consistency of Bishop Whittingham, with regard to the Benedictine monks. When he wishes to extol the merit of Ratramn as an author, their opinion being on this point in accordance with his own, "their authority is of the highest and most unquestionable kind.” (Preface, p. vi.) When the question is to ascertain the real meaning of Ratramn in his book on the eucharist, as their opinion on this subject is widely different from that of the bishop, he sets it aside without the least hesitation (pp. vii, viii); as if those persons who are most capable of appreciating an author, had been unable to under

stand his works, and had lost their judg ment in the examination of his sentiments, whilst they are admitted to be the most unquestionable vouchers of his literary merit! Diverse weights und diverse measures,—such is the policy of Bishop Whittingham in relation to the learned Benedictine monks of the congregation of St. Maur.

He does not, however, stop here; he alters their own words, and attributes to them sentiments which are not exactly theirs. According to them; it was King Charles the Bald, a man of no great soundness of judgment, who "chose Ratramn to be his instructor as to what he ought to believe concerning predestination and the eucharist." According to Bishop Whittingham this author was "selected for his ability to enlighten kis king on the subject of the presence of CHRIST in the eucharist, and so discharged his task in the estimation of the bishops of his country," &c. (p. ix), words which would lead the reader to suppose against the truth of history, that Ratramn's performance had been approved by the generality of the French prelates.

Again, the Benedictines affirm, without any superlative degree, but rather with some restriction, " If the difficulty of putting a right construction on his treatise on the eucharist, has excited suspicions in the minds of some moderns, concerning his faith as regards that article, he has had that stain advantageously wiped away, the last two centuries, by several celebrated theologians" (Preface, p. viii); but, according to the comment of the bishop, "it is admitted to be very difficult to put a construction compatible with the dogma of transubstantiation." (p. 9.) What are we to infer from these nice alterations, than that the gentleman, being conscious of the insecurity of the ground upon which he stands, has recourse to every sort of expedient to render it less insecure, if possible?

6. We are certainly authorised to form the same judgment of the appellation by which Bishop Whittingham affects to designate the Episcopalian Churches, situated on this and on the other side of the Atlantic; calling them the Catholic Churches in England and America. When some essen

tial characteristic or advantage is not possessed by an individual, it may be a consolation for him at least to assume its name; -: but what a poor consolation, in a matter of - so serious a nature as the Church, to assume the name, without having the reality! and who is there knowing that the word Catholic means universal, that will not smile at the strange idea and attempt of the bishop to apply it to a few Churches, not even united among themselves, of a part only of North America, and of a very small portion of Europe?

7. We shall say nothing more for the present on the prefaces of the two editors of Ratramn's work, as their chief misstatement concerning the meaning of this author, and particularly concerning the doctrine of the Church in his time, will be the subject of subsequent remarks. Before we enter, however, upon these observations, it will be necessary to premise a few words relative to the translation of Ratramn's book, a translation originally made in England, and now presented to the American public by Bishop Whittingham, who confidently proposes it as an accurate translation. Whether in thus commending it, and giving it the sanction of his name, he was conscious or ignorant of the many inaccuracies which it contains, and if ignorant, whether this disqualification to speak of its merits, was the effect of carelessness, we leave to others to judge. As for us, we have no hesitation in pronouncing the version very unfaithful, and that too on points of very great importance, as may be easily perceived from the following undeniable facts and quotations.

1. Whenever Ratramn, speaking of the eucharistic elements after the consecration, designates them by speciem visibilem, species, it is plain, both from the obvious signification of these words, and from the context of his book, that he means the visible form, the color, the shape, and other outward appearances of the bread and wine. That his meaning is no other than this, appears in several passages ; v. g. in the ninth section, where he says:

"That bread, which by the ministry of the priest, is made the body of Christ, showeth one thing outwardly to man's

senses, and proclaimeth another thing inwardly to the souls of the faithful. Outwardly, the form of bread, which it was before, is presented, its color is exhibited, its taste is perceived; but inwardly, a far different thing is declared (intimatur), and that much more precious, much more excellent, for it is heavenly, for it is divine; that is, Christ's body."

Again: "The wine, also, which by the priest's consecration is made the sacrament of Christ's blood, showeth one thing outwardly, and inwardly containeth another,"

etc.

It is, therefore, plain that Ratramn admits only the outward appearance of bread and wine to remain in the eucharist after the consecration: yet his translator every where renders the expression species, visibilem speciem, by the word nature, to make him signify that the nature of bread and wine also remains, and consequently that there is no Transubstantiation.

Ratramn's Words.

XVI. Non quod duarum sint existentiæ rerum inter se diversarum, corporis videlicet et spiritûs, verùm una eademque res secundùm aliud species panis et vini consistit, secundùm aliud autem corpus est et sanguis Christi. Secundum namque quod utrumque corporaliter contingitur, species sunt creaturæ corporea; secundum potentiam verò quod spiritualiter factæ sunt, mysteria sunt corporis et sanguinis Christi.

LVII. Hæc verò caro, quæ nunc similitudinem illius in mysterio continet, non sit specie caro, sed sacramento. Si quidem in specie panis est; in sacramento, verum Christi corpus, sicut ipse clamat Dominus Jesus, "hoc est corpus meum."

Words of the Translator.

XVI. Not that two things co-exist diverse between themselves, namely body and spirit, but one and the same thing hath in one respect the nature of bread and wine, in another is the body and blood of Christ. As far as they are corporally handled, they are in their nature, corporal creatures, but in their power, as they are spiritually made, they are the mysteries of the body and blood of Christ.

LVII. The flesh, which now in a myste

It is evident that, instead of in its nature there ought to be in both places in its appearance; otherwise flesh would be no flesh at all; the true body of Christ existing in the sacrament would not be his true body; Ratramn would have spoken a most ridiculous language, and Christ himself in saying, "this is my body," would not have spoken the truth. Let the same remark be applied to the same expressions in many other places of the so-called accurate translation, v. g. the end of numbers x, xii, &c., where nature is constantly thrust in for visible form or appearance.

Another glaring alteration is the turning of non esse cernuntur into evidently are not, instead of are not seen to be, and the addition of the word substance to the words of Ratramn, in a place where it is impossible for an attentive and impartial reader not to see that he speaks of the body of outward appearances, and exterior qualities of the eucharistic elements.

XV. Si aliud sint quam fuêre, mutationem accepêre. Cùm hoc negari non possit, dicant secundum quid permutata sunt; corporaliter namque nihil eis cernitur esse permutatum. Fatebuntur igitur necesse est, aut mutata esse secundum aliud quàm secundum corpus, ac per hoc non esse hoc quod in veritate videntur, sed aliud quod non esse secundum propriam essentiam cernuntur: aut si hoc profiteri noluerint, compelluntur negari corpus esse sanguinemque Christi, quod nefas est non solùm dicere, sed etiam cogitare.

XV. If they are other than they were before, they have undergone some change (it should be a change). Since this cannot be denied, let them say in what respect they are changed. For no bodily change (transeat) can be seen in them. They must, therefore, confess either that they are changed in respect of something else than their corporal substance, and that, therefore, they are not what in truth they seem to be, but somewhat

else, which they evidently are not in their proper essence; or, if they will not acknowledge this, they are forced to deny that they are the body and blood of Christ, which is impious, not only to say, but even to think.

The preceding paragraph, number xiv, presents another instance of egregious perversion of the sense, the less justifiable in our opinion, as it cannot be excused by any plea of ignorance in the translator. Ratramn speaking of those who were unwilling to admit with him, besides the real presence of Christ in the eucharist, a figure consisting in the remaining appearances of the eucharistic elements, says:

"Quærendum est ergò ab eis qui nihil hìc figuratè volunt accipere, sed totum in veritatis simplicitate consistere, secundum quod demutatio facta sit, ut jam non sint, quod antè fuerunt, videlicet panis atque vinum, sed sint corpus atque sanguis Christi."

66

They must be asked. . . in what respect the change has been made by which they are no longer what they were before, that is to say, bread and wine, but are the body and blood of Christ."

This passage, as every one will confess, is very strong in favor of the dogma of transubstantiation, nor do Catholics express it in more positive language at the present day. But our English translator of the Book of Ratramn has had the art to make the sentence run thus: "They, therefore, who will take nothing figuratively, but will have the whole matter consist in simple truth, must be asked, in what respect that change takes place, by which the elements come to be what they were not before (namely bread and wine), but the body and blood of Christ." Very innocent apparently is this slight inversion in the phraseology—a mere transfer of the syllable not from one verb to the other! yet it removes, or at least, considerably obscures the idea of transubstantiation, which Ratramn clearly expresses; but this suited the translator.

Such are, among other instances, the notable deficiencies of a translation so confidently presented to the American public as an accurate work. Had we not then reason to insinuate that the approbation and praise bestowed upon it by Bishop Whit

tingham, might be discreditable to his character or learning? Will not also the many inaccuracies and faults with which it abounds, raise a suspicion in the minds of many that there was a good reason not to print the original text of Ratramn side by side with the translation, and that it was found more convenient to insert it at the end of the volume? May we not hope also, that these considerations will lead our dissenting brethren to further reflection, and open their eyes to the religious as well as literary impositions, that are practised upon them?

8. We will now proceed to examine more fully the real doctrine of Ratramn concerning the eucharist; not that we attach any importance to the opinion of that author, but for the sake of historical truth, and to show that his book can be of no real service to our opponents, no matter under what point of view they may choose to consider the subject. We willingly admit that in several sections of the little treatise, there are obscure and singular expressions, for which it was justly disapproved by the Roman censors, and the author's name with reason discarded by the learned and pious Cardinal Bellarmine, from the list of those ecclesiastical writers who have deserved well of the Church. It can, however, be proved, without great difficulty, with Mabillon, Ceillier, Fleury, Natalis Alexander, &c., that the doctrine of Ratramn on the real presence and transubstantiation, although sometimes concealed under abstruse language, is no other than the Catholic doctrine. Among the many passages of his book which sustain us in this assertion, we select the following.

Section IX. "That bread, which by the ministry of the priest is made the body of Christ, showeth one thing outwardly to man's senses, and proclaimeth another thing inwardly to the souls of the faithful."

X. "Likewise the wine, which by the priest's consecration is made the sacrament of Christ's blood, showeth one thing outwardly, and inwardly containeth another."

XII. "How shall that be called the body of Christ, in which no change is known to be made?" We will here make a brief VOL. II.-No. 7.

remark, lest the drift of the English translation should lead into error. Ratramn in this passage, and in the two preceding sections, argues from the exterior appearance of the bread not undergoing any change, that it is not, therefore, this exterior appearance which can be called the body of Christ. Consequently he admits that the body of Christ is truly in the eucharist, and that it is there also in virtue of some change, or transubstantiation. "Here," says he, in the same section, "the bread and wine had a real existence, before they passed into the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ." XIII. "We here detect no change in taste, color, or smell. If then there is no change here, it is the same which it was before. But in truth it is somewhat else, since the bread is made the body, and the wine the blood of Christ. Christ himself hath said, take eat, this is my body.' Likewise, speaking of the cup, he saith, 'take, drink, this is the blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you.'"

XV; last lines. "To deny that they are the body and blood of Christ, is impious not only to say, but even to think." And he had said just before; "they, indeed, faithfully confess the body and blood of Christ, and by so doing, without doubt they profess that the elements are not the same thing which they were before; and if they are other than they were before, they have undergone some change."

XLII. "So that the bread which is offered, though taken from the fruits of the earth, is by consecration changed into Christ's body, and the wine, though it hath flowed from the vine, yet by the consecration in this divine mystery is made the blood of Christ, not indeed visibly, but, as this doctor (St. Isidore) saith, by the invisible operation of the Spirit of God."

XLIX. "From all that we have heretofore said, it hath been proved, that the body and blood of Christ, which in the Church are received by the mouths of the faithful, are figures according to the visible form. But according to the invisible substance, that is, the power of the word of God, they are truly the body and blood of Christ." &c., &c.

Let Bishop Whittingham discover, if he

53

can, in these passages, a denial or even a mere omission of the real presence and transubstantiation. Are they not plain

enough to show that Ratramn believed and taught, on the subject of the eucharist, exactly the same doctrine that Catholics profess and have always professed? Are we not fully authorized to assert that if, in several other places, where he examines various incidents of this mystery, he used obscure expressions, which the adherents of the council of Trent would not be inclined to adopt, even these were employed by him in a Catholic sense?* But perhaps the

*For instance, when he calls the body of Christ in the eucharist, a spiritual body, it is in the same sense in which St. Paul says of our bodies, that without ceasing to be real, they will be spiritual bodies after the resurrection. (1 Cor. xv, 66.) When he says that the mystery of the eucharist is performed spiritually, it is to signify a divine operation remote from the perception of sense. When he speaks of a figure, far from excluding the reality, he on the contrary means that the remaining appearances of the bread and wine are the veil under which Christ is concealed and really present. When the words substance, body, corporally, corporeal, are applied to the eucharistic elements, it is to designate what appears to be substance, the body of exterior qualities, shape, color, taste, and other appearances; (See Nos. 9, 10, 13, 16.) When it is said that the body of Christ in the eucharist is not the very same which was born of the B. Virgin, which suffered, which was nailed to a cross; that it exists there not in its form (specie), but in virtue; all this is merely to exclude from the sacrament the natural, visible and passible state of Christ during his mortal life, and to show that Christ, although really present in the eucharist, is not seen there, nor eaten after the manner of ordinary meats, but under the veil of the sacrament. (See nos. 56, 57.)

Nor is this an unfounded interpretation, gratui tously attributed to Ratramn; it is based upon the whole tenor of his work, upon the rules of sound criticism and a variety of forcible considerations. 1. Good sense and common justice require that, instead of judging of what is plain in an author from what is obscure, we should, on the contrary, elucidate and explain what may be obscure from what is plain and consistent. 2. It is reasonable, when any discussion of this nature arises, to abide by the judgment of those who examined the question with an unbiassed mind, before the controversy arose. Now, it is certain that, up to the time when Protestants endeavored to extort from Ratramn's work, something favorable to their views, it had always been quoted or mentioned as a Catholic work, first by Gerbert, who was elected to the papacy under the name of Silvester II, in 999, aud lastly by Fisher, bishop of Rochester, in his treatise against Ecolampadius in 1526. Not even did Berengarius, the first declared enemy of the real presence, who found himself attacked by all the doctors of his age, and condemned by the whole Church, ever dream of adducing Ratramn's treatise in favor of his innovation. 3. The very English translators of the little work must have been much of the same opinion, since they judged it necessary, in order to make it answer their purpose, to alter its expressions in

bishop would rather admit that Ratramn, an author of such standing and celebrity, is perpetually at variance with himself, and that his book so concise, explicit, intelligible. clear and consistent, is a mere compound, and one continued series of absurd reasonings and contradictions; but in this case, of what advantage can either the book or the author be to the Protestant cause?

If it follows from our arguments and proofs, that the many Protestant editors of Ratramn's treatise must have been wofully mistaken about its meaning, and that "a judicial blindness must have possessed them, to be so active in disseminating a work that taught transubstantiation," (Pref. p. 9.) these consequences are of no concern to Catholics. The fault is not ours, if the opponents of Catholicity, through a desire of upholding a groundless system, plunge headlong into insuperable difficulties: let them answer for themselves.

What has been said of Ratramn's book is entirely applicable to the Saxon homily of Elfric, who, having received his religious education from some monks of Corbey, adopted their peculiarities of language. Yet, whatever may be the obscurity of his style, let the reader judge whether the following sentences (pp. 95, 97) would sound well from a Protestant pulpit: "Much is betwixt the invisible might of the holy housel, and the visible shape of his proper nature; it is naturally corruptible bread and corruptible wine; and is, by might of God's word, truly Christ's body and his blood: not so, notwithstanding, bodily, but ghostly;" that is, not visibly, but invisibly; otherwise, how would it be truly Christ's body and blood?

several places. 4. Ratramn himself has defined the real meaning of his book, by concluding it with these words: "Let it not be thought from my saying this, that in the mystery of the sacrament, the body and blood of the Lord are not received by the faithful." (S. CI.) 5. He had, before and at the very be ginning, called the eucharist "a great and secret mystery; a subject far remote from human senses, and into which no one can penetrate, except by the teaching of the Holy Ghost." (Sec. 3, 4.) But now, what great mystery is there, nay, what semblance of mystery at all, if Christ be really and substantially absent, and if the bread and wine, preserving their nature, remain what they were before, namely a few drops of wine and a piece of bread!

We consider these reasons amply sufficient to satisfy every impartial and reasonable mind about the catholicity of Ratramu.