The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Notice
Advertiſement.
THOSE that ſhall caſt their eyes on this Anſwer, will be at firſt apt to think theſe Critical Queſtions belong only to Scholars. Whereas we have here ſeveral important matters of fact, which are in a manner neceſſary to the full underſtanding of the Controverſie of the Euchariſt. The Church of Rome pretends we have forſaken the Ancient Faith, and that Berenger was one of the firſt who taught our Doctrin in the beginning of the 11th. Century. We on the contrary maintain 'tis the Roman Church that has departed from the Ancient Belief; and that 'twas Paſchaſus Ratbert, who in the beginning of the 9th. Century taught the Real Preſence, and the Subſtantial Converſion. And to this in ſhort may he reduced the whole Controverſie which was between Mr. Claude and Mr. Arnaud.
Mr. Claude has ſtrenuouſly and clearly ſhewed that as many Authors as were of any Repute im the 9th. Century, have oppoſed the Doctrin of Paſchaſus; and that conſequently Paſchaſus muſt be reſpected as a real Innovator. Now amongſt theſe Writers, Mr. Claude produces John Scot, or Erigenus, and Bertram, or Ratram a Religious of Corby, two of the greateſt Perſonages of that Age, and ſhews they wrote both of 'em againſt the Novelties which Paſchaſus had broach'd; that one of 'em Dedicated his Book to Charles the Bald, King of France, and the other likewiſe wrote his by the ſame King's Order. That the firſt having lived ſome time in this Prince's Court, died at laſt in England in great reputation for his holineſs of Life; that the other was always eſteem'd and reverenced as the Defender of the Church, which ſeems to be deciſive in our favour.
Mr. Arnaud on his ſide, finding himſelf toucht to the quick by the conſequence of theſe Proofs, has uſed his laſt and greateſt Endeavours to overthrow or weaken 'em. And for this purpoſe has publiſh'd at the end of his Book two Diſſertations, the one under his own name, and the other under the name of a Religious of St. Genevieve, whoſe name is not mention'd. In the firſt, which is under the name of the Religious, he does two things; for firſt, he endeavours to perſuade that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is not in effect Ratram's, but John Scot's: And in the ſecond place he endeavours to decry John Scot, and deprive him of all Eſteem and Authority. In the other Diſſertation, Mr. Arnaud pretends that whoſoever was the Author of this Book, Mr. Claude has not rightly comprehended the ſenſe of it, and that this Book does not combat the Doctrin of Paſchaſus. And thus Mr. Arnaud pretends to diſcharge himſelf of Mr. Claude's proof, ſo that to take away from him this laſt ſubterfuge, and re-eſtabliſh this part of Mr. Claude's proof, it is neceſſary to ſhew clearly that the little Book of our Lords Body and Blood, is in effect Ratram's, and that this Book is directly oppoſite to the Doctrin of Paſchaſus, and that John Scot is an Author whoſe Teſtimony is of great weight and authority: which is what I have undertaken to do in this Anſwer: And I hope theſe kind of Elucidations will not be deemed unprofitable, or unpleaſant. Moreover, I did not think my ſelf oblig'd to enter into a particular Examination of the ſecond Diſſertation touching Bertram's Book, becauſe the Hiſtory which I make of this Book, the judgment which thoſe of the Church of Rome have made of it at ſeveral times, with what Mr. Claude alledges concerning it in the 11th. Chapter of his ſixth Book, are ſufficient to ſhew clearly that this Author has directly combated the Doctrin of Paſchaſus, without offering to tire the Readers with troubleſom repetitions. Moreover, we hope to give the Publick in a ſhort time a tranſlation of Bertram's Book, which being but a ſmall Treatiſe, requires only an hours reading, in which every one may ſee with their own eyes what's his true ſenſe, without a more tedious ſearch after it in Mr. Arnaud's Arguments, or mine.