I omit other corruptions of antiquity in this same question, which I have touched melsewhere: only that of Bertram I may not pass over, wherein the dishonesty of these men, in handling the writings of the ancient, is laid open, even by the confession of their own mouths. Thus the case standeth. That Ratrannus who joined with Rabanus in refuting the error of the carnal presence, at the first bringing in thereof by Paschasius ⟨p. 19⟩Ratbertus; is he who commonly is known by the name of Bertramus. The book which he wrote of this argument to Carolus Calvus the Emperor, was forbidden to be read, by order from the Roman Inquisition, confirmed afterwards by the Council of Trent. The Divines of Douai, perceiving that the forbidding of the book did not keep men from reading it, but gave them rather occasion to seek more earnestly after it: thought it better policy, that Bertram should be permitted to go abroad, but handled in such sort, as other ancient writers, that made against them, were wont to be. Seeing therefore (say nthey) we bear with very many errors in other of the old Catholic writers, and extenuate them, excuse them, by inventing some device oftentimes deny them, and feign some commodious sense for them, when they are objected in disputations or conflicts with our adversaries: we do not see, why Bertram may not deserve the same equity, and diligent revisal. Least the heretics cry out, that we burn and forbid such antiquity as maketh for them. Mark this dealing well. The world must be borne in hand, that all the Fathers make for the Church of Rome against us, in all our controversies. When we bring forth express testimonies of the Fathers to the contrary; what must then be done? A good face must be put upon the matter, one device or other must be invented to elude the testimonies objected, and still it must be denied that the Fathers make against the doctrine of the Papists. Bertram, for example, writeth thus. oThe things which differ one from another, are not the same. The body of Christ which was dead and rose again, and being made immortal now dyeth ⟨p. 20⟩not, (death no more having dominion over it) is everlasting, and now not subject to suffering. But this which is celebrated in the Church, is temporal, not everlasting; it is corruptible, not free from corruption. What device must they find out here?
I omit other corruptions of antiquitie in this same question, which I have touched melsewhere: only that of Bertram I may not passe over, wherein the dishonesty of these men, in handling the writings of the ancient, is laid open, even by the confession of their owne mouthes. Thus the case standeth. That Ratrannus who joined with Rabanus in refuting the error of the carnall presence, at the first bringing in thereof by Paschasius ⟨p. 19⟩Ratbertus; is he who commonly is knowen by the name of Bertramus. The booke which he wrote of this argument to Carolus Calvus the Emperour, was forbidden to be read, by order from the Roman Inquisition, confirmed afterwards by the Councell of Trent. The Divines of Doway, perceiving that the forbidding of the booke did not keepe men from reading it, but gave them rather occasion to seeke more earnestly after it: thought it better policy, that Bertram should be permitted to goe abroad, but handled in such sort, as other ancient writers, that made against them, were wont to be. Seeing therefore (say nthey) we beare with very many errors in other of the old Catholike vvriters, and extenuate them, excuse them, by inventing some device oftentimes deny them, and fayne some commodious sense for them, when they are objected in disputations or conflicts with our adversaries: wee doe not see, why Bertram may not deserve the same equitie, and diligent reviseall. Least the heretickes cry out, that we burne and forbid such antiquity as maketh for them. Marke this dealing well. The world must be borne in hand, that all the Fathers make for the Church of Rome against us, in all our controversies. When we bring forth expresse testimonies of the Fathers to the contrary; what must then be done? A good face must be put upō the matter, one device or other must be invented to elude the testimonies objected, and still it must be denied that the Fathers make against the doctrine of the Papists. Bertram, for example, writeth thus. oThe things which differ one from another, are not the same. The body of Christ which was dead and rose again, and being made immortall now dyeth ⟨p. 20⟩not, (death no more having dominion over it) is everlasting, and now not subject to suffering. But this which is celebrated in the Church, is temporall, not everlasting; it is corruptible, not free from corruption. What device must they finde out here?
- mDe Christian. Eccles. success. & statu, Edit. an. 1613. pag. 45. & 198.De Christian. Eccles. success. & statu, Edit. ann. 1613. pag. 45. & 198.
- nQuum igitur in Catholicis veteribus aliis plurimos feramus errors, & extenuemus, excusemus, excogitato commento persaepe negemus, & commodū iis sensū affingamus, dun opponuntur in disputationibus, aut in conflictionibus cū adversariis: non videmus cur non eandē aequitatem & diligentem recognitionem mereatur Bertramus. ne haeretici ogganniant, nos antiquitatem pro ipsis facientem exurere & prohibere. Index Expurg. Belgic. pag. 5. edit. Antuerp. an. 1571.Quum igitur in Catholicis veteribus aliis plurimos feramus errores, & extenuemus, excusemus, excogitato cōmento persaepe negemus, & commodū iis sensū affingamus, dū opponuntur in disputationibus, aut in conflictionibus cū adversariis: non videmus cur non eandē aequitatem & diligentem recognitionem mereatur Bertramus. ne haeretici ogganniant, nos antiquitatem pro ipsis facientem exurere & prohibere. Index Expurg. Belg•c. pag. 5. edit. Antuerp. ann. 1571.
- oQuae á se differunt, idem non sunt. Corpus Christi quod mortuū est & resurrexit, & immortale factū jam non moritur, & mors illi ultrà non dominabitur, aeternū est, nec jā passibile. Hoc autē quod in Ecclesiâ celebratur, temporale est, non aeternum; corruptibile est, non in corruptum. B•rtram. de corp. & sang. Dom.Quae á se differunt, idem non sunt. Corpus Christi quod mortuū est & resurrexit, & immortale factū jam non moritur, & mors illi ultrà nō dominabitur, aeternū est, nec jā passibile. Hoc autē quod in Ecclesiâ celebratur, tēporale est, non aeternum; corruptibile est, non in corruptum. B•rtram. de corp. & sang. Dom.
