the Bald frequently appealed to his judgment, and the archbishop of Rheims gave over to him the
defense of the Roman Church against Photius. He participated in the great controversies upon
Predestination and the Eucharist. He was an Augustinian, but like his fellows he gathered his
arguments from all the patristic writers. In his works he shows independence and ingenuity. One
of his peculiarities is, that like Bishop Butler in the Analogy, he does not name those whom he
opposes or defends. He was living in 868; how long thereafter is unknown.
He was not a prolific author. Only six treatises have come down to us.
- A letter upon the cynocephali.^1365 It is a very curious piece, addressed to the presbyter
Rimbert who had answered his queries in regard to the cynocephali, and had asked in return for an
opinion respecting their position in the scale of being. Ratramnus replied that from what he knew
about them he considered them degenerated descendants of Adam, although the Church generally
classed them with beasts. They may even receive baptism by being rained upon.^1366
- How Christ was born.^1367 In this treatise Ratramnus refutes the theory of some Germans
that Christ issued from the body of the Virgin Mary in some abnormal way.^1368 He maintains on
the contrary, that the birth was one of the ordinary kind, except that his mother was before it, during
it, and after it a Virgin^1369 because her womb, was closed. He compares Christ’s birth to his issuing
from the sealed tomb and going through closed doors.^1370 The book is usually regarded as a reply
to the De partu virginis of Radbertus, but there is good reason to consider it independent of and
even earlier than the latter.^1371
- The soul (De anima). It exists in MS. in several English libraries, but has never been
printed. It is directed against the view of Macarius (or Marianus) Scotus, derived from a
misinterpreted sentence of Augustin that the whole human race had only one soul. The opinion was
condemned by the Lateran council under Leo X. (1512–17). - Divine predestination.^1372 It was written about 849 at the request of Charles the Bald,
who sought Ratramnus’ opinion in the Gottschalk controversy. Ratramnus defended Gottschalk,
although he does not mention his name, maintaining likewise a two-fold predestination, regardless
of the fact that the synods of Mayence (848) and of Quiercy (849) had condemned it, and Gottschalk
had been cruelly persecuted by Hincmar of Rheims. In the first book Ratramnus maintains the
predestination of the good to salvation by an appeal to the patristic Scriptural quotations and
interpretations upon this point, particularly those of Augustin. In the second book he follows the
same method to prove that God has predestinated the bad to eternal damnation. But this is not a
predestination to sin. Rather God foresees their determination to sin and therefore withholds his
help, so that they are lost in consequence of their own sins.
(^1365) Epistola de cynocephalis, Migne, CXXI. col. 1153-1156.
(^1366) "Nam et baptismi sacramentum divinitus illum consecutum fuisse, nubis ministerio eum perfundente, sicut libellus
ipse testatur, creditur," col. 1155.
(^1367) De eo quod Christus ex virgine natus est liber, ibid. col. 81 [not 31, as in table of contents]-102.
(^1368) Chap. I. col. 83.
(^1369) Chap. II. col. 84.
(^1370) Chap. VIII. col. 96.
(^1371) See Steitz in Herzog 2 (art. Radbertus) XII. 482-483.
(^1372) De praedestione Dei libri duo, Migne, CXXI. col. 11-80.