and that (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore not in verity of Nature in spiritual Mystery they are truly Christs Body and Blood that is Sacramentally or in Signification Again he Illustrates the matter by comparing the change made by Consecration in the Eucharist with a twofold change made in Baptism neither of which is a substantial change 1 (c) Fol. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Inwardly changed With the change made in the Person Baptised who is inwardly changed not in Nature or Substance either of Soul or Body but morally 2 (d) gelice on hiÆ¿oðrum Æ¿aeterum i. e. Common Water a corruptible Liquor So the Eucharist With the change wrought in the Baptismal Water whose Substance as well as the sensible Accidents is confessed to remain and which by Consecration only acquires a Sanctifying Virtue And as he saith of the Water that in Verity of Nature it is a corruptible Liquor So (e) Hit is on gecynd brosniendlic hlaf and brosniendlic Æ¿in In Nature corruptible and therefore common Bread and Wine gesepenlican hiÆ¿e agenes gecyndes Fol. 34. which is of the same importance with Substantiae suae Species in Ratr. de Pred l. 2. p. 88. On gecynd is Substantialiter for so it is Translated by Aelfric where Bertram saith That Christ is neither Bread â—or a Vine Substantialiter n. 8. saith he of the Holy Eucharist it is in kind or nature Corruptible Bread and Wine distinguishing between the Invisible or Spiritual Virtue of it and the visible Species of its proper Nature This latter expression confounds the Popish Notion of Species conjoining the sensible Accidents with the Substance upon which Aelfric immediately addeth It is in kind or nature corruptible Bread and Wine but through the power of the Divine Word it is truly Christ's Body and Blood yet not corporally but spiritually The Saxon Word (f) gecynd signifying kind or nature cannot be perverted as the Latin Species is because though perhaps it may sometimes signifie the Natural Qualities of a thing yet it never signifies the Image or Resemblance of a thing and much less the sensible Qualities without their Subject Again he makes (g) Fol. 36. and Fol. 44. He bad them not to eat the Body ðe he mid befanten Æ¿aes in which he was apprehended but he meant the Holy Housel or Eucharist the Sacrament not to be Christ's Body wherein he Suffered nor his Blood shed on the Cross but to be his Body and Blood as the Manna and Rock in the Wilderness were And how is that (h) Fol. 40. Nas se stan lichamlice Crist ac he getacnode Crist. Not Corporally i. e. Not in Substance or truth of Nature Not Corporally Christ but it signified or was a Type of Christ Again reciting the words of our Saviour spoken to his Disciples Aelfric expounds THIS as signifying Bread which whoever doth cannot understand those words literally by the confession of our Adversaries (i) Etaþ Æ¿isne hlaf hit is min lichama This occurs twice in the Homily Fol. 28. and in Aelfrics latter Epistle Fol. 68. Eat THIS BREAD IT is my Body Which also Ratram in effect doth in those places which M. Boileau with little reason brags of for they make against him where he saith The Bread and Cup which is called and IS the Body and Blood of Christ For if Bread and the Cup be the Subject they cannot be affirmed to be the Body and Blood of our Saviour which was Born of the Virgin For Bread and Wine were not Born of the Virgin. Nor were they in rerum natura when our Saviour's Body was broken and his Blood shed for us on the Cross and consequently could not be that very Body And therefore of two absurd Opinions Transubstantiation seem'd a less absurdity than Consubstantiation and accordingly the Romanists being sensible of it rejected (k) Which appears to have been the Notion of Rupertus and others who held a Corporal Presence see the Preface to a Determination of Joan. Parisiensis Impanation and asserted a Miraculous Conversion whereby the substance of Bread is destroyed Now this Ratram in several places affirms viz. That Bread is Christ's Body but then teacheth us elsewhere in what sense he affirms it is so Figuratively it is so Spiritually which is the same The like also doth Aelfric with great Caution more than once adding nevertheless not so Corporally but Spiritually that is by a Figure In the same sense as the great City where our Lord was Crucified is said to be Spiritually called Sodom and Egypt Rev. 11.8 which all confess to be Figurative To this I shall add as a further evidence of our Saxon Ancestors belief that the Elements remain in their first substance that the Translator (l) Os þysum eorþlican Æ¿ine Mat. 26.29 of St. Matthew's Gospel calleth the Consecrated Wine Earthly Wine which was a voluntary Gloss to the use whereof the (m) De genimine vitis the Vulgar Latine gave him no Invitation and the same words are by Translators of the other Evangelists rendred literally The Fathers understand our Saviour to speak of the Consecrated Wine which this Translator would never have called Earthly Wine if he or the Saxon Church had believed it to be the Natural Blood of Christ or not believed the substance of Wine to remain after Consecration 4. Aelfric all along so expresseth himself that any Man may see he did not hold the Substance of Christ's Body and Blood to be in the Sacrament but only the Virtue and Efficacy thereof This is Ratram's express Doctrine and reflected on with displeasure by Paschase (n) Miror quid velint nunc quidam dicere non in re esse veritatem Carnis Christi vel Sanguinis sed in Sacramento Virtutem Carnis non Carnem virtutem Sanguinis non Sanguinem Figuram non Veritatem who professeth to wonder what some Persons meant who said that the Eucharist was not in reality Christ's true Flesh and Blood but Sacramentally the Virtue of his Flesh not Flesh the Virtue of Blood not Blood a Figure not the Truth Accordingly Aelfric when there is occasion to make an Antithesis of the Visible Sign to the Res Sacramenti doth not oppose an Invisible Substance or a Spiritual Body to the Visible Sacrament but only an Invisible Power or Virtue As in Baptism the Sanctifying Virtue to the Corruptible Liquor So in the Lord's Supper he opposeth a Spiritual Virtue to the Sensible Object which he calls a Corruptible Creature adding that there is a vast difference between the Invisible Virtue of the Holy Eucharist and the Visible shape of its proper Nature And speaking of some Mens receiving a bigger piece of the Consecrated Bread and others a less he saith the (o) Ac hit biþ ðeah phpaeder aeften gast lure miht on aelcum daele eall Fol. 36. whole Virtue not Substance of Christ's Body is as much in the one as the other and the Virtue being entire
Recantation he was the veriest Stercoranist who called Stercoranist first and Pope Nicolaus II. with the whole Council that imposed that Abjuration upon him were Stercoranists to some purpose who taught him (b) Of the Stircoranists an Imaginary Sect first discovered by Cardinal Perron see Conferences between a Romish Priest a Fanatick Chaplain and a Divine of the Church of of England p. 63. And Mr. L' Arroque in his Hist of the Eucharist Book II. ch 14. That Christ's Body is truly and sensibly handled and broken by the Priests Hands and ground by the Teeth of the Faithful And it is very unlikely that Bertram writ against such an Heresie when admitting him to have been of the same Faith with the Church of Rome touching Christ's Presence in the Sacrament he must have been a Stercoranist himself who asserts that what the Mouth receives is ground by the Teeth swallowed down the Throat and descends into the Belly nourishing the Body like common Food But (a) Mabillon Praef. ad sec IV. p. 2. nu 93. F. Mabillon waves this Pretence of the Stercoranists and makes Bertram to have through mistake opposed an Errour he thought Haymo guilty of viz. That the consecrated Bread and Cup are not signs of Christ's Body and Blood. I confess the words cited by him I can scarce understand but if that piece of Haymo be genuine by the citation he takes from him in the end of the same Paragraph in which he asserts That though the Taste and Figure of Bread and Wine remain yet the nature of the Substance is wholly turned into Christ's Body and Blood I see no reason why Bertram might not write against Paschasius and Haymo too Though in truth I do not imagine him to have confuted the Book of Paschasius but only his Notion in answer to the two Questions propounded to the King. Who were the Adversaries of Paschasius whose Doctrine is owned to be the Catholick Faith now held by the Roman Church he himself is best able to tell us and he informs us (a) Paschasius in Epist ad Frudegardum That they were such as denied the Presence of Christ's Flesh in the Sacrament but held an invisible power and efficacy in and with the Elements because say they there is no Body but what is visible and palpable which are the Sentiments of Ratramnus as will evidently appear to any unbyass'd Reader But to deprive us of all pretence to the Authority of Bertram they falsly impute to us the utter denial of the Verity of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament which we deny no otherwise than Bertram doth And to vindicate the Reformed Church of England in this point I shall propound her Doctrine out of her Liturgy Articles and Catechism In the Catechism we learn That the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lord's Supper In the 28 Article we profess That to them who worthily receive the Lord's Supper the Bread whith we break is the Communion of the Body of Christ and likewise the Cup of Blessing is the partaking of the Blood of Christ. In the Prayer before Consecration we beseech God that we may so eat the Flesh of Christ and drink his Blood that our sinful Bodies may be made clean by his Body and our Souls washed through his most precious Blood. In the Consecration Prayer we desire to be made partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood. And in the Post-Communion we give God thanks for vouchsafing to feed us with the spiritual food of Christ's most blessed Body and Blood. It is not the Verity of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament that our Church denies but the rash and peremptory determination of the manner of his Presence by the Roman Church 'T is a Corporal and Carnal Presence and Transubstantiation which we deny This our Church declares against in the Rubrick about Kneeling at the Communion asserting that we Kneel not (a) At the end of the Communion Service to adore any corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. That the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain in their very natural Substances after Consecration Also that the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one Our (b) Art. 28. Church declares that Transubstantiation cannot be proved by Holy Writ but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion to many Superstitions That Christ's Body is given taken and eaten in the Supper only in an Heavenly and Spiritual manner And that the means whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith only These are Authentick Testimonies of the Doctrine of our Church out of her publick Acts. I might add others of very great Authority out of the Apology for our Church written by the Learned Jewel together with its Defence by the Author Bishop (a) Eliensis Apolog. contra Bellarm. p. 11. Andrews against Bellarmine the Testimony of King James in (b) Casaubonus nomine Jacobi Regis in Epistola ad Card. Perronum p. 48. 51. ubi exscribit verba Eliensis Casaubon's Epistle to Cardinal Perron (c) Hooker Eccles Policy lib. 5. sect 67. Hooker Bishop (d) Montacutius in Antidiatrib contra Bulenger p. 143. Montague against Bulengerus c. but for brevity's sake I refer the Reader to the Books themselves And also for a Vindication of the Forreign Reformed Churches in this matter I desire the Reader to consult their Confessions and the Citations collected by Bishop (e) Hist Transub c. 2. Cosins out of their Confessions and their most Eminent Writers Both we and they assert the Verity of Christ's Body and Blood as far as the nature of a Sacrament will admit or is necessary to answer the ends for which that Holy Mystery was instituted by our Saviour We own a real communication of Christ's Body and Blood in that way which the Soul is only capable of receiving it and benefit by it We acknowledge the Verity of Christ's Body in the same sence that Bertram doth and deny the same Errors which the Church of Rome hath since imposed upon all of her Communion for Articles of Faith which Bertram rejected though since that time they are encreased in bulk and formed into a more Artificial Systeme Most if not all of these determinations of our Church are to be found in this little Book if not in express terms yet in such expressions as necessarily import them And perhaps the judgment of Bertram was more weighed by our Reformers in this Point than any of our Neighbour Churches Bishop (a) In Praef. libri de Coena Domini Latine excusi Genev. 1556. Ridley who had a great hand in compiling the Liturgy and Articles in King Edward VI. his Reign had such an esteem of
this Author and Work that he doth in his Paper given in to Queen Maries Commissioners at Oxford besides his own Answers and Confirmations insist upon whatever Bertram wrote on this Argument as a further proof of his Doctrine professing that he doth not see how any Godly Man can gain-say his Arguments and that it was this Book that put him first upon examining the old Opinion concerning the Presence of Christ's very Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament by the Scriptures and Elder Fathers of the Churcb and converted him from the Errours of the Church of Rome in that point And Dr. (a) Dr. Burnet's Hist of the Reform p. II. Book I. p 107. Burnet tells us the same adding That Ridley having read Bertram and concluding Transubstantiation to be none of the Ancient Doctrines of the Church but lately brought in and not fully received till after Bertram 's Age communicated the matter with Cranmer and they set themselves to examine it with more than ordinary care Thus he in the account he gives of the Disputation concerning the Real Presence A. D. 1549. which is the year in which the first Common-Prayer-Book of King Edward VI. was published at which time also Bertram was Printed in English by order of Bishop Ridley So that a Reverend and Learned Divine of our Church b had reason in asserting the Doctrine of Bertram was the very same Doctrine which (a) Several Conferences between a Popish Priest c. p. 61. the Church of England embraced as most consonant to Scripture and the Fathers Which is not what our Adversaries would put upon us that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a naked Commemoration of our Saviour's Death and a meer Sign of his Body and Blood but an efficacious Mystery accompanied with such a Divine and Spiritual Power as renders the consecrated Elements truly tho' Mystically Christ's Body and Blood and communicates to us the real Fruits and saving Benefits of his bitter Passion And this is the Doctrine of Bertram in both parts of this Work. CHAP. VI. That Ratramnus was not singular in his Opinion but had several other Great Men in his own and the following Age of the same Judgment with him in this Point BUt after all that I have said if Ratramnus tho' never so Learned or Orthodox were singular in his Sentiments touching Christ's Presence in the holy Eucharist we can make little of his Authority If the general Belief of the Church in his Time were contrary it only sheweth that one Eminent Divine had some Heterodox Opinions Let us therefore examine the Writers of his own Age and the next after him and see whether he or Paschasius delivered the current sence of the Church I shall not stand to examine the Belief of the more Ancient and Pure Times of Christianity but refer my Reader to Albertinus Archbishop Vsher and Bishop Cosins for an account of it I shall confine myself to the IX and X Centuries in which we shall find several of the most Eminent Doctors and Writers of the Church of the same Judgment with Ratramnus and some who were offended at the Doctrine of Paschasius And indeed there are manifest Tokens in his Book but more evident Proofs in his Epistle to Frudegardus that his Doctrine did not pass without contradiction in his own life time When he delivers his Paradox he prepares his Reader for some wondrous Doctrine And so strange was that new Doctrine of his that if the (a) Anonym de Euch. ad finem Sec IV. p. 2. Anonymous Writer published by F. Mabillon be Rabanus his Epistle to Egilo this Great and Learned Bishop professeth That he never heard or read it before and he much wondred that St. Ambrose should be quoted for it and more that Paschasius should assert it But F. Mabillon offers it only by way of conjecture modestly submitting it to the Judgment of Learned Men whether that Tract against Radbertus be the Epistle of Rabanus or not And I conceive there are better reasons to perswade us that it is not than those he offers to prove that it is As that it bears not the Name of Rabanus though himself mention his writing on that Subject to Egilo That it is not in an Epistolary Form Egilo is not so much as named nor doth any address to a second person appear throughout it but it is plainly a Polemical piece To which I may add that in the Anonymous piece there occurs an odd distinction of the same Body Naturaliter and Specialiter and yet in expounding the Doctrine of the Sacrament to Heribaldus it is not used by Rabanus though that Epistle to Egilo were first written But whoever he were that wrote it he was in all likelyhood an Author of the same Time and treats Paschasius very coursly and severely It is not likely that it was written while he was Abbot since the Author flouts him and in an Ironical way calls him Pontificem Among the Writers of the IX Century I shall number (a) Inter scriptores de Divinis Officiis Ed. per Hittorpium Par. 1610. col 303. Charles the Great though perhaps the Epistle to Alcuin was written somewhat before wherein he affirms that Christ supping with his Disciples brake Bread and gave it them with the Cup for a FIGVRE of his Body and Blood and exhibited a Sacrament highly advantagious to us As Venerable Bede before him speaks He gave in the Supper to his Disciples a FIGVRE of his Holy Body and Blood which notion consists not with the carnal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament (a) Apud L' Arroque Hist Euch. l. 2. c. 13. Theodulphus Aurelianensis near the beginning of this Century saith that by the visible offering of the Priest and the invisible consecration of the Holy Ghost Bread and Wine pass into the Dignity not the Substance of the Body and Blood of our Lord. As Jesus Christ is figured by the Wine so are the Faithful People by Water Amalarius (b) Amalarius Fortunatus Ibidem In Praefat. Col. 307. l. 1. c. 24. Fortunatus in the Preface of his Books of Divine Offices makes the Sacramental Bread and Wine to represent the Body and Blood of Christ and the Oblation to resemble Christ's own offering of himself on the Cross as the Priest doth the Person of Christ And elsewhere he saith that the Sacraments of Christ's Body are secundum quendum modum after some sort Christ's Body which is like Bertram's secundum quid not absolutely and properly but in some respect the Body of Christ and Amalarius cites that Passage of St. Augustine which Bertram alledged to render a reason why the Sacramental Signs have the name of the Thing signified What the Doctrine of Joannes Scotus was is hard to say only in the general 't is agreed that it was contrary to that of Paschasius though perhaps he erred on the other extreme making it a naked empty Figure or Memory of our Saviour's Death And
very old and but three years before his death 4. These words the same which is received from the Altar were as * Baluz in notis ad c. 33. Ad calcem Reginonis Baluzius and F. Mabillon observe razed out of the MS from whence Stevartius published that Epistle of Rabanus Which I take notice of because Mr. Arnauds Modest Monk of St. Genouefe makes so much difficulty to believe Arch-bishop Vsher who tells of a Passage of the same importance razed out of an old MS. Book of Penitential Canons in Bennet Colledg Library in Cambridge though he had seen it himself and no doubt the other MS. also out of which the lost passage was restored This Passage is an Authority of the X Century confirming †At the end of the Saxon Homily Printed by Jo. Day Bertram's Doctrine which I shall Transcribe But this Sacrifice is not the Body in which he suffered for us nor his Blood which he shed for us but it is Spiritually made his Body and Blood like the Manna rained down from Heaven and the Water which Flowed from the Rock as c. These words inclosed between two half Circles some had rased out of Worcester book but they are restored again out of a book of Exeter Church as is noted in the Margin by the first Publishers of this Epistle and the Saxon Homily they are both one Authors work viz. Elfric's Thus the Reader may be satisfied how the Passage was recovered And Bishop Vsher did not invent it which had it been lost utterly might also have been restored out of the Saxon Epistle printed immediately before it And now I am speaking of such detestable practices I cannot but add what for the sake of such a Passage hath befallen St. Chrysostom's Epistle to Caesarius The Passage runs thus * Sicut enim antequam Sanctificetur Panis Panem nominamus Divina autem illum sanctificante gratia mediante Sacerdote liberatus est quidem appellatione panis dignus autem habitus est Dominici Corporis appellatione etiemsi natura Panis in ipso permansit non duo corpora sed unum corpus Filii praedicamus sic c. Apud Steph. Le Moine inter Varia Sacra Tom. 1. p. 532. As before the Bread is Consecrated we call it BREAD but after the Divine Grace hath consecrated it by the Ministry of the Priest it is freed from THE NAME OF BREAD and honoured with THE NAME OF THE LORDS BODY though the NATVRE OF BREAD remaineth in it and we do not teach two Bodies but one Body of the Son so c. This Epistle Peter Martyr found in the Florentine Library and Transcribed several Copies of it one of which he gave to Arch-bishop Cranmer the Copies of this Epistle being lost the World was persuaded by the Papists that the Passage was a Forgery committed by Peter Martyr This past current for about a 100 years till at last Emericus Bigotius found it and Printed the whole Epistle with * Palladii vita Chrysostomi Gr. lat c. Quarto Par. 1680. Inter paginas 235. 245. In Schedis signatis G. g. H. h. the Life of St. Chrysostom and some other little things but when it was Finisht this †Vide Expostulationem hac de re editam in Quarto Londini 1682. Epistle was taken out of the Book and not suffered to see Light. The place out of which this Epistle was expunged is visible in the Book by a break in the Signature at the bottom and the numbers at the top of the Page But at length it is published by Mr. le Moine among several other Ancient pieces at Leyden 1685. And since more accurately in the Appendix to the Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England So that notwithstanding the French Monks indignation at the Learned Vsher for charging the Papists with the razure of an old MS. it s plain that such tricks are not unusual with them that they are more ancient than their publick Expurgatory Indices and more mischievous and that some of their great Doctors at this day make no conscience of stifling antient Testimonies against their corruptions when it lies in their power I shall trouble the Reader with no more Citations to prove the concurrence of other Doctors of the Ninth and Tenth Century with Ratramnus in his Sentiments touching Christ's Presence in the Holy Sacrament These are enough to shew that his opinion was neither singular nor novel and that though he be the fullest and most express witness of the Faith of those times yet he is not a single Evidence but is supported by the Testimonies of many of the best Writers of those times And his Doctrine is reproved by no body but Paschasius who reflects a little upon it in his Epistle to Frudegardus and that piece of his commentary on Matthew that is annext to it On the contrary the Doctrine of Paschasius was impugned as Novel and Erroneous by the Anonymous Writer published by F. Mabillon by Rabanus and Ratramnus neither doth it in all things please his Anonymous Friend said to be Herigerus who writes in his favour and collects passages out of the Ancients to excuse the simplicity of Paschasius His own writings shew that he valued himself upon some new discovery which excited many to a more perfect understanding of that great Mystery That his Paradox was in danger of passing for a Dream or * In Epistolis hortatur Placidum Regem Carolum ne existiment illum contexere fabulam de salsura Maronis Poetical fiction and that when he wrote to Frudegardus many doubted the truth of his Doctrine Frudegardus once his Proselite upon reading a Passage in St. †Augustin de Doct. Christ l. 3. c. 16. Augustine which Bertram also cites was dissatisfied with his Explication of Christs Presence and whether this Epistle did effectually establish him in the belief of Radberts Doctrine or whether he adhered to St. Augustine cannot now be known It is evident notwithstanding some gross conceipts which began to possess the minds of men in those dark and barbarous Ages that the Church had not as yet received the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation which was left by Paschasius its Damme a rude Lump which required much Licking to reduce it into any tolerable shape or form as a * The B. of St. Asaph in a Sermon before the late King 1678. Reverend Author observes and was not confirmed by the Authority of any Pope or Council in 200 Years after nor did the Monster receive its name till the Fourth Lateran Council The Writers of the Ninth and Tenth Centuries speak of a change or conversion of the Elements into Christ's Body but it is plain they mean not a Natural but a Mystical or Sacramental change such as happens upon the †See the Saxon Homily Christening of a Pagan they affirm the Elements to be Christs Body and Blood after
inwardly contains another For what doth outwardly appear but the substance of Wine Tast it there is the relish of Wine smell it there is the scent of Wine behold it there is the colour of Wine But if you consider it inwardly then it is not the Liquor of Wine but the Liquor of Christ's Blood which is Tasted Seen and Smelt Since these things are undeniable 't is evident that the Bread and Wine are Figuratively the Body and Blood of Christ As to outward appearance there is neither the Likeness of Flesh to be seen in that Bread nor the Liquor of Blood in that Wine and yet after the mystical Consecration they are no longer called Bread and Wine but the Body and Blood of Christ XI Another Argument from the nature of Faith. If according to the Opinion of some Men here is nothing Figuratively taken but the whole Matter is real then Faith operates nothing here is nothing Spiritual done but the whole is to be understood altogether corporally And seeing * Heb. 11.1 Faith is according to the Apostle the Evidence of things that appear not that is not of Substances which are seen but of such as are not seen we here shall receive nothing by Faith because we judge of the whole matter by our bodily Senses And nothing is more absurd than to take Bread for Flesh or to say that Wine is Blood Nor can that be any longer a Mystery in which there is no Secret no hidden thing contained XII And how can that be stiled Christ's Body and Blood There must be a Spiritual change for there is no Physical change wrought in the Sacrament in which there is not any change known to be made For every change is either from not being to being or from being to not being or else †That is from one quality to another from one being into another But in this Sacrament if the thing be considered in simplicity and verity and nothing else be believed but what is seen we know of no change at all made For there is no change from not being to being No Generation as in the production of things Since such did not exist before but past from a state of Non-entity into Being Whereas here Bread and Wine were real Beings before they became the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood. Nor is here a passage from being Nor Corruption to not being as there is in things decayed and corrupted For whatever perisheth once did subsist and that cannot perish that never was Now it is certain that there is no change of this kind made for 't is well known that the Nature of the Creatures remains in truth the very same that they were before XIII And as for that sort of change Nor Alteration whereby one thing is rendred another which is seen in things liable to vary in their qualities as for example when a thing that was before black is made white it is plain that this change is not made here For we can perceive no alteration here either as to touch colour or taste Therefore if nothing be changed the Elements are nothing but what they were before And yet they are another thing for the Bread is made the Body and the Wine is made the Blood of Christ For he himself hath said * Matth. 26.26 Take eat this is my Body And likewise speaking of the Cup he saith †Mark 14.24 Take and drink this is my Blood of the New Testament which shall be shed fon you XIV I would now enquire of them who will take nothing Figuratively but will have the whole matter plainly and really transacted In what respect is this change made so that the things are not now what they were before to wit Bread and Wine but the Body and Blood of Christ For as to the Nature of the Creature and the form of the visible things both to wit the Bread and Wine have nothing changed in them And if they have undergone no change they are nothing but what they were before XV. Your Highness sees They who will admit no figure in the Sacrament contradict themselves Illustrious Prince the tendency of their opinion who think thus They deny what they seem to affirm and plainly overthrow what they believe For they faithfully confess the Body and Blood of Christ and in so doing no doubt they profess that the Elements are not what they were before And if they now are other than they were before they have admitted some change This inference being undeniable let them now tell us in what respect they are changed For we see nothing corporally changed in them Therefore they must needs acknowledge either that they are changed in some other respect than that of their Bodies and in this respect they are what we see they are not in truth but somewhat else which we discern them not to be in their proper Essence or if they will not acknowledge this they will be compelled to deny that they are Christ's Body and Blood which is abominable not only to speak but even to think XVI But since they do confess them to be the Body and Blood of Christ which they could not have been but by a change for the better nor is this change wrought Corporally but Spiritually It must necessarily be said to be wrought Figuratively Because under the Vail of material Bread and material Wine the Spiritual Body and Spiritual Blood of Christ do exist Not that there are together existing two natures so different as a Body and Spirit But one and the same thing in one respect hath the nature of Bread and Wine and in another respect is the Body and Blood of Christ For both as they are Corporally handled are in their nature Corporeal Creatures but according to their Virtue and what they are Spiritually made they are Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ XVII Let us consider the Font of holy Baptism He Illustrates the matter by comparing the two Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Body which is not undeservedly stiled the Fountain of Life because it regenerates those who descend into it to the Newness of a better Life and makes those who were dead in Sins alive unto Righteousness Is it the visible Element of Water which hath this efficacy Verily unless it had obtained a Sanctifying virtue it could by no means wash away the stain of our Sins And if it had not a quickning Power it could not at all give Life to the Dead The Dead I mean not as to their Bodies but their Souls Yet if in that Fountain you consider nothing but what the bodily Sense beholdeth you see only a fluid Element of a corruptible Nature and capable of washing the Body only But the Power of the Holy Ghost came upon it by the Priests Consecration it obtained thereby an efficacy to wash not the Bodies only but also the Souls of Men and by a Spitual virtue to
take away their Spiritual filth XVIII Behold how in one and the same Element are seen two things contrary to each other a thing Corruptible giving Incorruption and a thing without Life giving Life It is manifest then that in the Font there is both somewhat which the bodily sense perceiveth which is therefore mutable and corruptible and somewhat which the Eye of Faith only beholds and therefore is neither Corruptible nor Mortal If you enquire what washes the outside it is the Element but if you consider what purgeth the inside it is a quickning power a Sanctifying power a power conferring Immortality So then in its own nature it is a Corruptible Liquor but in the Mystery 't is a Healing Power XIX Thus also the Body and Blood of Christ considered as to the outside only is a creature subject to change and Corruption But if you ponder the efficacy of the Mystery it is Life conferring Immortality on such as partake thereof Therefore they are not the same things which are seen and which are believed For the things seen feed a Corruptible Body being corruptible themselves But those which are believed feed immortal Souls being themselves immortal XX. The Apostle also writing to the Corinthians saith * 1 Cor. 10.2 3. Know ye not This is further illustrated by the Baptism of the Fathers in the Sea and Cloud and by the Manna and Spiritual Rock which afforded Meat and Drink to the Fathers how that all our Fathers were under the Cloud and all passed through the Sea and were all Baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea and did all eat the same Spiritual Meat and did all Drink the same Spiritual Drirk for they drank of that Spiritual Rock that followed them And that Rock was Christ We see both the Sea and the Cloud bore a resemblance of Baptism and that the Fathers of the Old Testament were Baptized in them viz. the Cloud and the Sea. Now could the Sea as a visible Element have the power of Baptizing Or could the Cloud as a condensation of the Air Sanctifie the People And yet we dare not say but that the Apostle who spake in Christ did truly affirm that our Fathers were Baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea. XXI And although that Baptism was not the same with the Christian Baptism now Celebrated in the Church yet that it was Baptism and that our Fathers were therewith Baptized no Man in his Wits will deny None but a man that would presume expresly to contradict the Words of the Apostle Therefore the Sea and Cloud did sanctifie and cleanse not as they were meer bodily Substances but as they did invisibly contain the sanctifying Power of the Holy Ghost For there was in them both a visible Form appearing to the bodily Eyes not in Image but in Truth and also a spiritual Virtue shining within which was not discernable by the bodily Eyes but by those of the Mind XXII Likewise the Manna which was given the People from Heaven and the Water flowing out of the Rock were corporeal Substances and were both meat and Drink for the nourishment of the Peoples Bodies Nevertheless the Apostle calls even that Manna and that Water spiritual Meat and spiritual Drink Why so Because there was in those bodily Substances a spiritual Power of the Word which rather feed and gave Drink to the minds than the Bodies of the Faithful And whereas that Meat and Drink prefigured the future Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ which the Church now Celebrates St. Paul nevertheless affirms That our Fathers did eat the same Spiritual Meat and drank the same Spiritual Drink XXIII Perhaps you will ask In what sense the Fathers eat and drank the same spiritual Meat and Drink with us What same Even the very self-same Food which the Faithful now eat and drink in the Church Nor may we think them different since it is one and the same Christ who then in the Wilderness fed the People that were Baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea with his own Flesh and made them to drink his own Blood and who now in the Church feeds the Faithful with the Bread of his Body and makes them to drink the Liquor of his Blood. XXIV The Apostle intending to intimate thus much when he had said that our Fathers did eat the same Spiritual Meat and drank the same Spiritual Drink he adds And they all drank of that Spiritual Rock which followed them and that Rock was Christ To the end we might understand that in the Wilderness Christ was in the Spiritual Rock and gave the Liquor of his Blood to the People who afterwards * That is under the Gospel in our times exhibited his Body born of a Virgin and Crucified for the Salvation of such as believe out of which he shed streams of Blood whereof we are made to drink and not only redeemed therewith XXV Truly it is wonderful because it is incomprehensible and inestimable He had not yet assumed Man's Nature he had not yet tasted of Death for the Salvation of the World he had not yet redeemed us with his Blood whenas our Fathers in the Wilderness even then in their Spiritual Meat and Invisible Drink did eat his Body and drink his Blood as the Apostle testifies saying That our Fathers did eat the same spiritual Meat and drank of the same spiritual Drink Now we must not enquire how that could be but must believe that it was so For he who now in the Church doth by his Almighty Power spiritually change Bread and Wine into the Flesh of his own Body and the Liquor of his own Blood he also did invisibly make the Manna given from Heaven his own Body and the Water issuing from the Rock his own Blood. XXVI Which David understanding spake by the Holy Ghost saying (a) Psal 27.25 Man did eat Angels Food For it is ridiculous to imagine That the corporeal Manna given to the Fathers doth feed the Heavenly Host or that they use such Diet who are satiated with Feasting on the Divine Word The Psalmist or rather the Holy * Mat. 26.26 27 28. Luke 22.19 20. Ghost speaking of the Psalmist teacheth us both what our Fathers received in that Heavenly Manna and what the Faithful ought to believe in the Mystery of Christ's Body In both certainly Christ is signified who both feeds the Souls of the Faithful and is the Food of Angels And both he doth and is by a spiritual Relish not by becoming bodily Food but by virtue of the spiritual Word XXVII We are taught also by the Evangelist He argues from the Institution of this Sacrament before our Lord's Passion That our Lord Jesus Christ before he Suffered took Bread and when he had given Thanks he gave it to his Disciples saying This is my Body which is given for you do this in remembrance of me Likewise the Cup after he had supped saying This Cup is
the New Testament in my Blood which shall be shed for you You see Christ had not yet Suffered and yet nevertheless he celebrated the Mystery of his own Body and Blood. XXVIII For I am confident no Christian doubts but that Bread was made the Body of Christ which he gave to his Disciples saying This is my Body which is given for you or but the Cup contains the Blood of Christ of which he also saith This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which shall be shed for you Wherefore as a little before his Passion he could change the Substance of Bread and the Creature of Wine into his own Body which was to Suffer and his own Blood which was to be shed so also could he in the Wilderness change Manna and Water out of the Rock into his Body and Blood though it were a long time after ere that Body was to be Crucified for us or that Blood to be shed to wash us XXIX Here also we ought to consider how those Words of our Saviour are to be understood He expounds Joh. 6.53 wherein he saith * John 6.53 Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you have not Life in you For he doth not say that his Flesh which hung on the Cross should be cut in pieces and eaten by his Disciples or that his Blood which he was to shed for the Redemption of the World should be given his Disciples to drink For it had been a Crime for his Disciples to have eaten his Flesh and drunk his Blood in the sense that the unbelieving Jews then understood him XXX Wherefore in the following words he saith to his Disciples who did not disbelieve that Saying of Christ though they did not yet penetrate the true Meaning of it * John 6.53 Doth this offend you What if ye shall see the Son of Man ascending up where he was before As though he should say Think not that you must eat my Flesh and drink my Blood corporally divided into small pieces for when after my Resurrection you shall see me ascend into the Heavens with my Body entire and all my Blood Then you shall understand that the Faithful must eat †John 6.69 my Flesh not in the manner which these Unbelievers imagine but that indeed Believers must receive it Bread and Wine being mystically turned into the substance of my Body and Blood. XXXI And after * John. 6.66 It 's the Spirit saith he that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing He saith The Flesh profiteth nothing taken as those Infidels understood him but otherwise it giveth Life as it is taken mystically by the Faithful And why so He himself shews when he saith It is the Spirit that quickneth Therefore in this Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ there is a spiritual Operation which giveth Life without which Operation the Mysteries profit nothing because they may indeed feed the Body but cannot feed the Soul. XXXII Now there ariseth a Question moved by many who say that these things are done not in a Figure but in Truth but in so saying they plainly contradict the Writings of the Fathers XXXIII St. Augustine St. Augustine quoted an eminent Doctor of the Church in his Third Book De Doctrina Christiana writes thus Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man saith our Saviour and drink his Blood you shall not have Life in you He seems to command a flagitious Crime Therefore the Words are a FIGURE requiring us to communicate in our Lord's Passion and faithfully * In the printed Edition of St. Augustine and Bertram we read sweetly and profitably to lay up to lay up this in our Memory that his Flesh was Crucified and Wounded for us XXXIV We see this Doctor saith that the Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood is celebrated by the Faithful under a FIGURE For he saith To receive his Flesh and Blood carnally is not an Act of Religion but of Villany For which Cause they in the Gospel who took our Saviour's Words not Spiritually but Carnally departed from him and followed him no more XXXV Likewise in his Epistle to Boniface a Bishop among other things he saith thus We often speak in this manner when Easter is near we say to Morrow or the next day is the Lord's Passion although he Suffered many Years since and Suffered but once Likewise we say on the Lord's Day This day our Lord rose again when yet so many years are passed since he rose again Why is no Man so foolish as to charge us with Lying when we speak thus But because we call these Days after the likeness of those Days in which these things were really done So that the Day is called such a Day which in truth is not that very Day but only like it in Revolution of Time and by reason of the Celebration of the Sacrament that is said to be done this Day which was not done this very Day but in Old Times Was not Christ offered up once only in his own Person and yet in the Sacrament he is offered for the People not only every Easter but every Day Nor doth that Man tell a Lye who being asked shall answer that he is offered For if Sacraments had not some Resemblance of those things of which they are the Sacraments they would not be Sacraments at all And from that Resemblance they commonly take the Names of the Things themselves Whereas the Sacrament of Christ's Body is in some sort the Body of Christ and the Sacrament of Christ's Blood is in some sort the Blood of Christ so the (a) The Sacrament of the Faith i. e. Baptism as appears by the following words in St. Austin in his 23. Epistle which is here cited Sacrament of the Faith is the Faith. XXXVI We see St. Augustine saith that Sacraments are one thing and the things of which they are the Sacraments are another thing Now the Body in which Christ suffered and the Blood which issued out of his Side are Things but the Mysteries of these things he saith are Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ which are celebrated in Remembrance of our Lord's Passion not only every Year at the great Solemnity of Easter but every day of the Year XXXVII And whereas there was but one Body of the Lord in which he suffered once and one Blood which was shed for the Salvation of the World yet the Sacraments of these have assumed the Names of the very things so that they are called the Body and Blood of Christ And yet are so called by reason of the Resemblance they bear to the things which they signifie As they stile these respective Days which are annually celebrated the Passion and Resurrection of our Lord whereas in truth he suffered and rose again but once in his own Person nor can the very Days return any more being long since past Nevertheless the Days in which the Memory of
delights the Palate What Is to taste the Lord to perceive any Corporeal Object Wherefore he invites them to make Tryal by their Spiritual Faculty of Tasting and not think of any thing Corporeal either in that Drink or Bread but to understand every thing Spiritually For the Lord is a Spirit and blessed is the Man that trusteth in him LIX And afterwards Christ is in the Sacrament because it is the Body of Christ yet it is not therefore Bodily Food but Spiritual What could be more plainly clearly and more divinely said For he saith in that Sacrament Christ is but he doth not say that Bread and that Wine is Christ which should he have said he would have made Christ corruptible and mortal which God forbid he should For it is certain that whatsoever is corporeally seen or tasted in that Food is liable to corruption LX. He adds Because it is Christ's Body You will reply upon me Look here he plainly acknowledges this Bread and Wine to be Christ's Body But have patience and mark what he subjoyns Yet this is not bodily Food but spiritual Use not therefore thy bodily Sense for it is no Judge in this Matter It is the Body of Christ indeed yet not Corporal but Spiritual It is the Blood of Christ yet not Corporal but Spiritual So that nothing is here to be understood Corporally but Spiritually It is the Body of Christ but not Corporally It is the Blood of Christ but not Corporally LXI And afterwards Wherefore the Apostle saith he speaking of the Type thereof saith That our Fathers did eat Spiritual Meat and drank Spiritual Drink For the Body of God is Spiritual The Body of Christ is the Body of a Divine Spirit as we read in the Lamentations * The Place St. Ambrose cites is Lam. 4.20 where the LXX read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the vulgar Latine Christus Dominus but our English Translation renders it truly The Lord 's Anointed By which Expositors understand not Jesus Christ but either Josiah or as some think Zedekiah Christ the Lord is the Spirit before our Face LXII He very clearly teaches how we are to understand the Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood For having said our Fathers did eat Spiritual Meat and drank Spiritual Drink when no body doubts that the Manna which they did eat and the Water which they drank were Corporeal He adds concerning the Mystery which we now celebrate in the Church determining in what Sense it is Christ's Body For the Body of God is a Spiritual Body Verily Christ is God and the Body which he took of the Virgin Mary which Suffered was Buried and Rose again was his true Body that is it remained such as might be seen and felt but the Body which is called the Mystery of God is not Corporeal but Spiritual and if Spiritual then it can neither be seen nor yet felt And for this reason St. Ambrose proceeds to say The Body of Christ is the Body of a Divine Spirit Now a Divine Spirit is no Corporeal Corruptible or palpable Being But that Body which is celebrated in the Church according to its visible Nature is both Corruptible and such as may be felt LXIII In what respect then is it called the Body of a Divine Spirit Truly as it is Spiritual that is as it is invisible as it cannot be felt and is therefore incorruptible LXIV Which makes him further add That Christ is a Spirit as we read Christ the Lord is the Spirit before our Face Whereby he plainly shews in what respect it is accounted Christ's Body to wit in as much as the Spirit of Christ is therein that is to say the Power of the Divine Word which doth not only feed but also purifies the Soul. LXV Wherefore our Author goes on Lastly this Meat strengtheneth our Heart and this Drink maketh glad the Heart of Man as the (b) Psal 104.15 Prophet testifies Now doth our Bodily Food strengthen or doth this Bodily Drink make glad the Heart of Man But to shew of what Meat and Drink it is that he speaks he adds emphatically This Meat and this Drink What is this Meat and this Drink Even the Body of Christ the Body of the Divine Spirit and to explain the Matter yet more Christ himself who is a Spirit of whom he saith Christ the Lord is the Spirit before our Face By all which Discourse it evidently appears that in this Meat and Drink nothing is to be corporally understood but all must be Spiritually taken LXVI For the Soul which is in this place signified by the Heart of Man is not fed with bodily Meat or Drink but is nourished by the Word of God and grows thereby Which the same Doctor doth more expresly affirm in his Fifth Book upon the Sacraments saying It is not that Bread which goes into the Body but the Bread of Life Eternal which affords Sustenance to our Souls LXVII And that St. Ambrose spake not this of common Bread but of that Bread which is also Christ's Body is most manifest from the following Passages For he speaks of the Daily Bread which the Faithful pray for LXVIII Adding If it be Daily Bread why dost thou receive it but once in the Year as the Greeks in the East were wont to do Receive that every Day which may every Day do thee good and live so that thou mayest be every Day worthy to receive So that it is plain of what Bread he speaks to wit of the Bread of Christ's Body which sustains our Souls not as it passes into our Bodies but as it is the Bread of Eternal Life LXIX By the Authority of this most Learned Father He Sums up the force of St. Ambr. his Discourse we are taught how vast a difference there is between the Body in which Christ suffered and the Blood which he shed out of his Side as he hung on the Cross and that Body which is daily celebrated by the Faithful in the Mystery of his Passion and that Blood which is received with their Mouths as the Sacrament of that Blood wherewith the whole World was Redeemed For that Bread and Drink are not the Body and Blood of Christ as they are visible but as they Spiritually minister the Sustenance of Life Moreover that Body in which Christ once suffered appeared to be no other thing than really it was for such it really was as it appeared to the eye to the touch the same thing which was Crucified and Buried Likewise the Blood issuing from his Side did not outwardly appear one thing and inwardly contain another So that true Blood flowed from his true Side But now the Blood of Christ which the Faithful drink and that Body which they eat are one thing in their Nature and another in their Signification one thing as they feed the Body Bodily Food and another thing as they feed the Soul viz. the Sustenance of Eternal Life LXX Of which matter St. Hierom in his Comment
in the smaller piece must consequently be equal to the Virtue of the whole Host This is a very intelligible Notion That in Signification and Efficacy a part may be equal to the whole especially where it operates as a Moral Instrument But to say that in Substance or Quantity after infinite Divisions the least sensible Part should be equal to the whole is an insolent Contradiction to the standing Principles of Geometry And in some places he so renders Bertram that the Passages which in the Author appear a little favourable to M. Boileau's Exposition in Aelfric's Paraphrase quite subvert it comparing the Sacrament of Baptism with the Holy Eucharist having determined that Water in the Former is in its own nature a corruptible Liquor but in the Sacrament it is an Healing Virtue saith in like manner of the Holy Eucharist That outwardly considered the Body and Blood of Christ is a corruptible Creature but if you ponder its Mystical Virtue it is Life M. Boileau Translates Superficie tenus considerata consider'd as to its Exterior Superficies which falleth under Sense on purpose to beguile the Reader and make him believe that Bertram calls the Sensible Accidents only a corruptible Creature But Aelfric renders Superficie tenus (p) aeften lichamlicum andgite Fol. 32. after bodily Understanding that is consider'd Corporally or in its Nature in opposition to its Virtue and Beneficial Efficacy For so he expounds himself immediately and that Ratram intended not to separate the Superficies from its Subject is I think very evident from N. 10. (q) Vinum quoque aliud Superficie tenus ostendit aliud interius continet Quid enim aliud in Superficie quam SUBSTANTIA VINI conspicitur Ratr. N. 10. where he saith of the Consecrated Wine What do we discern else in its Superficies but the Substance of Wine And speaking of the Baptismal Water he useth the like Phrases (r) In eo tamen fonte si consideretur solummodo quod corporeus aspicit Sensus c. n. 17. Cognoscitur ergo in eo fonte inesse quod Sensus corporis artingat idcirco mutabile atque corruptibile n. 18. as it is seen by the Bodily Sense it is a corruptible fluid Element and again There is in the Holy Font that which the Bodily Sense can reach which is mutable c. and yet no Body will pretend that those Phrases import no more than the Sensible Accidents of Water without its natural Substance So then Substances are Objects of Sense by the good leave of the (s) Transubstantiation defended p. 5 Defender of Transubstantiation tho' he Chastiseth his Learned Adversary as one who hath less Logick than a Junior Soph for saying that it is a matter of Sense that we dispute with the R.Cs. when we prove the Holy Eucharist to be Bread and not Flesh and for all the Maxims which he gravely lays down against it Substances do truly though not immediately affect the Organs of Sense which are competent Judges of the Essential difference of Bodies by their proper Sensible Qualities And all this he confesseth as soon as his Passion is a little spent Again AElfric teacheth us Ratram's true sense of Christ's Spiritual Body and shews it to be vastly wide of what the Romanists fancy For he meant not thereby Christ's Natural Body subsisting after the manner of a Spirit that is without being Visible or Local and without its proper Dimensions under the Visible forms of Bread and Wine but on the contrary by Christ's Spiritual Body he understands the Viible Sacrament or consecrated Bread which he calls the Holy Housel and stles it a Spiritual Body in (t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen in Matth. Tom. I. pag. 254. Edit Huetianae Origen's sense when he calls it a Typical or Symbolical Body or as the Apostle calls the Rock in the Wilderness a Spiritual Rock (u) I Cor. 10.4 i.e. a Typical Rock To make out this I need only produce his bare words where distinguishing his Body wherein he Suffered from that in the Sacrament he proves them to be quite different things because the former was born of the Flesh of Mary with Blood Bones Skin Sinews distinct Limbs and animated with a Rational Soul whereas (w) Saxon Hom. fol. 34 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of manegum cornum gegaderod Et Ratramnus n. 72 At vero caro Spiritualis quae Populum credentem Spiritualiter pascit secundum speciem quam gerit exterius frumenti granis manu artificis consistit c. his SPIRITUAL BODY which we call the HOUSEL is made up of many Corns without Blood Bone Limb or Soul c. Therefore not as the Trent Fathers teach us the entire Person of Christ Body Soul and Divinity It is obvious also to remark the same thing fairly intimated by him in another place where expounding these words of our Saviour He that eareth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath everlasting Life He glosseth thus after St. Austine (x) Liflica hlaf fol. 69. gastlice husel fol. 71. He did not command them to eat that Body in which he was apprehended nor to drink that Blood which he shed for us but he meant the holy HOUSEL by those words which is SPIRITUALLY his Body and Blood and proceeds immediately after Fulgentius and Ratram to compare the Legal Sacrifices with this Eucharistical one and makes the difference principally to consist herein that the Legal Sacrifices did PREFIGURE Christ TO BE given us and the Holy Eucharist was a commemorative Type or Memorial of Christ ALREADY given to Die for our Sins And in Elfrics latter Epistle he saith that the Consecrated Bread (y) On lichamlican ðinge ac on gastlecum and gyte fol. 69. which he calls Living Bread that it is not Christ's Body in Corporal Substance or Reality but in a Spiritual i. e. Sacramental or Mystical Sense I could add many more Observations from this Homily and other Monuments of our Saxon Ancestors which shew that the Transubstantiators and not we are departed from the Faith of our Ancestors 700 years ago As his speaking of (a) ðeah sume men gesceote laes se dael ne biþ sƿa mare miht on ðam maran daele ðonne on þam laessan fol. 37. pieces of Christ's Body and (b) Fol. 62. 65. its growing black hoary or rotten whereas no such division or ill-favoured Accidents can happen to Christ's true Body and how new Accidents can be generated without a Subject or be subjected in the remaining Accidents of Bread and Wine is a Phaenomenon that transcends all Philosophical Solution For Consecration can have no effect on Accidents not existing and which have no relation at all to the Holy Mystery and consequently cannot be presumed to exempt them from the common Law of Accidents which necessarily require a Subject to subsist in whereas these are not subjected in Christ's Body and how they should be subjected in other Accidents Aristotle himself would not be
Teste Mabilioni ebi supr n. 156. de Anima at the instance of Odo sometimes Abbot of Corbey and Bishop of Beauvais against a Monk of the same Convent who taught that all Men had but one and the same Soul which Book is extant in Manuscript in the (c) Vsserio Hist Gottesch c. 2. Library of Bennet College in Cambrige in that of Salisbury Church and of St. Eligius at Noyon in France but not Printed About the Year 868. Pope (a) Vide Mauguin T. 2. Dissert c. 17. Titulus libri sic se habet Contra opposita Graecorum Imperatorum Romanam Ecclesiam infamantium libri quatuor Rathramni Monachi Teste Mabillonio Nicolaus I. having desired Hincmarus and the French Bishops to Consider and Answer the Objections of the Greeks against the Latine Church and Hincmarus having employed Odo Bishop of Beauvais therein it is likely he recommended our Author to the Bishops as a Man fit to underrake such a Work and accordingly he wrote four Books on that Occasion published by (b) Spicileg T. 2. Dacherius He hath also among the (c) Vide Felleri Catal. Codd MSS. Biblioth Paulinae in Acad. Lipsiensi Duod 1686. p. 125. MSS. of Leipsick Library an Epistle concerning the Cynocephali Whether they be truly Men and of Adam's Seed or Bruit Creatures What moved him to discuss this Question or how he hath determined it I know not The Epistle is directed to one Rimbert a Presbyter I am apt to think the same who succeeded Anscharius in the See of Breme and wrote his Life For he was born not far from Old Corbey and bred up by St. Anscharius and therefore more likely to correspond with Ratramn than the other Rimbertus Presbyter who was a Dane and employed in the Conversion of the Northern Nations If the Epistle were addressed to the former it must be written in or before the Year 865. when Rimbert was made Archbishop of Breme and Hambrough I mention this Book of the Lord's Body and Blood in the last place written by him as some guess about the Year 850. or perhaps sooner Of which I shall say no more at present in regard it will furnish matter sufficient for several Chapters CHAP. II. Of his Treatise concerning Christ's Body and Blood and the Author cleared of Heresie and the other Accusations of F. Cellot THis Treatise of the Body and Blood of the Lord was first Printed at Colon A. D. 1532. (a) Cellot saith it was first published from a Copy prepared for the Press by Oecolampadius who died before it was Printed That it was not Printed at Colen but Basil How truly I know not who was the Publisher or what Copy he followed or what became of the Manuscript afterwards I know not The Name of Bertram and the Inscription to Charles the Great are an unquestionable proof that it was not the Lobes MS. but some other not so ancient which it is probable fell into bad hands and is made away The appearance of an Author near 700 years old and so expresly contradicting their Doctrine put the Romish Doctors into great confusion They all saw it was necessary to take some course to deprive the Protestants of the advantage they were likely to make of so material a Witness against them But they were very much divided in their Opinions what course would prove most effectual Some have condemned the Author for an Heretick which is a quick and sure way to invalidate his Testimony in a point of Faith. Others have spared the Author but condemned the Book for Spurious as well as Heretical or at least as corrupted by the Disciples of Berengarius and Wiclef Others say that it is not the Work of Ratramne Monk of Corbey but of Joannes Scotus Erigena And lastly their most Learned Writers of this present Age allow the Book to be Bertram's and notwithstanding some rash expressions in it which may bear a Catholick sense acknowledge the Work as well as its Author to be Orthodox and say he doth not oppose the present Doctrin of the Roman Church being rather for Transubstantiation than against it Wherefore to vindicate this Work from our Adversaries who use so many tricks to wrest it out of our hands I shall endeavour these five things 1. To shew that Ratramnus was Orthodox and free from all just imputation of Heresie 2. To prove that this Treatise is a genuine piece of the IX Century that it hath not been maliciously depraved since those times and that Ratramnus and not Joannes Scotus Erigena is the Author thereof 3. To settle the true sence of our Author in some obscure and controverted terms 4. To prove that the Doctre in delivered in this Book is contrary to that of Paschasius and the present Roman Church but very agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of England 5. To shew that he was not singular in his Doctrine but that other Great Men of that and the next Age were of the same Judgment with him First then let us consider the charge of Heresie which some object against him Turrian saith That to cite Bertram is only to shew that Calvin 's Heresie is not new Bellarmine vouchsafes him no place in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers tho' twice he mentions him on the by and fixes him A. D. 850. But in his (a) Bell. Controv. Tom. 3. de Sacr. Eucharist l. 1. c. 1. sec Tertius Controversies he numbers him among his Hereticks and with Possevine who saith notwithstanding the Belgick Index this Book may not be read but with the Pope's License in order to confute it makes him to have lived under Carolus Crassus A. D. 886. So little exactness do these Great Men observe in their Writings as to Chronology so little do they mind what they themselves elsewhere say that an ill-natur'd Protestant Critick might insult over Possevine and Bellarmine for slips in Chronology as often and as justly as (b) Phil. Labbe de Script Eccles quos possim Onochronos Ardeliones Mataeologos appellat Phil. Labbe doth over Gerhard Hottinger Maresius c. But (a) Praefat. ad Act. Ben. sec 14. p. 2. c. 1. n. 125. F. Mabillon observes other Writers every whit as Learned and Orthodox absolve him from the charge of Heresie and he blames those Zealots for giving away an Author to the Hereticks whom their Ancestors always esteemed a Catholick (b) De Script Eccles T. 1. p. 53. Phil. Labbe numbers him among the Catholick Tractators Radbert Lanfranc and Guitmund And the Authors of the Belgick Index say he was a Catholick Priest. And to condemn him upon the Testimony of so incompetent Witnesses as Turrian Bellarmine Possevine c. who are notoriously Parties and lived many hundred years after him is against all Reason and Equity Especially when they charge him with no Heretical Opinions save in the matter of the Sacrament for which he was never condemned in his own Age and which is the point now in
signification p. 31. i. e. figuratively and some in propriety A true thing and certain it is that Christ was born of a Maid suffered death of his own accord He is called Bread by signification i. e. figuratively but Christ is not so in true nature neither Bread c. p. 32. Truly the Bread and Wine which through the Mass of the Priest is hallowed sheweth one thing outwardly to human Senses and another thing they inwardly call to believing minds clypâ—aþ Outwardly they appear Bread and Wine both in figure and in taste And they be truly after their hallowing Christ's Body and Blood through Ghostly Mistery p. 33. So the Holy Font-Water which is called the Well-Spring of Life is like in shape to other Water and subject to corruption but the Holy Ghosts might cometh to the corruptible Water through the Priest blessing and it may afterwards wash the Body and Soul from all sin through Ghostly might Behold now we see two things in this one Creature After true nature that Water is corruptible moisture and after Ghostly Mystery hath hallowing might So also if we behold the Holy Housel or Sacrament after bodily sense then we see that it is a Creature corruptible and mutable if we acknowledge therein Ghostly might then understand we that Life is therein and that it giveth immortality to them that eat it with Faith. p. 35. Much difference is betwixt the Body in which Christ suffered and the Body which is hallowed to housel The Body truly in which Christ suffered was born of the Flesh of Mary with Blood with Bones with Skin with Sinews with human Limbs and with a reasonable Soul living And his Ghostly Body which we call the Housel p. 36. is gathered of many Corns without Blood and Bone without Limb and without Soul whatsoever is in that Housel that giveth the substance of Life that is of the Ghostly might and invisible operation And therefore is the Holy Housel called a Mystery because there is one thing in it seen and another thing understood p. 37. Certainly Christ's Body in which he suffered Death and rose again from Death never dieth henceforth but is Eternal and Impassible But that Housel is Temporal not Eternal corruptible and divided into several parts chew'd betwixt the Teeth and sent into the Belly p. 38. This Mystery is a pledge and a * * Hip and not as above getacnunge which is a figure in speech Figure Christ's Body is the Truth itself This Pledge we keep mystically until we be come to the p. 68. Quod dente premitur fauce glutitur quod receptaculo ventris fuscipitur Truth itself then is that Pledge ended Truly it is so as we said before Christ's Body and Blood not Bodily but Ghostly See p. 35. You should not search how it is done but hold in Faith that it is so done p. 43. We said to you erewhile that Christ hallowed Bread and Wine to Housel before his Suffering and said This is my Body and my Blood. He had not suffered as yet he turned through invisible might that Bread to his own Body and that Wine to his own Blood as formerly he did in the Wilderness before that he was born to Men when he turned that Heavenly Meat to his Flesh and that Water flowing from the Rock to his own Blood. That which next follows is a quotation out of St. Augustine which it is very likely that Elfrick took from Bertram and not at first hand from that Father p. 44. Moses and Aaron and many others of that People which pleased God eat that Heavenly Bread and they died not that Everlasting death though they died the common death they saw that the Heavenly Meat viz. Manna was visible and corruptible and they understood somewhat Spiritual by that visible thing and Spiritually received it p. 46. Once Christ suffered in himself and yet nevertheless his suffering is daily renewed through the Mystery of the Holy Housel at the Holy Mass p. 47. We ought also to consider diligently how this Holy Housel is both Christ's Body and the Body of all Faithful Men after Ghostly Mystery as Wise Augustine saith If you will understand of Christ's Body hear the Apostle Paul thus speaking Ye truly be Christ's Body and his Members Now is your Mystery set on God's Table and ye receive your Mystery p. 48. which Mystery ye be yourselves be that which you see on the Altar and receive that which yourselves be And again St. Paul saith We many be one Bread and one Body * * i. e. Cannons Ecclesiastical not the Holy Scripture Holy Books command that Water be mingled with Wine which shall be for Housel because the Water signifieth the People and the Wine Christ's Blood therefore shall not the one without the other be offered at the Holy Mass That Christ may be with us and we with Christ the Head with the Limbs and the Limbs with the Head. p. 51. And after these words our Homilist resumes his former Discourse of the Paschal Lamb. Thus have I at large set down in Parallel the Passages of that Saxon Homily taken out of Bertram The (a) See the Preface of the Homily Sermon was originally Latin which Elfrick translated into Saxon whether he were the Compiler in Latin I cannot be positive But it seems the succeeding Ages would not bear this Doctrine for which reason the Latin is utterly lost either being wilfully made away or the Governors of our Church not thinking it fit to transcribe and propagate what after the condemnation of Berengarius and the promotion of his great Adversary Lanfranc to the Archbishoprick of Canterbury was generally reputed Heresie But through the wonderful good Providence of God the whole is preserved in the Saxon Tongue which few understood By this account of that Homily you learn Two things and a Third Observation I shall add 1. That Bertram's Book was neither forged by Oecolampadius nor yet depraved by Berengarius or Wiclef his Disciples since the most express Passages against the Popish Real Presence are read in that Homily 70 or 80 years before Berengarius made any noise in the World. 2. What I design to insist upon more largely in the last Chapter of this Discourse viz. That Ratramnus or Bertram stood not alone but had others of the same judgment with him in the IX and X Century and that Paschasius his Doctrine had not received as yet the stamp of publick Authority either by any Popes or Councels confirmation 3. Nevertheless this carnal Doctrine of Paschasius did daily get ground in that obscure and ignorant Age next that he lived in as may appear by some Passages in this Homily which I have not recited because they are not in Bertram the absurd consequences of that errour For instance p. 39 and 40 there are two Miracles inserted to prove the Carnal Presence contrary to the scope of the whole Discourse and the one contrary to their
insist not upon it 2. It is very probable that when the Synods of Vercellis and Rome condemned Scotus his Book to the flames those who had the execution of the Decree especially in Normandy and England Lanfranc's Province might burn Bertram for company and occasion the present scarcity of Manuscripts But to silence all these pretences and shew that Bertram's Book is no Forgery not corrupted by Heretical mixtures nor yet written by Scotus but Ratramnus Monk of Corbey I shall close this Chapter with the iningenuous acknowledgment of the Learned and honest F. Mabillon who saith Act. Ben. Sec. IV. p. 2. Praef. p. 45. n. 83. Travelling in the Netherlands I went to the Monastery of Lobez where among the few Manuscripts now remaining I found two One Book written 800 years since containing two pieces one of the Lord's Body and Blood and the other of Predestination the former one Book the latter two The Inscription and beginnings of both were thus in the Manuscript Thus begins the Book of RATRà NVS Therefore it is not Jo. Scotus of the Body and Blood of the Lord. You commanded me Glorious Prince At the end of this Book Thus begins the Book of RATRAMNVS concerning God's Predestination To his Glorious Lord and most Excellent King Charles RATRAMNVS c. As in the Printed Book The other Book was a Catalogue of the Library of Lobez with this Title A. D. 1049. The Friars of Lobez taking an account of the Library find in it these Books Ratramnus of the Lord's Body and Blood one Book The same Author of God's Predestination two Books which gives us to understand that the Book which contains these pieces of Ratramnus is the very same set down in the Catalogue A. D. 1049. and written before that time and by the hand it appears to have been written a little before the IX Century And I doubt not but it is the very Book which Herigerus Abbot of Lobez used at the end of the X Century This is full proof that Ratramnus is the Author and that the Book is no modern Forgery being 800 years old Well but hath it not been corrupted and interpolated by Hereticks Let F. Mabillon answer again touching the sincerity of the Editions of this Book I compared saith he the Lobez Manuscript with the Printed Books Ibid. p. 64. nu 130. and the reading is true except in some faulty places which I corrected by the Excellent Lobez Manuscript There is (a) That word is existit p. which I have inserted into the Text upon F. Mabillon's Authority Let the Papists make their best of it one word of some moment omitted which yet I will not say was fraudulently left out by the Hereticks the first Publishers of it in regard as I said before there appears not any thing of unfaithfulness in other places Thus doth this Learned and Ingenuous Benedictine testifie that the Book we now publish is a genuine piece of the IX Century that Ratramnus Monk of Corbey is the true Author and that his Work is come to our hands sincere and without Heretical mixtures either of Berengarius or Wiclef's Disciples (a) Mabil Iter Germanicum praefixum Analect Tom. IV. Incipit Liber Ratramni de perceptione Corporis Sanguinis Domini ad Carolum Magnum Beside the Lobez MS. the same Father in his Germain Voyage met with another in the Monastery of Salem Weiler which he judgeth by the hand to be 700 years old This gives the Title in the end as the Lobez MS. but in the beginning styleth it The Book of Ratramne of Receiving the Lords Body and Blood. To Charles the Great CHAP. IV. Of the the true Sense of the Author in some controverted Expressions BEfore we can comprehend the Sentiments of Ratramnus in the Controversie depending between us and the Church of Rome touching Christ's Presence in the Sacrament it will be necessary to settle and clear his true meaning in some Terms which frequently occur in this Tract Because our Adversaris by abusing the ambiguity of them and expounding them according to the Prejudices wherewith Education hath possest them seem to think Bertram their own and charge us with impudence and folly in pretending to his Authority Those Terms which are in the state of the Question are the principal Keys of the whole Discourse and well understood will open our Author's mind therein That * Quod in Ecclesia ore fidelium sumitur Corpus Sanguis Christi Qu. 1. § 5. Quod ore fidelium per Sacramentorum Mysterium in Ecclesia quotidie sumitur Q. 2. sect 50. which the mouth receiveth is the Subject of both Questions Not what the Faithful receive any way but what their Teeth press their Throat swalloweth and their Bellies receive In what sense the consecrated Elements are Christ's Body and Blood and whether his natural Body or not In the first Question there are two opposite Terms †See them explain'd by Bertram himself sect 7 8. and him determining the Sacramental change to be Figuratively wrought not corporally sect 9 16. and supporting himself by the Testimony of St. Augustine de Doctr. Christ l. 3. c. 16. Figure and Truth Figure The word Figure when applied to Terms or Propositions is taken in a Rhetorical sense and implies those Expressions not to be proper but either Metaphors or Metonymies c. as when Christ is called a Vine When applied to things as the consecrated Elements Figure and Mystery are of the same signification and imply the thing spoken of to be a Sign or Representation of some other thing Verity or Truth And on the contrary Verity or Truth in this Tract when applied to Terms or Propositions signifies Propriety of Speech but when applied to things it imports * In Proprietate Substantialiter in manifestationis Luce in veritatis simplicitate in this Tract are equivalent to naturally and in Verity of Nature This the Saxon Homily very well clears and as superficie tenus considerata answers to in proprietate a little before in Bertram sect 19. so in the Saxon Homily superficie tenus considerata is rendred after bodily understanding which answers to true Nature immediately preceding Truth of Nature So then Ratramnus determines the first Question to this effect That the words of our Saviour in the Institution of the Holy Eucharist are not to be taken properly but figuratively and that the consecrated Elements orally received by the Faithful are not the True Body of Christ but the Figure or Sacrament of it though not meer empty figures or naked signs void of all Efficacy but such as through the Blessing annext to our Saviour's Institution and the powerful operation of the Spirit of Christ working in and by those Sacred Figures is the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ Besides this Another sence of Verity Verity or Truth hath yet another sence as it stands opposed to a Lye or Falshood For a Proposition
is not immediately false where the Praedicate is a Metaphor or Metonymy and doth not in its first and native signification agree to the subject for unless the Trope be too obscure it conveys the Speakers true meaning into the mind of such as hear him Now in this sence (a) Non utique mentitur c. sect 35. supra cur nemo tam ineptus est ut nos ita loquentes arguat esse mentitos c. St. Augustine cited by our Author saith he tells no Lye who giveth the Name of the thing itself to the Sign and Sacrament of it and that this manner of speaking was perfectly understood And I may add it was very familiar among the Jews and is Authorised by a multitude of Scripture Examples Now in this sence Ratramnus in some places affirms that the consecrated Elements are truly Christ's Body and Blood and this without the least contradiction to himself though in the other sence he more frequently denies it And a due regard to these two sences of Verity or Truth will clear the obscurity of which the Romanists accuse our Author in many Passages of this Work. There is another term of the same importance Manifestation viz. Manifestation but our Adversaries pretend it is a Key of the whole Work because Ratramnus defines Truth to be rei manifestae demonstratio and charge the (a) Mabilonius A.B. Sec. IV P. 2. Praef. n. 101. French Translator of falsifying the Author because he renders manifestae manifesta participatione real and really They say whatever is manifest is real but the word real doth not express the full notion of manifest which further includes evidence many things being real which are not manifest And this is true But yet Bertram's sence of the word must be judged by his own use of it which will appear by inspecting the several places of the Book where it occurs and I must needs say that I cannot make sence of him if he mean not as the French Translator hath rendred him In the state of the question where he explains Verity by that which appears manifestationis luce in a manifest light or naked and open his meaning in that Question or rather the meaning of those against whom he writes and whose error the first part of this Discourse is intended to rectifie cannot be whether the Sacrament was the Body of Christ appearing in its own shape to our bodily Eye For that Cardinal Perron or Mr. Arnaud do not pretend the Stercorarists or whoever else Bertram opposeth to have believed but that the accidents of Bread and Wine affected or were subjected in the natural Body and Blood of Christ Now as to the matter of the Manifest appearance of Christ's Body it is all one whether the accidents of Bread and Wine be subjected in the Body and Blood of Christ or subsist without a subject for the bodily Eye doth not behold the Body of Christ the more or less manifestly for that nor doth it at all manifestly behold Christ's Body unless it see him in the form of a Man. And therefore if they meant any thing it must be whether the sensible Object in the Sacrament were Christ's very Body though under the figure of the Sacramental Elements But to clear the point we need only compare the two Prayers in the close of Bertram's Discourse on the second Question and we shall find that what in one Prayer they beg of God to receive by a manifest participation in the other they pray to be made really partakers of and in the same Collect manifest participation is opposed to Receiving in a Sacramental Image Now there is nothing more naturally opposed to an Image than the very thing whose Image it is or to a Sacrament than the res Sacramenti the real Object signified and exhibited under it The Reader will find the word bears the same sence in those few other places where Ratramnus useth it which are all near the end of the Book Another controverted Term is Species Species which hath two sences in this Book It is most commonly used to signifie the kind and specifical nature of any thing and is always so taken where it is set in opposition to a Figure or Sacrament or where the Author is declaring the nature of the consecrated Elements Sometimes it signifies the appearance or likeness of a thing so it is taken when it is opposed to Truth as in the Post-Communion Prayer cited by Ratramnus and in his Inferences from it Besides these the Romanists have another acceptation of the word making it to signifie the sensible qualities of the consecrated Elements subsisting without their substance in which sence I positively affirm that Species is no where used in this Treatise And herein the Authors of the (a) Index Expurg Belg. in Bertramo tametsi non diffitear Bertramum tunc temporis nescivisse exacte accidentia ista absque omni substantia sua subsistere c. Belgick Index will bear me out who acknowledge that Bertram did not exastly know how Accidents could subsist out of their Subjects which subtil Truth latter Ages have learnt out of the Scripture As Species ordinarily signifies Nature Species Visibilis so the addition of Visibilis alters not its signification For Ratramnus doth not speak of those qualities which immediately affect the sence abstracted from their Subject And I know nothing in Reason nor yet in the Holy Scriptures which are the Rule of our Faith that can inforce us to believe that our Senses are not as true Judges of what the Mouth receiveth in the Sacrament as they are of the nature of any other Object whatsoever and may as easily discern whether it be Bread or Flesh as they can distinguish a Man from a Tree Our Author frequently mentions the Divine Word Divine Word by whose power the Sacred Elements are Spiritually changed into Christ's Body Now when he thus speaks we must not imagine that he means a natural change of the Substance of the thing consecrated by the efficacy of the words of consecration but a Spiritual change effected by the Power and Spirit of Christ who is God the Word as he explains himself The last Term that needs explaining Spiriutal Body is Christ's Spiritual Body this he affirms the Sacrament to be in many places Now by a Spiritual Body we are not to understand the natural Body of Christ but existing after the manner of a Spirit or as our Adversaries love to speak not according to its proper existence that is to say it is Christ's Natural Body but neither visible nor local nor extended this is not Bertram's sence of Christ's Spiritual Body but that the thing so called is Figuratively and Mystically Christ's Body and that it Spiritually communicates to the Faithful Christ with all the benefits of his Death I may also add that Bertram uses great variety of Phrases to express that which we call the outward sign in the Sacrament that
Sacrament made him weary of his Abby is F. Mabillon's conjecture and not mine And if so we have reason to believe that the Doctrine of Ratramnus had rather the Princes countenance and the stronger party in the Convent And it will yet seem more probable when we consider that Odo afterwards Bishop of Beauvais a great Friend of Ratramnus was made Abbot in the room of Paschasius What the Doctrine of Paschasius was I shall now briefly shew He saith * Pasch Radb de Corp. Sang. Dom. c. 1. Licet Figura Panis Vini hic sit omnino nihil aliud quam Caro Christi Sanguis post consecrationem credenda sunt Et ut miâ—abilius loquar non alia plane quam quae nata est de Maria passa in Cruce resurrexit de Sepulchro That although in the Sacrament there be the Figure of Bread and Wine yet we must believe it after consecration to be nothing else but the Body and Blood of Christ. And that you may know in what sence he understands it to be Christ's Body and Blood he adds And to say somewhat yet more wonderful It is no other Flesh than that which was born of Mary suffered on the Cross and rose again from the Grave He illustrates this Mystery further by intimating that whosoever will not believe Christs natural Body in the Sacrament under the shape of Bread that man would not have believed Christ himself to have been God if he had seen him hanging upon the Cross in the form of a Servant And shelters himself against all the Absurdities that could be objected against this Opinion as the Papists still do under God's Omnipotence laying down this Principle as the foundation of all his Discourse That the nature of all Creatures is obedient to the Will of God who can change them into what he pleaseth He renders these two Reasons why the miraculous change is not manifest to sense by any alteration of the visible form or tast of what is received viz. * Sic debuit hoc mysterium temperari ut arcana Secretorum celarentur infidis meritum cresceret de virtute Fidei c. 13. ubi plura ejusmodi cceurrunt That there may be some exercise for Faith and that Pagans might not have subject to blaspheme the Mysteries of our Religion Yet notwithstanding this no man who believes the Word of God saith he can doubt but by Consecration it is made Christ's Body and Blood in Verity or Truth of Nature And he alledgeth stories of the miraculous appearance of Christ's Flesh in its proper form for the cure of doubting as a further confirmation of his carnal Doctrine These are the sentiments of Paschasius Radbertus and differ little from those of the Roman Church at present which I shall deduce from the Authentick Acts of that Church especially the Council of Trent 1. In the Year 1059. there was a Council assembled at Rome by Pope Nicolaus the II in which a form of Recantation was drawn up for Berengarius wherein he was required to declare * Apud Gratianum de Consecratione Dist 2. c. 42. Ego Berengarius c. That Bread and Wine after Consecration are not only the Sacrament Sign and Figure but the very Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which is not only Sacramentally but Sensibly and Truly handled and broken by the Priests hands and ground by the Teeth of the Faithful And this being the form of a Recantation ought to be esteemed an accurate account of the Doctrine of the Church yet they are somewhat ashamed of it as may appear by the Gloss upon Gratian who hath put it into the body of the Canon Law. But the Council of Trents difinitions are more Authentick which hath determined I. If any one shall deny that in the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is contained really and substantially the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently whole Christ But shall say that it is therein contained only as in a Sign or Figure or Virtually let him be accursed II. If any one shall say that in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of Bread and Wine together with the Body or Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and shall deny that singular or wonderful conversion of the whole substance of Bread into his Body and of the whole substance of 1. Concil Trid. sess 13. can 1. 2. Conc. Trid. Ibid. c. 2. Wine into his Blood there remaining only the species i. e. Accidents of Bread and Wine which conversion the Catholick Church very aptly calls Transubstantiation let him be accursed i. e. By faith and not orally III. If any man shall say that in the Eucharist Christ is exhibited and eaten only Spiritually and not Sacramentally and Really let him be accursed These are the definitions of the Church of Rome in this matter and now let us see whether the Doctrine of Ratramnus in this Book be agreeable to these Canons I might make short work of it by alledging all those Authors who either represent him as a Heretick or his Book as forged or Heretical and in so doing I should muster an Army of the most Eminent Doctors of the Roman Church with two or three Popes in the Head of them viz. Pius the IV. by whose Authority was compiled the Expurgatory Index in which this Book was first forbid Sixtus V. who inlarged the Roman Index and Clement the VIII by whose order it was Revised and published They are all competent 3. Conc. Trid. Ibid. can 8. cap. 8. Witnesses that his Doctrine is not agreeable to the present Faith of the Roman Church And our Authors * Vide Indic Belgic in Bertramo Excogitato commento kind Doway Friends are forced to Exercise their Wits for some handsome invention to make him a Roman-Catholick and at last they cannot bring him fairly off but are forced to change his words directly to a contrary sense and instead of visibly write invisibly and according to the substance of the Creatures must be interpreted according to the outward species or accidents of the Sacrament c. Which is not to explain an Author but to corrupt him and instead of interpreting his words to put their own words into his Mouth And after all they acknowledge that there are some other things which it were not either amiss or imprudent wholly to expunge in regard the loss of those passages will not spoil the sense nor will they be easily missed But I shall not build altogether upon their confessions in regard others who have the ingenuity to acknowledge the Author Orthodox and the work Catholick have also the confidence to deny our claim to Bertram's Authority who is as they pretend though obscure yet their own Therefore I shall shew in his own words that his sentiments in this matter are directly contrary to Paschasius
Radbertus and to the Council of Trent in three particulars 1. He asserts that what is orally received is not the true and natural Body of Christ 2. He asserts that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration 3. That what is orally received feeds the body and that Christ is eaten Spiritually and not Orally 1. It is very plain from the determination of the second Question that Bertram expresly contradicts Paschasius for the words of the Question are taken out of his book and Bertram denies flatly what Paschasius affirms viz. That in the Sacrament we receive the same Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin Crucified and rose again He urges a multitude of Authorities out of the Fathers to confirm his own judgment herein and in short but pithy expositions sheweth how they are pertinent to the business In obviating an objection from the Testimony of St. Ambrose he tells us That the sensible object is Christs body and blood not in nature or kind but virtually He observes that St. Ambrose distinguisheth between the Sacrament of Christs Flesh and the Verity of Christs Flesh affirming the latter to be that Flesh which was born of the Virgin and the Holy Eucharist to be the Sacrament of that true Flesh in which he was Crucified mystically representing the former Again upon an objection that St. Ambrose calls it the body of Christ he answers That it is the body and blood of Christ not corporally but Spiritually He shews that what is orally received in the Sacrament is not Christ's Natural body because Christs natural body is incorruptible whereas that which we receive in the Holy Eucharist is corruptible visible and to be felt He farther proves a great difference between Christs Natural and Sacramental Body and Blood in this that his Natural Body really was what it appeared to our senses whereas the Eucharist is one thing in nature and appearance and another thing in signification Likewise expounding St. Hieroms Testimony he saith Christs natural body had all the organical parts of an humane body and was quickened with a reasonable soul whereas his body in the Sacrament hath neither He makes the body of Christ in the Sacrament to be only an Image or Pledge but the Natural body of Christ to be the Truth signified And in the first part he proves that the words of Christ Instituting this Sacrament are Figurative and that the thing orally received or the Symbols had the name of the things signified thereby it being usual to give Signs or Sacraments the name of the very thing represented under them And this he proves from St. Augustine It must be acknowledged that Bertram sometimes saith that it is truly Christs body and blood but mark how he explains himself he saith they are not so as to their visible nature but by the power of the Divine Word i. e. not corporally but spiritually And he adds the visible creature feeds the body but the virtue and efficacy of the Divine Word feeds and sanctifies the soul of the Faithful So that when he affirms the Sacrament to be truly Christs body he means truly in opposition to falshood not truly as that word is opposed to Figuratively But F. Mabillon and F. Alexander make Bertram and Paschasius to say the same thing and tell us that the former doth not deny the Truth of Christs natural body in the Sacrament which he as well as Paschasius holds but only that it is there propria specie i. e. in its proper shape and visible form or in its natural existence I must now requite the candour of F. Mabillon to Archbishop Vsher and impute this Opinion of his to the prejudice of Education For it s very evident that what Ratramnus labours to prove is an essential difference between the Sacrament received by the Faithful and Christs body as great a difference as between a body and a spirit between a corruptible and an incorruptible thing between the Image and the Original Truth between Figure and Verity And it is as plain that he admits these sensible qualities to be clear proofs of an essential difference and also allows our outward senses to be proper Judges in the case appealing to our eyes our taste and smell * Sect. 99. He shews that our Saviours body after its Resurrection was visible and palpable and cites Luke 24.39 Compare this with what he saith Sect. 72. where he sheweth the difference between Christs Natural and Spiritual Body as our Saviour did to the outward senses to prove the Verity of his body after his Resurrection Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self Handle me and see for a Spirit hath not FLESH and BONES as you SEE me to have So that in his Opinion we have the same evidence that the Sacramental Elements after Consecration are not Christs natural body in which he suffered which the Disciples had that the body in which he appeared to them after his Resurrection was the same body in which he was Crucified and buried 2. Ratramnus contradicts the Council of Trent in affirming the substance of Bread and Wine to remain after Consecration which those Fathers deny with an Anathema to all that affirm it He tells us expounding a citation out of St. Ambrose As to the substance of the Creatures what they were before Consecration they remain after it Bread and Wine they were before and after Consecration we see they continue beings of the same kind or nature F. Mabillon conceives Ratramnus to assert Transubstantiation in using the words turn conversion and that it is made Christs Body invisibly by the powerful operation of the Holy Ghost That the Bread and Wine after Consecration are not what they were before That they are truly by the Mystery turned into the substance of his body and blood c. which last is the most plausible sentence he quotes But I would fain know whether when he denies it to be a natural change and affirms it to be a Spiritual and which is all one an invisible change also that the substance of Wine is seen after Consecration and that by Consecration the Wine is made the Sacrament of Christs blood that it is made Christs Blood divini significatione Mysterii by the signification of the Divine Mystery That there was in the Manna and Water a spiritual power of the Word viz. Christ which fed the Souls of the believing Israelites That the Psalmist teacheth us both what the Father 's received in the Heavenly Manna and what the Faithful ought to believe in the Mystery of Christs body in both certainly Christ is signified And in express terms that as he could before his Passion turn the Bread and Wine into his body which was to suffer c. So before his Incarnation in the Wilderness he turned the Manna and Water into his body and blood And that as the Bread is Christs body so is it the body of the Faithful People and that if the
consecrated Wine were corporally converted into Christs blood the Water mixt with it must be corporally converted in the blood of the Faithful People I say after all this I would fain know whether it be possible to impose this sense upon Ratramnus I must more than half Transcribe the Book should I collect all Passages which confute F. Mabillion's Notion of the change which Ratramnus owns His sense is very clear to any man who shuts not his Eyes where he enumerates the three several kinds of Physical or Natural Changes and proves that the Sacramental Change which Consecration makes is none of these * Sect. 12. 13 14 15. Not Generation for no new being is produced Not corruption for the Bread and Wine are not destroyed but remain after Consecration in truth of Nature what they were before Not alteration for the same sensible qualities still appear Wherefore since Consecration makes a change and it is not a Natural but a Spiritual change he concludes it is wrought †Sect. 16. Figuratively or Mystically and that there are not together in the Sacrament two different things a Body and a Spirit but that it is one and the same thing which in one respect viz. Naturally is Bread and Wine and in another respect viz. of its signification and efficacy is Christs Body and Blood. Or as he saith presently they are in their nature corporeal Creatures but according to their virtue or efficacy they are Spiritually made Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ And this Spiritual virtue feeding the Soul and ministring to it the sustenance of Eternal Life is that which Bertram means when he saith that it is mystically changed into the substance of his Body and Blood for he calls this virtue Substantiam vitae Aeternae and as he calls our spiritual nourishment the Bread of Eternal Life and the substance of Eternal Life so in the place cited by F. Mabillon he useth the word substance in the same sense viz. for food or sustenance and he elsewhere calls it the Bread of Christs Body and presently after explaining himself calls it the Bread of Eternal Life * Manifestum est de quo pane loquitur de pane videlicet Corporis Christi qui non ex eo quod vadit in corpus sed ex eo quod panis sit vitae aeternae c. Sect. 68. He means by the substance of Christs Body in that place what he here calls the Bread of Christs Body and Sect. 83. Esca illa Corporis Domini Potus ille Sanguinis ejus are terms equivalent to Substantia in the place cited by F. Mabillon If F. Mabillon had observed those two excellent Rules for understanding the sense of Old Authors which he quotes out of Facundus viz. not to interpret them by the chink of words but their intention and scope and to explain dubious and obscure passages by plain ones He could not have concluded him to hold a carnal Presence and Transubstantiation But we are not to wonder that the Romanists attempt to reconcile Bertram with Transubstantiation though he wrote expresly against it when we remember that †Ad calcem libri cui Titulus Deus Natura Gratia. Quarto Ludg. 1634. Franc a sancta Clara about 50 years since had the confidence to attempt the expounding the 39 Articles of our Church so as to make them bear what he calls a Catholick sense though they are many of them levelled by the Compilers point blank against the Errors of the Roman Church 3 To these I may add what by consequence destroyeth Transubstantiation and Christs carnal Presence in the Sacrament I mean he frequently affirms That what the mouth receiveth feeds and nourisheth the body and that it is what Faith only receiveth that nourisheth the Soul and affords the sustenance of Eternal Life I know our Adversaries tell us those Accidents have as much nourishing virtue as other substances So the Authors of the Belgick Index * Index Expurg Belg. in Bertramo answer the Berengarian experiment of some who have lived only upon the Holy Sacrament Sure they must be very gross Accidents if they fill the belly But what if the Trent Faith that the Accidents of Bread and Wine remain without their substances be built upon a mistaken Hypothesis in Philosophy What if there be no such thing in Nature as pure Accidents What if Colours Tasts and Scents are nothing else but matter in different positions lights or motions and little parts of the substance it self sallying out of the body and making impressions apon the Organs of Sense Which Hypothesis is embraced by the most curious Philosophers of our Age who have exploded the former what then becomes of the Species or Accidents imagined to subsist in the Air To close this Digression I shall add * Bell. explic Doct. Christ De Sanctissima Eucharist Quicunque hanc statuam videbat ille speciem figuramque uxoris Loth videbat quae tamen uxor Loth amplius non fuit sed Sal sub specie mulieris delitescens Bellarmines Illustration of a body under species not properly its own He tells his Catechumen Lots Wife was turned into a Pillar of Salt and yet the species and likeness of a Woman remained She was no longer Lots Wife but Salt hid under the Species or outward form of a Woman Thus do Errours and Absurdities multiply without end I have said enough to shew that Bertram expresly contradicts the Doctrine of Transubstantiation but I must add a word or two in Answer to the Evasions of the Romanists Cardinal Perron tells us that the Adversaries whom Ratramnus encounters were the Stercoranists a sort of Hereticks that rose up in the IX Century and (a) Vterque Stercoranistarum Haeresin quae illo tempore orta est confutavit uterque Catholicam veritatem asseruit sed Radbertus Transubstantiationis veritatem clarius expressit Maug Tom. 2. Diss c. 17. p. 134. Mauguin followeth him with divers others They are said to Believe that Christ's Body is corruptible passible and subject to Digestion and the Draught and that the Accidents were Hypostatically united to Christ's Body But we read of no such Errours censured by any Council in that Age we do not find any Person of that Time branding any Body with that infamous hard Name The Persons whom some late Writers have aaccused as Authors of that Heresie viz. Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz and Heribaldus Bishop of Auxerre lived and died with the repute of Learned Orthodox and Holy Men and are not accused by any of their own Time of those foul Doctrines The first I can learn of the Name is that Humbertus Bishop of Sylva Candida calls Nicetas Stercoranist And Algerus likewise calls the Greeks so for holding that the Sacrament broke an Ecclesiastical Fast which is nothing to the Gallicane Church and the IX Century If (a) Vide Labbeum de script Eccles Tom. 1. p. 484. Cardinal Humbert drew up Berengarius his
though (a) Bib. Patrum Tom. 6. Par. 1610. Col. 226 227. Florus Deacon of the Church of Lyons accord not with Scotus in his Sentiments touching Predestination yet he agrees with him in contradicting the carnal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament for in his Exposition of the Mass he saith That when the Creature of Bread and Wine is by the ineffable sanctification of the Spirit translated into the SACRAMENT of Christ's Body Christ is eaten That he is eaten by parts in the Sacrament and remains whole in Heaven and in the Faithful Receiver's heart And again All that is done in the Oblation of the Lord's Body and Blood is a Mystery there is one thing seen and another understood that which is seen hath a Corporal nature that which is understood hath a Spiritual fruit And in the Manuscript (a) In Homiliario MS. Eccles Lugd. apud Mabillon A. B. Sec. IV. Par. 2. Praefat. nu 80. Homilies which F. Mabillon concludes are his expounding the words of our Saviour instituting the Sacrament he saith commenting on This is my Body the Body that spake was one thing the Body which was given was another The Body which spake was substantial that Body which was given was Mystical for the Body of our Lord died was buried rose again and ascended into heaven but that Body which was delivered to the Apostles in the Sacrament is daily consecrated by the Priests hands * Apud Hittorpium De rebus Eccles c. 16. Walafridus Strabo in the same Century teacheth That Christ in his last Supper with his Disciples just before he was betrayed after the Solemnity of the Ancient Passeover delivered the Sacraments of his own Body and Blood to his Disciples in the substance of Bread and Wine †Apud Albertinum de Euchar. lib. 2. pag. 934. Hoc est corpus meum id est in Sacramento Christian Druthmarus a Monk of Corbey and contemporary both with Bertram and Paschasius in his Comment on St. Matthew expounding the words of Institution saith That Christ gave his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body to the end that being mindful of this Action they should always do this in a Figure and not forget what he was about to do for them This is my Body that is Sacramentally or in a Sacrament or Sign And a little before he saith Christ did Spiritually change Bread into his Body and Wine into his Blood which is the Phrase of Bertram a Monk in the same Cloyster with him To these may be added * Apud L' Arroque in Hist Euchar. lib. 2. c. 13. ex Dacherii Spicileg Tom. 6. Ahyto Bishop of Basil in the beginning of this Century whose words cited by Mr. L' Arroque in his History of the Eucharist are these The Priest ought to know what the Sacrament of Baptism and Confirmation is and what the Mystery of the Body and Blood of the Lord is how a visible Creature is seen in those Mysteries and nevertheless invisible Salvation or Grace is thereby communicated for the salvation of the Soul the which is contained in Faith only Mr. L' Arroque well observes that his words relate to Baptism and Confirmation as well as the Lord's Supper he distinguisheth in both the sign from the thing signified and asserts alike in all three that there is a visible Creature communicating Invisible or Spiritual Grace which is received by Faith only Moreover the Question moved by Heribaldus to Rabanus which he answers and upon that score both those Learned and Holy Bishops have been traduced as Stercoranists evidently shews the Sentiments of Heribaldus to have been contrary to those of Paschasius on this Argument For he never could have moved the Question if he had not believed the external part of the Sacrament to be corporal Food as Ratramnus doth The Judgment of Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz whom Baronius stiles the brightest Star of Germany and as Trithemius says who had not his fellow in Italy or Germany agrees with that of Ratramnus and appears in several of his writings He teacheth * Raban de institut Cleric lib. 1. c. 31. That our Lord chose to have the Sacraments of his Body and Blood received by the mouth of the Faithful and reduced to Nourishment on purpose that by the visible Body the Spiritual effect might be shewn For as Material food outwardly nourisheth and gives vigor to the body so doth the Word of God inwardly nourish and strengthen the Soul. Again The Sacrament is one thing and the virtue of the Sacrament is another for the Sacrament is received with the mouth but the inner man is fed with the virtue of the Sacrament In his †Ad Calcem Reginon Prum editi per Baluzium habetur Epistola haec Rabani unde Heribaldum vide c. 33. Quidam nuper de ipso Sacramento corporis Sanguinis Domini non rite sentientes dixerunt hoc ipsum Corpus Sanguinem Domini quod de Maria Virgine natum est in quo ipse Dominus passus est in cruce resurrexit de Sepulchro idem esse quod sumitur de Altari cui Errori c. Penitential he makes the Sacrament subject to all the affections of common food and tells of some of late viz. Paschasius and his followers who had entertained false Sentiments touching the Sacrament of the Lords Body and Blood saying That this very Body of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary in which our Lord suffered on the Cross and rose again from the Grave is the same which we receive from the Altar against which error writing to Egilus the Abbot we have according to our ability declared what we are truly to believe concerning the Lords very Body From which Passage many things of moment may be collected 1. That Paschasius was written against in his life-time and not long after his propounding his Doctrine publickly by sending his Book together with an Epistle to Carolus Calvus For Rabanus died before Paschasius and * In praefat ad Rabani Epist n. 17. Baluzius makes it out very well that he wrote this Answer to the Queries of Heribaldus A. D. 853. In which year Egilus mentioned by him was made Abbot of Promie and the question of the validity of Orders conferred by Ebbo Archbishop of Rhemes after his Deposition was discussed in the Synod at Soissons 2. We learn from this Passage that Rabamus judged the Doctrine of Paschasius to be a Novel Error which he would not have done had there been any colour of Antient Tradition or Authority for it 3. That F. Cellot is mistaken in charging his Anonymous Writer with slandering Rabanus as also in saying that what Rabanus wrote on this Argument he wrote in his youth falsly presuming that Egilus to whom he wrote was Abbot of Fulda and immediate Predecessor to Rabanus in the Government of that Monastry where as it was another Egilus made Abbot of Promie A. D. 853. when Rabanus was
Consecration in the sence of * Non rei veritate sed significante mysterio S. Aug. apud Gratianum de Consecr Dist 2. c. 48. Hoc est Sect. Sicut St. Augustine not in Truth of Nature but by Mystical signification And according to the Doctrine of that Father teach †Aug. contra Maxim. l. 3. c. 22. that in the Sacraments we are not to mind the nature of the visible Object but its signification in regard Sacraments are Signs which ARE one thing and SIGNIFIE another They all according to the Language of St. Paul stile the Consecrated Elements Bread and Wine our Saxon * Fol. 28. Homilist saith this Bread is my Body and †Sect. 99. Panis Calix qui Corpus Sanguis Christi nominatur existit Bertram in the place where F. Mabillon thinks the adding of existit is of some moment saith Bread and Wine is Christ's Body and Blood. They make the Sacrament to be a Figure they speak of a conversion of the Elements into the Sacraments of Christ's Body and Blood they distinguish between Christ's natural Body and his mystical Body the Body which spake and the Body which was given to his Disciples and deny that the nature of the Elements is altered by Consecration which if any man can reconcile with Transubstantiation I shall acknowledge that Miracles are not ceased in the Roman Church RATRAMNI Presbyteri Monachi Corbeiensis qui vulgo BERTRAMVS nuncupatur LIBER De Corpore Sanguine Domini The Book of RATRAMNUS Priest and Monk of Corbey Commonly called BERTRAM Touching the BODY and BLOOD of the LORD Sigebertus Gemblacensis in libro de Viris Illustribus c. 96. BErtramus (a) In Gemblac cod erat Ratramus in Cod. Virid Vallis Scripsit librum de Corpore Sanguine Domini ad (b) Calvum Carolum librum de Praedestinatione Testimonium Joannis Trithemii in Libro de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis BErtramus Presbyter Monachus in divinis Scripturis valde peritus in literis Saecularium Disciplinarum egregie doctus Ingenio subtilis clarus Eloquio nec minus vita quam doctrina insignis scripsit multa praeclara opuscula de quibus ad meam notitiam pauca pervenerunt Ad Carolum Regem Lotharii Imperatoris Fratrem scripsit commendabile opus De Praedestinatione (c) Scripsit de Praedestinatione libros duos lib. 1. De Corpore Sanguine Domini lib. 1. Claruit temporibus Lotharii Imperatoris Anno Domini DCCCXL a Ita se habet MS. Laubiensis Apud Mabillon Aâ—ta Bened. Secul 4. par 2. Praef. c. 1. n 83. 129. INCIPIT LIBER RATRAMNI DE CORPORE ET SANGUINE DOMINI b Haec Inscriptio non est Autoris nec exstat in MS. Laub MS. Salem legit Ad Carolum magnum AD CAROLUM c Calvum Magni Neporem MAGNUM d Regem IMPERATOREM PRAEFATIO I. JVssistis e Jussistis ex MS. Laub in impressis Jubes item in MS. Monasterii Salem Gloriose Princeps ut quid de Sanguinis Corporis Christi Mysterio sentiam vestrae Magnificentiae significem Imperium quam magnifico vestro Principatu dignum tam nostrae Parvitatis viribus constat difficilimum Quid enim dignius Regali Providentia quam de illius sacris Mysteriis Catholice sapere qui sibi Regale solium dignatus est contribuere subjectos pati non posse diversa sentire de Corpore Christi in quo constat Christanae redemptionis summam consistere II. Dum enim quidam fidelium Corporis Sanguinisque Christi * Deest Mysterium quod in Ecclesia quotidie celebratur dicant quod nulla sub figura nulla sub obvelatione fiat sed ipsius veritatis nuda manifestatione peragatur quidam vero testentur quod haec sub Mysterii figura contineantur aliud sit quod corporeis sensibus appareat aliud autem quod fides aspiciat non parva diversitas inter eos †Impressi Codd esse dinoscitur legunt dignoscitur Et cum Apostolus fidelibus scribat ut idem sapiant idem dicant omnes Schisma nullum inter eos appareat non parvo Schismate dividuntur qui de Mysterio Corporis Sanguinisque Christi non eadem sentientes eloquuntur III. Quapropter vestra Regalis Sublimitas zelo fidei provocata non aequanimiter ista perpendens secundum Apostoli praeceptum cupiens ut idem sentiant idem dicant omnes veritatis diligenter inquirit secretum ut ad eam deviantes revocare possit Vnde non contemnitis etiam ab humillimis hujus rei veritatem perquirere scientes quod tanti Secreti mysterium non nisi divinitate revelante possit agnosci quae sine personarum acceptione per quoscunque delegerit suae veritatis lumen ostendit IV. Nostrae vero tenuitati quam sit jucundum Vestro parere imperio tam est arduum super re a L. ab humanis humanis sensibus remotissima b Quam nisi nisiper Sancti Spiritus eruditionem non c Possem penetrare Vel quae non nisi per Sancti Spiritus eruditionem non potest penetrari posse penetrare disputare Subditus igitur vestrae Magnitudinis jussioni confisus autem ipsius de quo locuturi sumus suffragio quibus potuero verbis quid ex d Impres de hoc sentiam aperire tentabo non proprio fretus Ingenio sed Sanctorum vestigia Patrum prosequendo V. QVod in Ecclesia ore fidelium sumitur Corpus Sanguis Christi quaerit vestrae Magnitudinis Excellentia in Mysterio fiat an in Veritate id est Vtrum aliquid Secreti contineat quod oculis solummodo fidei pateat an sine cujuscunque velatione Mysterii hoc aspectus intueatur Corporis exterius quod mentis visus spiciat interius ut totum quod agitur in manifestationis luce clarescat Et utrum ipsum Corpus a Deest sit quod de Maria natum est passum mortuum sepultum quodque resurgens coelos ascendens ad dextram Patris consideat VI. Harum duarum Quaestionum primam inspiciamus ne dubietatis ambage detineamur definiamus quid sit Figura quid Veritas ut certum aliquid contuentes noverimus quo rationis iter contendere debeamus VII Figura est obumbratio quaedam quibusdam velaminibus quod intendit ostendens verbi gratia Verbum volentes dicere Panem nuncupamus Sicut in Oratione Dominica panem quotidianum dari nobis expostulamus vel cum Christus in Evangelio loquitur dicens Ego sum panis vivus qui de coelo descendi vel cum seipsum vitem discipulos autem palmites appellat a Impressi Codd addunt dicens Ego sum vitis vera vos autem palmites haec enim omnia aliud dicunt aliud innuunt VIII Veritas vero est rei manifestae
Trithemius in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers BErtram a Priest and Monk a very able Divine and also well skilled in Humane Learning a Person of a subtile Wit and great Eloquence and no less eminent for Sanctity than Learning hath written many excellent Pieces few of which have come to my knowledge To K. Charles Brother to Lotharius the Emperor he wrote a commendable Work. Of Predistination a He wrote two Books of Predestination one Book Of the Lords Body and Blood one Book He flourished in the Reign of Lotharius the Emperour A. D. 840. Here begins the Book of RATRAMNVS Concerning the BODY and BLOOD of the LORD To CHARLES the Great EMPEROUR The Preface I. YOU were pleased to command me Glorious Prince to signifie to your Majesty my Sentiments touching the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ Which Command is no less becoming your Highness than the Performance of it is above my poor Abilities For what can better deserve a Princes Care than to see that he himself be Catholick in his Judgment concerning the Sacred Mysteries of that God who has placed him on the Royal Throne and not able to endure that his Subjects should hold different opinions concerning the Body of Christ wherein it is evident that the sum of our Redemption by Christ consists II. Great disputes concerning the Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament For while some of the Faithful say concerning the Body and Blood of Christ which is daily celebrated in the Church that there is no Vail nor Figure but that the very thing it self is openly and really exhibited and others of them affirm that these things viz the Body the Body and Blood of Christ are present in a Mystery or Figure that it is one thing that appears to our bodily eyes and another thing that our Faith beholds it 's plain there is no small difference in Judgment among them And whereas the Apostle writes to the Faithful * 1 Cor. 1.10 That they should all think and speak the same thing and that there should be no Schism among them there is no small Division and Schism among those who believe and speak differently concerning the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ III. Wherefore your Royal Highness mov'd with Zeal for the true Faith and sadly laying to heart these and being withal desirous that as the Apostle commands The 〈◊〉 Consuâ—â— Ratramnus in the Controversie All Men should think and speak the same thing doth diligently search out this profound Truth that you may reduce those who err from it and for that purpose disdain not to consult the meanest well knowing that so profound a Mystery cannot be understood unless God reveal it who shews forth the Light of his Truth by whomsoever he pleases without Respect of Persons IV. And for my own part your Commands I joyfully obey notwithstanding the great difficulty I find to discourse on a subject so remote from humane Understanding and which no Man unless taught by the Holy Ghost can possibly penetrate Therefore in pure Obedience to your Majesty and with an entire confidence of his aid concerning whom I am to Treat I shall endeavour in as proper Terms as I am able to deliver my Sentiments on this Subject not relying on my own Understanding but following the steps of the Holy Fathers V. The State of the Controversie in two Questions YOur most Excellent Majesty demands Whether the Body and Blood of Christ which is in the Church received by the mouths of the Faithful be such in a Mystery or in Truth That is Whether it contain any secret thing discernable only by the eyes of Faith or whether without the Coverture of any Mystery the same thing appeareth outwardly to the bodily Sight which the eyes of the Mind do inwardly behold so that the whole matter is apparent and manifest to our Senses And whether it be the same Body which was Born of Mary and Suffered Died and was Buried and Rising again and ascending into Heaven sits at the Right Hand of the Father VI. The first Question discussed Let us consider the first of these two Questions And that we be not confounded by the Ambiguity of Terms let us define what a Figure is and what the Truth that having some certain mark in our Eye we may know how the better to direct the course of our Reasoning VII What a Figure is A Figure is a certain covert manner of Expression which exhibits what it intends under certain Vails For example We call the Word Bread as in the Lords Prayer we beg that God would give us our daily Bread Or as Christ in the Gospel speaks * John 6.51 I am the Living Bread that came down from Heaven Or when he calls himself a Vine and his Disciples Branches ‖ John 15.1 5. I am the true Vine and ye are the Branches In all these Instances one thing is said and another thing is understood VIII The Truth is the Representation of the very thing it self not vailed with any Shadow or Figure but expressed according to the pure and naked or to speak more plainly yet natural Signification of the words As when we say that Christ was Born of a Virgin Suffered was Crucified Dead and Buried Here is nothing shadowed out under the coverture of Figures but the very Truth of the thing is expressed according to the natural Signification of the words nor is any thing here understood but what is said But in the forementioned Instances it is not so For †i.e. In propriety of Nature So the Saxon Homily Aefter soðum gecynd nis Crist naþor ne hlaf in Substance neither is Christ Bread or a Vine nor the Apostles Branches These are Figures but in the other the plain and naked Truth is related IX He proves the Sacrament to be a Figure from the notion of a Mystery or a Sacrament Now let us return to the Subject which hath occasioned the saying of all this viz. the Body and Blood of Christ If there be no figure in that Mystery it is not properly called a Mystery for that cannot be said to be a Mystery which hath nothing secret nothing remote from our bodily Senses nothing covered under any Vail But as for that Bread which by the Ministry of the Priest is made Christ's Body it sheweth one thing outwardly to our Senses and inwardly proclaims quite another thing to the minds of the Faithful That which outwardly appears is Bread as it was before in Form Colour and Taste But inwardly there is quite another thing presented to us and that much more precious and excellent because it is Heavenly and Divine That is Christ's Body is exhibited which is beheld received and eaten not by our carnal Senses but by the sight of the believing Soul. X. Likewise the Wine which by the Priests Consecration is made the Sacrament of Christ's Blood appears one thing outwardly and
our Lord's Passion or Resurrection is celebrated are called by the name of those Days because they have some Resemblance of those very Days in which our Saviour once suffered and rose again XXXVIII Hence we say to Day or to Morrow or next Day is the Passion or Resurrection of our Lord whereas the very Days in which those things were done are long past So we say the Lord is offered when the Sacraments of his Passion are celebrated Whereas he was but once offered in his own Person for the Salvation of the World as the Apostle saith (a) 1 Pet. 2.21 Christ hath suffered for us leaving you an Example that you should follow his steps Not that Christ suffers every day in his own Person This he did but once but he hath left us an Example which is every day presented to the Faithful in the Mystery of the Lord's Body and Blood So that whosoever cometh thereunto must understand that he ought to have a fellowship with him in his Sufferings the Image whereof he expects to receive in the Holy Mysteries according to that of the Wise-man (a) Prov. 23.1 2. If thou comest to the Table of a Great man consider diligently what is set before thee knowing that thou thy self must prepare the like To come to this Great-man's Table is to be made a Partaker of the Divine Sacrifice To consider what is set before thee is to understand the Lord's Body and Blood of which whosoever is partaker ought to prepare the like that is to imitate him by dying with him whose Death he commemorates not only in believing but also in eating XXXIX So St. Paul to the Hebrews (a) Heb. 7.26 27. Such an High Priest became us who is holy harmless undefiled separate from sinners and made higher than the Heavens who needeth not as those daily to offer up Sacrifice first for his own Sins and then for the Peoples For this the Lord Jesus Christ did once when he offered himself What he did once he now every day repeats For he once offered himself for the Sins of the People yet the same Oblation is every day celebrated by the Faithful but in a Mystery So that what the Lord Jesus Christ once offering himself really did the same is every day done in Remembrance of his Passion by the Celebration of the Mysteries or Sacraments XL. Nor yet is it falsly said That in those Mysteries the Lord is offered or suffereth because they have a Resemblance of his Death and Passion whereof they are Representations whereupon they are called The Lord's Body and the Lord's Blood because they take the Names of those things whereof they are the Sacrament For this reason St. Isidore in his Book of Etymologies saith thus Sacrificium the Sacrifice is so called from Sacrum Factum a sacred Action because it is consecrated by mystical Prayer in Memory of the Lord's Passion for us Whence by his Command we call it the Body and Blood of Christ which though made of the Fruits of the Earth is sanctified and made a Sacrament by the invisible Operation of the Spirit of God. Which Sacrament of the Bread and Cup the Greeks call the Eucharist that is in Latine bona Gratia good Grace And what is better than the Body and Blood of Christ * These words which lie between two little Stars are not in the Printed Editions of St. Isidore I wish they were not purposely omitted by the Publishers of his Works or rather expunged anciently by the Enemies of Berengarius Now Bread and Wine are therefore compared to the Body and Blood of Christ because as the Substance of this visible Bread and Wine feed and inebriate the outward man so the Word of God which is the living Bread doth refresh the Souls of the Faithful by the receiving thereof * These words which lie between two little Stars are not in the Printed Editions of St. Isidore I wish they were not purposely omitted by the Publishers of his Works or rather expunged anciently by the Enemies of Berengarius XLI Likewise this Catholick Doctor teaches That the holy Mystery of the Lord's Passion should be celebrated in Remembrance of the Lord 's Suffering for us In saying whereof he shews that the Lord suffered but once but the Memory of it is represented in sacred and solemn Rites XLII So that the Bread which is offered though made of the Fruits of the Earth when Consecrated is changed into Christ's Body as also the Wine which flowed from the Vine is by Sacramental Consecration made the Blood of Christ not visibly indeed but as this Doctor speaks by the invisible Operation of the Spirit of God. XLIII And they are called the Blood and Body of Christ because they are understood to be not what they outwardly appear but what they are inwardly made by the invisible Operation of the Holy Ghost And that this invisible Operation renders them much a different thing from what they appear to our Eyes he St. Isidore observes when he saith That the Bread and Wine are therefore compared to the Lord's Body and Blood because as the Substance of material Bread and Wine doth nourish the outward Man so the Word of God which is the Bread of Life doth refresh the Souls of the Faithful in partaking thereof XLIV In saying this we most plainly confess That in the Sacrament of the Lord's Body and Blood whatsoever is outwardly received serves only for the Refreshment of the Body But the Word of God who is the invisible Bread being invisibly in the Sacrament doth in an invisible manner nourish and quicken the Souls of the Faithful by their partaking thereof XLV Wherefore again the same Doctor saith There is a Sacrament in any divine Office when the thing is so managed that there is somewhat understood which must be spiritually taken In saying thus he shews that every Sacrament or Mystery of Religion contains in it some secret thing And that there is one thing that visibly appears and another thing to be Spiritually understood XLVI And soon after shewing what are the Sacraments which the Faithful should celebrate he saith And these Sacraments are Baptism Chrism or Confirmation and the Body and Blood of Christ Which are called Sacraments because under the Coverture of bodily things the Power of God doth in a secret way work the Salvation or Grace conferred by them And from these secret and sacred Vertues they are called Sacraments And in the following words he saith It is called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Mystery because it contains a secret or hidden Dispensation XLVII What do we learn hence but that the Body and Blood of Christ are therefore called Mysteries because they contain a secret and hidden Dispensation That is it is one thing which they outwardly make Shew of and another thing which they operate inwardly and invisibly XLVIII And for this Reason they are called Sacraments because under the Covert of bodily Things a
divine Power doth secretly dispense Salvation or Grace to them that faithfully receive them XLIX By all that hath been hitherto said it appears that the Body and Blood of Christ which are received by the Mouths of the Faithful in the Church are Figures in respect of their visible Nature but in respect of the invisible Substance that is the Power of the Word of God they are truly Christ's Body and Blood. Wherefore as they are visible Creatures they feed the Body but as they have the vertue of a more powerful Substance they do both feed and sanctifie the Souls of the Faithful L. We must now consider the Second Question The Second Question and see (a) Which Paschasius Radbertus affirms and Ratramnus denies as also did Rabanus Maurus c. whether that very Body which was born of Mary which Suffered was Dead and Buried and which sits at the Right Hand of the Father be the same which is daily received in the Church by the Mouths of the Faithful in the Sacramental Mysteries LI. Let us enquire what is the Judgment of St. Ambrose in this point He argues from a testimony of St. Ambrose For he saith in his First Book of the Sacraments Truly it is wonderful that God rained down Manna to the Fathers and they were fed every day with Heavenly Food whereupon 't is said that Man did eat Angels Bread and yet they who did eat that Bread all died in the Wilderness But that Food which thou receivest that living Bread which came down from Heaven ministers the Substance of Eternal Life and whosoever eats thereof shall never die and this is the Body of Christ LII See in what sense this Doctor saith That the Body of Christ is that Food which the Faithful receive in the Church For he saith That Living Bread which comes down from Heaven ministers the Substance of Eternal Life Doth it as it is seen as it is corporally received chewed with the Teeth as it is swallowed down the Throat and received into the Belly minister the Substance of Eternal Life In this respect it only feeds the Mortal Flesh it doth not minister Incorruption nor can it be truly said That whosoever eats thereof shall never die For what the Body receives is corruptible nor can it preserve the Body so that it shall never die for what is it self subject to corruption cannot give Immortality Therefore there is in that Bread a certain Principle of Life which doth not appear to our bodily Eyes but is seen by those of Faith which also is that Living Bread which came down from Heaven and concerning which it is truly said that whosoever eats thereof shall never die and which is Christ's Body LIII And afterwards speaking of the Almighty Power of Christ he saith thus Therefore the Word of Christ which could produce things that were not out of nothing cannot it change the things that actually exist into that which they were not Is it not a greater Work to create things at first than to alter their Natures LIV. St. Ambrose saith That in this Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ there is a Change made and wonderfully because it is Divine Ineffable and indeed Incomprehensible I desire to know of them who will by no means admit any thing of an inward secret Virtue but will Judge of the whole matter as it appears to outward Sense in what respect this Change is made As for the substance of the Creatures what they were before Consecration the same they remain after it Bread and Wine they were before and after Consecration we see they continue Beings of the same Nature and Kind So that it is changed Internally by the mighty Power of the Holy Ghost and this is the mighty Object which Faith beholds which feâ—ds the Soul and ministers the substance of Eternal Life LV. And again it follows Why dost thou here require the Order of Nature in the mystery of Christ's Body when our Lord God himself was contrary to the Order of Nature born of a Virgin LVI Now perhaps An Objection obviated some one at the hearing of this may start up and say That it is the Body of Christ which we behold and his Blood that we drink yet we must not enquire how it becomes so but only believe stedfastly that it is so Thou seemest to think aright but yet if thou didst carefully observe the Importance of thy Words when thou sayest That thou faithfully believest it to be the Body and Blood of Christ thou would'st understand that what thou believest thou dost not see For if thou sawest it thou would'st say I see and not I believe that it is the Body and Blood of Christ Whereas now because Faith discerns the whole matter whatever it is and the Bodily Eye perceives nothing of it thou must understand that those things which are seen are the Body and Blood of Christ not in Kind or Nature but Virtually For which Reason he saith That the Order of Nature is not to be considered but the Power of Christ must be adored which changes what he will how he will into what he will creating what had no Being and changing the Creature into what it was not before And the same Author adds Doubtless it was the true Flesh of Christ which was Crucified and Buried (a) Or it may be rendred The Sacrament of that true Flesh therefore this is really the Sacrament of that Flesh The Lord Jesus himself saith This is my Body LVII How warily Another Argument from St. Ambrose and wisely doth he distinguish Speaking of the Flesh of Christ which was Crucified and Buried or in which Christ was Crucified and Buried he saith It is the true Flesh of Christ But of that which is taken in the Sacrament he saith It 's therefore truly the Sacrament of that Flesh distinguishing between the Sacrament of his Flesh and the Verity of his Flesh or his true Flesh in as much as he saith in that true Flesh which he took of the Virgin he was Crucified and Buried whereas he saith the Mystery now celebrated in the Church is the Sacrament of that true Flesh in which he was Crucified expresly teaching the Faithful that that Flesh in which Christ was Crucified and Buried is not a Mystery but true and natural whereas that Flesh which mystically represents the former is not Flesh in kind or Naturally but Sacramentally For in its Kind or Nature it is Bread but Sacramentally it is the true Body of Christ as the Lord Jesus saith This is my Body LVIII And in the following words The Holy Ghost hath in another place by the Prophet declared to thee what it is that we eat and drink saying * Psal 34.8 Taste and see that the Lord is good blessed is the man that trusteth in him Doth the Bread and Wine eaten and drunk corporally shew how sweet the Lord is Whatsoever is an Object of Tasting is corporeal and
on St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians writes thus St. Hierom on the Ephes c. 1. The Flesh and Blood of Christ is taken in two Senses in the one it 's that Spiritual and Divine of which he saith My Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed In the other it is that Flesh which was Crucified and that Blood which was let out by the Soldier 's Spear LXXI This Doctor distinguishes and makes no small difference between the two acceptations of Christs Body and Blood. Christ ' s Body is taken in two Senses For whilst he stiles that Body and Blood of Christ Spiritual which is daily received by the Faithful and that Flesh which was Crucified and that Blood which was let out by the Soldier 's Spear is not said to be either Spiritual or Divine he manifestly insinuates that these differ from each other as much as Corporeal and Spiritual Visible and Invisible Humane and Divine Now things that differ are not the same And in the Opinion of this Author viz. St. Hierom That Spiritual Flesh which the Faithful receive with their Mouths and that Spiritual Blood which is daily given to Believers to drink differ from that Flesh which was Crucified and that Blood which was let out by the Souldier's Spear Therefore they are not the same LXXII For that Flesh which was crucified He sheweth the Difference of his Natural and Spiritual Body was made of the Virgin 's Flesh consisting of Bones and Nerves distinguish'd by its Lineaments into several Members of a humane Body animated with a reasonable Soul having proper Life and agreeable Motions But that Spiritual Body which spiritually feeds the faithful People as to its external Nature is made of several Grains of Wheat by the Baker's hand hath neither Sinews nor Bones nor distinction of Members nor is it animated by any reasonable Substance nor can it exercise any vital Motion But that whatever it is which gives the Substance of Life is the Efficacy of a spiritual Power of an invisible and divine Virtue And that which appears outwardly is quite another thing than that which is believed in the Mystery Moreover the Flesh of Christ which was crucified did not outwardly appear any other thing than what inwardly it was For it was the true Flesh of a true Man a true Body in the shape of a true Body LXXIII It is further to be considered The Sacramental Bread a figure of the People as well as of Christ's Body That in that Bread not only the Body of Christ but also the Body of the People believing in him is figured and therefore it is made of many grains of Wheat as the Body of faithful People is made up of many Believers by the Word of Christ LXXIV For which reason as in the Sacrament that Bread is understood to be Christ's Body so in the same Sacrament his Members the People that believe in Christ are also signified And as that Bread is said to be the Body of the Faithful not corporally but spiritually so must it necessarily be understood to be the Body of Christ not corporally but spiritually As is also the Water mixt with the Wine LXXV So with the Wine which is called Christ's Blood (a) Both the Greek and Latine Church used to mix Water with Wine in the Eucharist but held it not essential to the Sacrament Water is commanded to be mixt nor is one allowed to be offered without the other because neither is the People without Christ nor Christ without the People As the Head cannot be without the Body nor the Body without the Head. Lastly Water in that Sacrament represents the People Now if the Wine consecrated by the Minister's Office were corporally changed into Christ's Blood the Water also which is mixed therewith must necessarily be corporally changed into the Blood of the faithful People For where there is but one Consecration there is consequently but one Operation and where there is the like Reason there is the like Mystery But we see no corporeal Change in the Water neither is there any corporeal Change in the Wine The Representation of the Body of the People in the Water is altogether spiritual therefore the Representation of the Blood of Christ in the Wine must also of necessity be altogether spiritual LXXVI Again The Sacrament not incorruptible therefore not Christ's natural Body Things that differ from each other are not the same The Body of Christ that died and rose again and being made immortal * Rom. 6.6 dieth no more nor hath Death any more Dominion over it is eternal now and no longer passible But that which is celebrated in the Church is temporal not eternal corruptible not exempt from Corruption in our Way not in our heavenly Country Therefore they differ and are not the same And if they are not the same how are they said to be the true Body and true Blood of Christ LXXVII For if it be Christ's Body if it be truly said that it is Christ's Body then it is Christ's Body in verity of Nature and if so then it is incorruptible impassible and by consequence eternal And therefore this Body of Christ which is celebrated in the Church must necessarily be incorruptible and eternal Now it cannot be denied but that thing is corrupted which is broken into pieces and distributed piece-meal to be received and being ground by the Teeth passeth into the Body But it is one thing that is outwardly done and another that is received by Faith. That which our bodily Sense perceives is corruptible that which Faith believes is incorruptible Wherefore that which outwardly appears is not the thing it self but the Image of it but that which the Mind perceives and understands is the very thing it self LXXVIII Whereupon St. A large Citation out of St. Augustine Augustine in his Exposition of St. John's Gospel speaking of the Body and Blood of Christ saith thus Moses did eat Manna and both Aaron and Phineas did eat and many others who pleased God and died did eat thereof How so Because they did spiritually understand their visible Food they did hunger spiritually and taste spiritually and were spiritually filled And we at this day receive visible Food but the Sacrament is one thing and the vertue of the Sacrament is another And afterwards This is the Bread that cometh down from Heaven The Manna signified this Bread the Altar of God signified the same These were Sacraments differing in the Signs but agreeing in the thing signified Hear what St. Paul saith (a) 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3. Brethren I would not have you ignorant that our Fathers were all under the Cloud and all passed through the Sea and were all baptized into Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea and did all eat the same spiritual Meat and drank the same spiritual Drink The same spiritual but other corporal Food They did eat Manna we quite another thing But yet
they did eat the same spiritual Meat with us He adds And they drank the same spiritual Drink They drank one thing and we another but (a) In its visible Nature only as to what outwardly appeared which by a spiritual vertue signified and same thing How was it the same Drink They drank faith he of that spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ. Thence had they Bread whence they had Drink The Rock was Christ in a Type but the true Christ was the Word incarnate LXXIX Again (b) John 6.63 This is the Bread which came down from Heaven whosoever eats thereof shall never die which must be understood of him who eats the Vertue of the Sacrament not the meer visible Sacrament him who eats inwardly not outwardly who feeds on it in his Heart not who presseth it with his Teeth LXXX Again in what follows quoting our Saviour's Words he saith Doth this offend you that I said I give you my Flesh to eat and my Blood to drink What if you shall see the Son of Man ascending where he was before What means this Here he resolves that which troubled them here he expounds the Difficulty at which they were offended For they thought he would have given them his Body but he tells them that he should ascend in his Body entire into Heaven When you shall see the Son of Man ascend where he was before certainly then you will see that he did not give his Body in the way which you imagine then you will understand that the Grace of God is not eaten by Morsels He saith It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing LXXXI And after many other Passages he adds Whosoever saith the same Apostle hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of his Therefore it is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing (a) John 6.63 The words which I have spoken unto you are Spirit and life What means he by saying they are Spirit and Life That they must be Spiritually understood If thou understandest them Spiritually they are Spirit and Life if thou understandest them Carnally even so also they are Spirit and Life but not to thee LXXXII By the Authority of this Doctor treating on the Words of our Lord touching the Sacrament of his own Body and Blood we are plainly taught That those words of our Lord are to be spiritually and not carnally understood as he himself saith The words which I speak unto you are Spirit and Life That is his Words concerning eating his Flesh drinking his Blood. He had spoken those things at which his Disciples were offended Therefore that they might not be offended their Divine Master calleth them back from the Flesh to the Spirit from Objects of the outward Sense (a) That is to spiritual Objects to the understanding of things invisible LXXXIII So then we see that food of the Lord's Body that drink of his blood are in some respect truly his Body and his Blood that is in the same respect in which they are Spirit and Life LXXXIV Again those things which are one and the same are comprehended under the same Definition We say of the true Body of Christ that he is very God and very Man God begotten of God the Father before the World began and Man born of the Virgin Mary in the end of the World. But since these things cannot be said of the Body of Christ which is mystically celebrated in the Church we know that it is only in some particular manner the Body of Christ which manner is Figurative and in the way of an Image so that the Verity is the Thing it self LXXXV He argues from a Prayer in his time used after the H. Communion In the Prayer used after the Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood to which the People say Amen the Priest speaks thus (a) This Prayer is not found in the present Roman Mass-book We who have now received the Pledge of eternal Life most humbly beseech thee to grant that we may be (a) Or Really manifestly made partakers of that which here we receive under an Image or Sacrament LXXXVI A Pledge and Image are the Pledge and Image of somewhat else that is they do not respect themselves but another thing It is the Pledge of that thing for which it is given the Image of the thing it represents They signifie the thing of which they are the Pledge or Image but are not the very thing it self whence it appears that this Body and Blood of Christ are the Pledge and Image of something to come which is now only represented but shall hereafter be (b) Or Really plainly exhibited Now if it only signifie at present what shall be hereafter really exhibited then it is one thing which is now celebrated and another which shall hereafter be manifested LXXXVII Wherefore it is indeed the Body and Blood of Christ which the Church celebrates but in the way of a Pledge or an Image The truth we shall then have when the Pledge or Image shall cease and the very thing it self shall appear LXXXVIII And in another Prayer He argues from another Collect. (a) This is extant in the ordinary Mass-Book Let thy Sacrament work in us O Lord we beseech thee those things which they contain that we may really be made partakers of those things which now we celebrate in a figure He saith that these things are celebrated in a Figure not in Truth that is by way of Representation and not the (b) Or Real Presence Manifestation of the Thing it self Now the Figure and the Truth are very different things Therefore that Body and Blood of Christ which is celebrated in the Church differs from the Body and Blood of Christ which is glorified That Body is the Pledge or Figure but this the very Truth it self the former we celebrate till we come to the latter and when we come to the latter the former shall be done way LXXXIX It is apparent therefore that they differ vastly as much as the Pledge and that whereof it is the Pledge as much as the Image and the Thing whose Image it is as much as the Figure and Truth We see then how vast a difference there is between the Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood which the Faithful now receive in the Church and that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary which suffered was buried rose again ascended into Heaven and sitteth at the Right-hand of God. For that Body which is celebrated here in our way must be spiritually received for Faith believes somewhat that it seeth not and it spiritually feeds the Soul makes glad the Heart and confers Eternal Life and Incorruption if we attend not to that which feeds the Body which is chewed with our Teeth and ground to pieces but to that which is spiritually received by Faith. Now that Body in which Christ suffered and rose again was his own
proper Body which he assumed of the Virgin which might be seen and felt after his Resurrection as he saith to his Disciples Luke 24.40 Handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have XC Let us hear also what St. He urges the Authority of Fulgentius Fulgentius speaks in his Book of Faith. Firmly believe and doubt not in any wise that the very only begotten Son God the Word being made Flesh (a) Ephes 5.2 offered himself for us a Sacrifice and Oblation of a sweet smelling savour to God to whom with the Father and Holy Ghost by Patriarchs Prophets and Priests living Creatures were sacrificed in the time of the Old Testament and to whom now that is under the New together with the Father and Holy Ghost with whom he hath one and the same Divinity the Catholick Church throughout the World ceaseth not to offer a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine in Faith and Charity In those Carnal Sacrifices there was a signification of the Flesh of Christ which he without Sin should offer for our Sins and of that Blood which he was to shed on the Cross for the Remission of our Sins but in this Sacrifice there is a Thanksgiving and Commemoration of that Flesh of Christ which he offered for us and of that Blood which the same Christ our God hath shed for us Of which the Apostle St. Paul in the Acts of the Apostles saith (a) Acts 20.28 Take heed to your selves and to the whole Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to rule the Church of God which he redeemed with his own Blood. In those Sacrifices what was to be given for us was represented in a Figure but in this Sacrifice what is already given is evidently shewn XCI By saying That in those Sacrifices was signified what should be given for us but that in this Sacrifice what is already given is commemorated he plainly intimates That as those Sacrifices were a Figure of things to come so this is the Figure of things already past XCII By which Expressions he most evidently shews how vast a difference there is between that Body of Christ in which Christ suffered and that Body which we celebrate in remembrance of his Death and Passion For the former is properly and truly his Body having nothing mystical or figurative in it The latter is mystical shewing one thing to our outward Senses by a Figure and inwardly representing another thing by Faith. XCIII He concludes with another Testimony of S. Augugustine Let me add one Testimony more of Father Augustine which will confirm what I have said and shall put an end to my Discourse in his Sermon to the People touching the Sacrament of the Altar Thus he saith What it is which you see upon God's Altar you were shewn last Night but you have not yet heard what it is what it meaneth and of how great a Thing this is a Sacrament That which you see is Bread and the Cup thus much your own Eyes inform you But that wherein your Faith needs Instruction is that this Bread is the Body of Christ and the Cup is the Blood of Christ This is a short account of the Matter and perhaps as much as Faith requires but Faith needeth further Instruction as it is written (a) Isa 7.9 Except you believe you will not understand You may be apt to say to me You require us to believe expound to us that we may understand Such a Thought as this may arise in any man's Heart We know that our Lord Jesus Christ took Flesh of the Virgin Mary when an Infant he was suckled nourished grew and arrived to the Age of a young Man was Persecuted by the Jews suffered was hanged on a Tree put to Death taken down and buried the third day he rose again and on that day himself pleased he ascended the Heavens and carried up his Body thither and shall from thence come to Judge both quick and dead where he is now sitting at the right Hand of the Father How is Bread his Body and how is the Cup or the Liquor in the Cup his Blood These my Brethren are stiled Sacraments because in them we see one thing and understand another That which we see hath a Bodily Nature that which is understood hath a Spiritual Fruit or Efficacy XCIV In these Words this Venerable Author instructs us what we ought to believe touching the proper Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary and now sitteth at the right Hand of God and in which he will come to Judge the Quick and the Dead as also touching that Body which is placed on the Altar and received by the People The former is entire neither subject to be cut or divided nor is it veiled under any Figure But the latter which is set on the Lord's Table is a Figure because it is a Sacrament That which is outwardly seen hath a Corporeal Nature which feeds the Body but that which is understood to be contained within it hath a spiritual Fruit or Virtue and quickneth the Soul. XCV And in the following Words having a Mind to speak more plainly and openly touching this Mystical Body he saith If you have a mind to understand the Body of Christ hearken to the Apostle who saith Ye are the Body of Christ and his Members And if ye are the Body of Christ and his Members then there is a Mystical Representation of your selves set on the Lord's Table You receive the Mystery of your selves and answer Amen and by that Answer (a) i.e. Own your selves to be the Body and Members of Christ subscribe to what you are Thou hearest the Body of Christ named and answerest Amen become thou a Member of Christ that thy Amen may be true (a) i. e. How are we represented as Christ's Body in the Bread But why in the Bread I shall offer nothing of my own but let us hear what the Apostle (b) 1 Cor. 10.17 himself speaks of this Sacrament who saith And we being many are one Bread and one Body in Christ c. XCVI St. Augustine sufficiently teaches us That as in the Bread set upon the Altar the Body of Christ is signified so is likewise the Body of the People who receive it That he might evidently shew That Christ's proper Body is that in which he was born of the Virgin was suckled suffered died was buried and rose again in which he ascended the Heavens sitteth on the right Hand of the Father and in which he shall come again to Judgment But this which is placed upon the Lord's Table contains a Mystery of that as also the Mystery of the Body of the Faithful People according to that of the Apostle And we being many are one Bread and one Body in Christ. XCVII Your Wisdom He determines this second Question in the negative Most Illustrious Prince may observe how both by Testimonies out of the
Holy Scriptures and the Fathers it is most evidently demonstrated That the Bread which is called the Body of Christ and the Cup which is called the Blood of Christ is a Figure because it is a Mystery and that there is a vast Difference between that which is his Body Mystically and that Body which suffered was buried and rose again For this was our Saviour's proper Body nor is there any Figure or Signification in it but it is the very thing it self And the Faithful desire the Vision of him because he is our Head and when we shall see him our Desire will be satisfied (a) 1 John 10.30 For he and the Father are one Not in respect of our Saviour's Body but forasmuch as the Fulness of the Godhead dwelleth in the Man Christ XCVIII But in that Body which is celebrated in a Mystery there is a Figure not only of the proper Body of Christ but also of the People which believe in Christ For it is a Figure representing both Bodies to wit that of Christ in which he died and rose again and that of the People which are regenerated and raised from the Dead by Baptism into Christ XCIX And let me add That the Bread and Cup which is called and is the Body and Blood of Christ represents the Memory of the Lord's Passion or Death as himself teacheth us in the Gospel saying (a) Luke 22.19 This do in Remembrance of me Which St. Paul the Apostle expounding saith (b) 1 Cor. 11.26 As oft as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew forth the Lord's Death till he come C. We are here taught both by our Saviour and also by St. Paul the Apostle That the Bread and Blood which is placed upon the Altar is set there for a Figure or in remembrance of the Lord's Death that what was really done long since may be called to our present Remembrance that having his Passion in our mind we may be made partakers of that Divine Gift whereby we are saved from Death Knowing well that when we shall come to the Vision of Christ we shall need no such Instruments to admonish us what his Infinite Goodness was pleased to Suffer for our sakes for when we shall see him face to face we shall not by the outward Admonition of Temporal things but by the Contemplation of the very thing it self shall understand how much we are obliged to give Thanks to the Author of our Salvation CI. But in what I say I would not have it thought That the Lord's Body and Blood is not received by the Faithful in the Sacramental Mysteries for Faith receives not that which the Eye beholds but what it self believes It is Spiritual Meat and Spiritual Drink spiritually feeding the Soul and affording a Life of eternal Satisfaction as our Saviour himself commending this Mystery speaks (a) John. 6.63 It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing CII Thus in Obedience to your Majesties Command I though a very inconsiderable Person have adventured to dispute touching Points of no small Moment not following any presumptuous Opinion of my own but having a constant regard to the Authority of the Ancients If your Majesty shall approve what I have said as Catholick ascribe it to the merit of your own Faith which laying aside your Royal Glory and Magnificence condescended to enquire after the Truth of so mean a Person And if what I have said please you not impute it to my own Weakness which renders me incapable of explaining this Point so well as I desired FINIS AN APPENDIX TO RATRAM OR BERTRAM In which Monsieur Boileau's French Version of that Author and his Notes upon him are Considered and his unfair Dealings in both Detected LONDON Printed in the Year MDCLXXXVIII AN APPENDIX TO RATRAM OR BERTRAM c. ABout Three Months after I had first Publish'd this small Tract I was acquainted by a Friend that it was newly Printed at Paris with a quite contrary design viz. To shew there the Sentiments of Ratram touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist were exactly conformable to the Faith of the Roman Church This News made me very desirous to see the Book but living near an Hundred Miles from London it was above six Months more ere I could procure it At first view I perceived the Publisher (a) James Boileau Doctor in Divinity of the College of Sorbon and Dean of the Metropolitan Church of Sens. was a Person of no small Figure in the French Church and that he had several other Doctors of the Sorbon to avouch (b) See the Approbation at the end That there is nothing either in his Version or Notes but what is agreeable to the Text of that Ancient Writer But upon further perusal I soon found that Monsieur Boileau had rather given us his own Paraphrase than the Author's Words in French that his design was not so much a Translation as the Conversion of Bertram and that he had made almost as great and wonderful a change in his Doctrine as that which the Romanists pretend to be wrought in the Eucharist it self I confess his Undertaking seemed both useful and seasonable and well deserving encouragement for if he proceed successful in it in the present juncture it must needs much facilitate the Conversions in hand And unless some such way can be found out to bring over the Old Hereticks who for a Thousand Years together after CHRIST taught that The Bread and Wine remain after Consecration and that It is not the Natural Body of our Saviour which is orally received in the Holy Sacrament The poor Hugonots will still be of Opinion That they ought not to distrust the Judgment of their Senses confirmed by Scripture and Antiquity or to resign their Vnderstandings to any Church Authority on Earth But the misery of it is that the Doctor hath not been more generous in his Undertaking than he is unfortunate in his performance For tho' the Abjurations of the new Converts cannot be more against their private Sense than Dr. Boileau's Exposition is against the Sense of this Author yet as they recant their forced Subscriptions whenever they can escape out of France so Bertram when permitted to speak his own Words in Latine contradicts whatever this Translator hath forced him against his mind to say in French. But how ill soever he hath treated the Author in French we must acknowledg our selves very much obliged to him for giving us the Latin Text (c) See his Preface p. 18. according to F. Mabillons correct Copy of the Lobes Manuscript We thank him heartily for it and it is no small piece of Justice he hath done us to shew the World that the former Printed Copies were not corrupted by us as some have pretended That the Variations from them are inconsiderable generally in the order of the Syntax or the use of some other word of like signification and where the Doctor himself thinks the variations
7. but advanced such a Notion of it as amounted to no more than the Illumination of the Mind by God's Spirit Whereas the Catholicks did further acknowledge its powerful Sway over our Wills and its assistance in every good Work. Now if Paschasius and his Party do in Words acknowledge a Sign or Figure but such as in effect is none Ratram might well enough charge them with denying any Vail or Figure in the Sacrament Bertram and (k) Quae ob id Sacramenta dicuntur quia sub tegumento corporalium rerum Virtus Divina Secretius Salutem eorundem Sacramentorum operatur n. 46. Isidore cited by him make Sacramental Figures to be res corporales Corporal Things not only the proper Accidents of a Body as the Figure and Tast of Bread and Wine which Paschase and Haymo both admit in the Sacrament but Corporal Substances And in the Holy Eucharist (l) Sub velamento corporei Panis corporeique Vini c. n. 16. See Numb 97.98 Ratram saith That Christ's Spiritual Body and Blood are under the Vail of Corporeal Bread and Corporeal Wine which are Bodily Substances He also saith of the Consecrated (m) Corpus Sanguis Christi quae Fidelium ore in Ecclesia percipiuntur Figurae sunt secundum visibilem Speciem Which is expounded by Visibilem Creaturam in four Lines after n. 49. Bread and Cup which is called Christ's Body and Blood that it is a Figure of Christ's proper Body That the Body and Blood of Christ received in the Church are Figures as they are Visible Creatures Whereas (n) Lib. de C. S. D. c. 4. Est autem figura vel character hoc quod exterius sentitur sed totum veritas nulla adumbratio quod intrinsecus percipitur Paschase contends that the Consecrated Elements are both a Figure and the Truth as Christ who is true God is stiled (o) Heb. 1.3 the Figure or Character of his Substance This Haymo although he teacheth a Real Presence of Christ's natural Body look'd upon as absurd saying that nothing can be a Figure or Sign of it self and upon that account denied (p) Panis ille Sacratus Calix signa dicuntur Non autem hoc quantum ad carnem Christi Sanguinem accipiendum est Jam enim Corpus Sanguis Christi non essent Nullum enim Signum est illud cujus est Signum Nec res aliqua sui ipsius dicitur Signum sed alterius Apud Mabill A. B. S. 4. p. 2. Praef. n. 93. The consecrated Elements to be Signs of Christs Body Nor will the Text cited by Paschase bring him off for in the (q) It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Original Christ is said to be the Figure of his Person not his Substance and the Vulgar Interpreter must mean Subsistence by Substantia or he was an Arian For the Son was the Image not of the Essence but the Person of the Father and consequently Christ was not truly the Father though truly God so that the same thing is not proved to be both a Figure and Truth I confess Paschase expounds the Words of Christ's Human Nature which tho' it clear him of Arianism yet it spoils his proof that a thing may be a Figure of it self Upon reading his Book with the best attention I was able I cannot say whether he deny the Substance of the Consecrated Elements to remain or not he is so inconsistent with himself and seems rather to be for Impanation than Transubstantiation But our Adversaries believing his Doctrine to be the same with that of the present Church of Rome which is that meer Accidents remain to be a Figure or Vail of Christs natural Body he and they are as justly chargeable with denying any Figure as the Fancied Predecessors of Abbaudus and Walter nay as those Authors themselves who only asserted that Christ's very Body not the Accidents only was sensible and sensibly broken but never denied that the Accidents or somewhat which made the same Impressions on Sense as did the Accidents of Bread and Wine before Consecration shrowded it from their Eyes Whether those Accidents were subjected in Christ's Body or only environed it or whether God miraculously Imprinted the Idea of them on the Organs of Sense the case is no way varied For the Natural Body of Christ is still covered from the outward Senses so that what is pretended could not be the Point in Dispute between Ratram and his Adversaries who must needs admit a Figure and Vail in the Holy Eucharist as the Roman Catholicks now do 2. A right Understanding of the Terms of the Question will clear the Truth of what I said last and overthrow M. Boileau's Fancy In the Question there are three Parts to be considered 1. (r) Subjectum Quod in Ecclesia ore fidelium sumitur Suppositum Quod Corpus Sanguis Christi fiat Quaesitum An hoc fiat in Mysterio an in Veritate The Subject of it which is comprized in these words That which the Faithful do in the Church receive with the Mouth which import somewhat more than the bare Accidents or Superficies of Bread and Wine viz. the Substance which they environ and which passeth into the Mouth with them 2ly A thing admitted by both Parties touching this Subject viz. That by Consecration it is made Christ's Body and Blood. 3ly The point remaining in debate which is in what manner and by what sort of change it is made Christ's Body and Blood whether by a true and natural change or only by a Mystical and Sacramental change There is a great Emphasis in the Word Fiat which is more than a bare Verb Substantive in the Question and imports a change made (s) At quia confitentur Corpus Sanguinem Dei esse nec hoc esse potuisse nisi facta in melius commutatione neque ista commutatio Corporaliter sed Spiritaliter facta sit necesse est jam ut figurate facta esse dicatur Ratr. n. 16. Ratram proves against his Adversaries that it was a Figurative and Mystical not a Substantial and Corporal change and Haymo (t) Idem Panis in Carnem Domini mutatur idem Vinum in Sanguinem Domini transfertur non per figuram neque per umbram sed per Veritatem Haymo Hom. in Evang. die S. Palmarum Item in 1 Cor. 11. eadem habet prope ad verbum who was of the contrary Opinion makes the Elements to be converted into Christs Body and Blood not Figuratively or Mystically but in Verity so that if Haymo were as F. Mabillon (u) A. B. S. 4. p. 2. n. 93. supposes the Adversary whom our Author disputes against on the first Question Ratram as expresly denies the Real Presence of Christ's Natural Body in the Holy Eucharist as Paschase or Haymo can assert it I confess he explains Verity by Manifestation and makes them to say that the Object of their Faith was also perceived by the bodily Eye
but their meaning must only be that what they saw upon the Altar was truly certainly and without any Trope the Lord's Body Manifestation doth not necessarily import the Sensible Evidence of a thing but rather its certain Truth And accordingly it is used in this Sense by our Author in another Work (w) Ratramn de Praed lib. 2. p. 77. Apud Mauguin Qui vero ad illum quive atâ— istum pertineant finem in hac mortalitatis caligine nulla veritatis manifestatione comprehenditur Verba Isidori sunt supra Incertum tamen est ad quem sint Finem Praedestinati where expounding Isidores words Who are predestinated to Life and who to Death is uncertain expresseth it thus It is not comprehended by any manifestation of the Truth But more of this when I come to consider how M. Boileau expounds the Controverted Terms of our Author 3. Let us for once admit though it be false that the Writers whom he names did in the Twelfth Century hold the Opinion which he pretends our Author to have confuted How doth this infer that any body held it in Bertram's daies neer 300 Years before This sort of Reasoning is a little of kin to the Logick of that Oxford Alderman who said That if they could prove that King Henry the Eighth Reigned before King Henry the Sixth the City would carry their cause It is true he adds That this was a common Opinion in the middle of the Eleventh Century when Berengarius made his first Recantation and that Opinions do not grow common all on a sudden I hope he doth not think it was the Opinion of Pope Nicolas II. and the Council who ordered Berengarius to recant in that Form if he does it 's a shrewd Reflection on the Pope's Infallibility But suppose it were then commonly believed cannot an Opinion grow common under 200 Years Did not Gnosticism and the Millenary Opinions grow common in a much shorter time Did not Arianism overspread the World in less than 40 Years Nay are not the Doctrines of Molino grown common in 7 Years space There is nothing in that Chapter of Paschase like the Sentiments which he would fix upon Ratram's Adversaries and one of the Passages to which he refers viz. That the Sacrament is digested and passeth into the Draught is precisely Ratram's own Doctrine and he argues thence That what is Orally received is not Christ's Natural Body The Truth is the Opinions of Abbaudus and Walter plainly point out their Original The Dispute about the breaking of Christ's Body sprung from that beastly form of Recantation imposed upon Berengarius by Pope Nicolas the II. of which the Romanists themselves were afterwards ashamed and neither Nubes Testium nor Consensus Veterum think it convenient to be cited among their Testimonies for Transubstantiation The Pope and Cardinal Humbert (x) Ore corde profiteor de Sacramentis Dominicae Mensae eam fidem tenere quam Dominus venerabilis Papa Nicolaus haec Sancta Synodus tenendam tradidit scilicet Panem Vinum quae in Altari ponuntur post consecrationem non solum Sacramentum sed etiam verum Corpus Sanguinem Domini Nostri J. C. esse sensualiter non solum Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri Apud Gratianum de Consecr Dist 2. c. 42. Ego Berengarius resolving to make it full enough quite over-did the Business for they made him profess it as the Faith of the Pope and Council That Christ's Body is Sensibly and Truly and not only Sacramentally handled and broke by the Priest's hands and ground by the Teeth of the Faithful When the Council was over and the Recantation came to be scanned some who were too much (y) Abaelardus and others Vide Sequentiam in Festo Corp. Christi in Missali Rom. Fracto demum Sacramento Ne vacilles sed memento Tantum esse sub Fragmento Quantum toto tegitur Nulla rei fit scissura Signi tantum fit Fractura Qua nec status nec statura Signati minuitur Divines to believe the natural Body of Christ capable of Fraction or Division said it was broken and chew'd in Sacramento non in Re in the Signs only viz. the Accidents and outward Forms of Bread Others as (z) See their Words cited by M. Boileau in his Preface p. 36. And in the Remarks p. 210. 211 212 213 215. Abbaudus and Walter were for adhering to the Letter of the Council and were too much Philosophers to believe Accidents could subsist without a subject and they contended that our Saviours Body under those Accidents was broken truly and said that if it were not really broken it was not really his Body So that to say that the breaking affected only the Species or abstracted Qualities was to revive the Heresie of Berengarius This is the true Pedigree of the Disputes about the breaking of Christ's Body which cannot be deriv'd from any greater Antiquity than the Roman Synod A. D. 1059. This is more than enough to confute all that M. Boileau offers to prove that Ratram's Adversaries believed no Figure in the Holy Sacrament Let us next see how he proves that the Opinion encountred by him in the Second part of this Tract was not the Opinion of Paschase but of some body he knows not who that held the Sensible part of the Holy Eucharist or the Accidents of Bread and Wine to be the same Body which was Born of the Virgin c. Truly for the Proof hereof he misrepresents the Subject of the Question as though it were only concerning the Sensible Qualities of what is received in the Holy Sacrament whereas it is touching the Thing orally received Then he refers us to his Translation and Remarks which we shall consider in their proper place And in the beginning of his Preface he sets aside the Testimony of Cellot's Anonymus who tells us That Ratram and Rabanus both opposed Paschase in this Point tho' the Truth of what he asserts be notorious from the express Words of both those Writers And the Words of Rabanus are so Emphatical that although I have already (a) Dissert c. 6. produced them I cannot but repeat them here and add some few remarks to shew how fully and directly they contradict the Popish Notion of the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Holy Eucharist His words are these (b) Quidam nuper de ipso Sacramento Corporis Sanguinis Domini non rite sentientes dixerunt hoc ipsum Corpus Sanguinem Domini quod de Maria Virgine natum est in quo ipse Dominus passus est in cruce resurrexit de Sepulchro idem esse quod sumitur de Altari cui errori c. Rhabani Ep. ad Heribald ad calcem Reginonis c. 33. Some of late entertaining false Sentiments touching this Sacrament of the Lord's Body and Blood have said That this very Body and Blood of our Lord which was
of the Ninth Century the Age immediately before him and of the true Importance of the controverted Terms and Phrases of this Book from Aelfric than from Mr. Boileau or any interessed Writer of these times How large a part of the Saxon Homily for Easter day was taken out of this Piece (t) Dissert ch 3. I have shewn before And as Mr. Wheelock (u) In notis ad Bedae l. v. c. 22. p. 462. Liber Catholicorum Sermonum Anglice in Ecclesia per annum recitandus well observeth from the general Title of the Manuscript from which he hath Printed it this Sermon must not be looked upon as the Private Judgment of a single Doctor but the publick Doctrine of the English Church in that Age. Now Bertram's expressions are so Translated into the Saxon as renders them incapable of that Paraphrase which Mr. Dean of Sens hath given us This I hope to make appear from sundry Passages of the Homily which now and then upon occasion I shall crave leave to Translate for my Self where the Version Printed with the Text is too literal and therefore somewhat obscure 1. Here is acknowledged what some of our Adversaries are loth to own though it is impossible to deny it that there were Controversies about the Presence of Christ's Body in the Holy Eucharist in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries (w) Nu smeadon ge hÆ¿ilc men oft and git gelome smeagaþ Nonnulli saepe disputaâ—unt etiamnum frequenter disputant Male in praesenti disputat per C l. Wheelock redditur smeadon Men oft have Disputed and still do frequently Dispute c. And the Question was not as M. Boileau bears us in hand whether there be any Figure in the Sacrament But what is the effect of Consecration By what sort of change it makes Bread and Wine become Christ's Body and Blood Whether by a Physical or a Mystical change And consequently whether the Holy Sacrament be called the Body and Blood of Christ in Propriety of Speech that is in a Literal or Figurative Sense The Words are these How Bread made of Corn and Baked with Fire can be turned into Christ's Body And how Wine is by Consecration turned into Christ's Blood That Ratram's first Question and that here discussed by our Homilist is one and the same is apparent from the Answers given by both Authors and the Instances whereby they explain the Terms Figure and Truth And as in the Saxon the Emphasis lies unquestionably on the Word (x) Hu se hlaf mage be on aÆ¿end to cristes lichaman oððe ê§ Æ¿in þeor þe aÆ¿end c. Fol. 30. Turned so doubtless in Ratram the Word Fiat is of the like force and imports the Question to be By what kind of change the Consecrated Elements are made Christ's Body and Blood Whether it be by a Substantial or only by a Sacramental change 2. As Ratram to clear his Discourse gives us such definitions of a Figure and Truth as best agree to Figurative and True that is proper Forms of Speech So Aelfric premiseth (y) ðurh getacnunge ðurh geÆ¿issum ðinge Fol. 30. a distinction of things attributed to Christ some Figuratively and some Truly and Properly And to express the latter he useth a Word which answers to manifestatio and res manifesta in Ratram and fully expresseth its Sense in the Explication of the first Question and the Terms above-mentioned The Saxon (z) Ãurh geÆ¿issum ðinge geÆ¿is Certus planus manifestus Somneri Lex The opposition of this term to getacnunge directs us in this place which acceptation to chuse as Bread Lamb Lion c are affirmed of Christ in an improper or Figurative Sense so that he was born of the Virgin Crucified and rose again are affirmed of him in the plain manifest and proper Sense of the words Word signifies certain plain or manifest and is opposed to Figurative and therefore cannot import the sensible Evidence of Things as Mr. Boileau pretends but the plain manifest and natural Signification of Words The Instances both in the Homily and Bertram are an undeniable Proof hereof and withal give us Light into their Sense of our Saviours Words This is my Body which they understood not literally but figuratively which is what Aelfric himself meant by not corporally but spiritually and no doubt in that Sense he understood Bertram and that he was not mistaken is evident from num 74. where the Words corporally and spiritually can be no other Sense (a) Sicut non Corporaliter sed Spiritualiter Panis ille credentium Corpus DICITUR sic quoque Christi Corpus non Corporaliter sed Spiritualiter necesse est INTELLIGATUR n. 74. Aelfric saith Fol. 23. that Christians must not keep the Old Law lichamlice corporally i. e. literally But learn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what it Spiritually signifieth that is of what Christian Duties it was the Figure And in this Sense the Letter and Spirit and the Flesh and Spirit are opposed each to other by Saint Paul. As the Bread is not corporally but spiritually that is not literally and properly but figuratively said to be the body of the Faithful so is there a necessity of understanding it in the same Sense to be the Body of Christ Not corporally SAID to be c. not corporally UNDERSTOOD c. can signifie nothing else but not literally and properly affirmed to be the Body of Christ or of the Faithful In this Sense the word Corporally is taken when it is applied to Terms and Propositions but when applied to things as the Baptismal Water the Consecrated Elements in the Eucharist or the Types of the Old Testament it signifies the natural Substance by positive Institution made a Figure in opposition to its Sacramental Signification and Virtue and our Homilist calls the spiritual Mystery the spiritual Virtue or spiritual Vnderstanding thereof 3. Aelfric so expounds Ratram as to make him expresly deny that the Holy Eucharist is Christ's Body in Truth of Nature and affirm it to be Bread and Wine after Consecration When the Objection is made Why is the Holy Sacrament called Christs Body and Blood if it be not Truly what it is called He admits that the Consecrated Elements are not in Verity of Nature the Body and Blood of Christ Whereas if Aelfric had been a Transubstantiatour he would have denied the Supposition and with M. Boileau have said The sensible part of the Holy Sacrament i. e. the Accidents of Bread and Wine are not Christ's Body they are only the Vails and Figures that cover it but his very natural Body and Blood are environed by and contained really under those Vails He would roundly have answered That by Consecration the Substance of Bread and Wine was substantially converted into Christ's Body and Blood so that nothing of their Substances but only the sensible Qualities and outward Figure of them remained Whereas he saith that we sensibly discern them in Figure and Tast to be Bread and Wine
able to resolve us I shall only add That had our Saxon Ancestors believed the Housel to be Christ's Natural and true Flesh it is incredible that their Canons should enjoyn fresh Consecrations every Week or Fortnight at longest to prevent such Accidents and that if (c) Canones sub Edgaro apud Spelman Concil Tom. I. vide Canon 38. p. gif hit forheaden sy þat his man brucan ne maege þonne sorbaern hit man on claenum fire I know the Roman Missal in some cases injoyns Burning but not till the Species be wholly corrupted when in the Judgment of the Schoolmen Christ's Body and Blood are retired the Housel grew stale and nauseous it should be burnt in a clear Fire and the Ashes buried under the Altar I say it is incredible that they should order it to be burnt if they believed it the very Body of our Saviour I shall trouble the Reader with nothing further till I come to shew how absurdly Mr. Boileau in his Remarks senseth some terms of Ratram whose true meaning the Saxon words used as equivalent in this Homily will very much illustrate III. My third Reason to shew that Mr. Boileau hath not given us a true account of the Sentiments and Design of Ratram is because his Arguments prove a great deal more than that there is a Figure in the Sacrament or that the Accidents are not the Sensible Truth of Christ's Body The very first Inference he makes is this (d) Claret quia Panis ille Vinumque FIGURATE Christi Corpus Sanguis EXISTIT n. 10. Hence it is evident that this Bread and Wine are Figuratively Christ's Body and Blood which is a great deal more than that there is a Figure in the Sacrament 1. He saith positively that this Bread and this Wine not the Sensible Qualities of them are Christ's Body and Blood. 2. He saith they are Figuratively not simply and in propriety of Nature Christ's Body and Blood. These words Mr. Boileau hath fraudulently Translated IN A FIGURE Again When he hath proved that there is no Physical change upon Consecration neither Generation nor Corruption nor Alteration he thence infers (e) Necesse est jam ut FIGURATE facta esse dicatur scil commutatio n. 16. that of necessity it must be Figuratively changed which is somewhat more than Mr. Boileau will acknowledge to have been in dispute between him and his Adversaries For it determines the Nature of the change to be Figurative and if so the Elements are not Substantially turned into Christ's Body and Blood as the Church of Rome hath defined That a Figurative change infers no Substantial change in Ratram's Judgment we may observe in his Explication of the words Figure and Verity where having said that Christ was by a Figure called Bread and a Vine he tells us however (f) Nam SUBSTANTIALITER nec Panis Christus nec Vitis Christus nec Palmites Apostoli Quapropter hic FIGURA n. 8. that Christ is not Substantially either Bread or a Vine c. And this is in express Terms the Heresie which Chifflet's Anonymous Writer chargeth Berengarius with advancing contrary to the Catholick Faith. He tells us (g) Asserens Panem Vinum in Sacrificio Domini non VERE ESSENTIALITER sed FIGURATE tantum CONVERTI in Corpus Sanguinem Dominicum Concil To. IX col 1050. Edit Labbei that Berengarius taught that the Consecrated Bread and Wine was not Truly and Essentially but only in a Figurative manner turned into Christ's Body and Blood. This Author is said to have written A. D. 1088. in which year Berengarius died and if he misrepresent not his Sentiments and understood what was then esteemed the Catholick Faith we have great reason to believe that had Bertram stood a Trial before the same Judges with Berengarius he would have fallen under the same Condemnation Mr. Boileau hopes to excuse him from asserting in the forementioned Expression that which he takes to be the Doctrine of Berengarius and the Reformed Churches by this shift Saith he (h) Remarks p. 219. II ne dit pas qu'ils sont seulement en Figure le Corpus de J. C. Ratram doth not teach that the Holy Eucharist is ONLY IN A FIGURE Christ's Body But this will not serve the turn For 1. If he intend by adding the word ONLY to make the Asserters of a Figurative change to exclude any Spiritual Efficacy or Grace annexed to this Sacrament and to own no more than empty Signs he grossly abuseth the Reformed Religion as may be seen by our Confessions No sober Protestant ever affirmed it nor did Berengarius who with Ratram owned a Divine Virtue therein conferring Grace (i) Sacramentum quidem transitorium est Virtus vero quae per ipsum operatur Gratia quae insinuatur aeterna Bereng in Ep. ad Ricardum Conc. Tom. XI col 1062. Which words with those that follow are ascribed to Paschase in the Bibl. Patrum Edit Par. 1610. Tom. VI. col 296. the order of the Sentences differs but the words are the same The Sacrament saith he is Transitory but the Virtue that worketh thereby and the Grace conferred is eternal Yet this Declaration did not satisfie the Councils of the XI Century nor did it please Paschase as hath been shewn and the Council of (k) Sed dixerit tantummodo esse in eo ut in Signo vel Figura aut Virtute Anathema sit Conc. Trid. Sess XIII Can. I. Trent hath Anathematized all such as acknowledge not Christ personally present in the Sacrament but only in Sign in Figure or Virtue 2. Ratram doth in effect say That the Consecrated Elements are ONLY in Figure and Virtue Christ's Body and Blood because he denies them to be Corporally or in Nature changed or to be Christ's Body born of the Virgin c. and affirms them to be the Figures Pledges Images Sacraments of Christs true and natural Flesh and Blood which are indeed more express Exclusives than the Conjunction ONLY I shall not here call Mr. Boileau to an account for his sly and fraudulent Translation of the word (l) En Figure instead of en maniere Figurative or par une Figure n. Figurate in a Figure in stead of by a Figure to insinuate that Ratram held Christ's natural Body to be invisibly under the Forms or remaining Accidents of Bread and Wine but remember him of it in another place Again The Parallel which Ratram makes between the Holy Eucharist and Baptism manifestly shews his intention to prove somewhat more than barely that there is a Figure in the Sacrament For the Analogy between the two Sacraments lieth in this as Material Water in Baptism without any Physical change hath through the Blessing annexed to that Institution by our Saviour a Spiritual Efficacy and Sanctifying Virtue which worketh a real effect on the Soul which resembleth the cleansing effect of common Water So in the Holy Eucharist Material Bread and Wine do by the same means obtain
a Spiritual Efficacy and Nutritive Virtue which Spiritually feeds the Soul as the Material Bread and Wine nourish the Body This Mr. Boileau (m) Remarques p. 226. flatly denieth but upon very slender Reasons For saith he were this the Authors sense he could not say as he doth that Christ's Body is there and that it is a Crime so much as to imagine the contrary That there is in the Sacrament a change of one thing into another or that the Corporal appearances of Bread and Wine and Christ's Body have not two several Existences But all this is meer Smoak and Amusement For Ratram doth not say it is a Crime to think that the Consecrated Elements are not Christs NATURAL Body he saith it himself twenty times over and tells us that they are Christs SPIRITUAL Body and the Sense of the word Spiritual I have already shewn Neither doth he affirm the Sacramental change to be of one thing into another those words are added by way of Paraphrase by Mr. Dean of Sens as I shall shew in its proper place He fairly intimates the contrary where he tells us That it is a change for the beter (n) Nec hoc esse potuisse nisi facta in melius commutatione neque ista commutatio Corporaliter sed Spiritualiter Facta sit necesse est jam ut Figurate c. n. 16. having before proved it to be no Physical change for such an advancement may be made without any Substantial change by raising the Elements to a Dignity above the condition of their Nature and separating them from common to sacred Uses As for what he adds that the Corporal appearances and Christs Body have not two distinct Existences I shall when I come to consider how he abuseth the word Species shew that the Bodily Appearances he speaks of are meer Fiction never dream'd of by our Author In the mean time I shall give the Authors true sense which is this That there are not two Consubstantiate Beings in the Sacrament as in a Man there is a Soul and Body but that one and the same thing viz. The Elements consider'd with respect to their Natural Substance are Bread and Wine but consider'd as Consecrated they are Sacraments of Christ's Body and Blood. This is easily illustrated by a familiar Example The King is not two Persons as he is a Man and a Prince but one who considered in his Natural Capacity is a Man and in his Civil Capacity is a Prince The same Inference may be also made from Ratram's Parallel of the Holy Eucharist with Manna and the Rock Water which he saith were Spiritually turned into Christ's Body and Blood and were eaten and drunk by the Faithful Israelites in the Wilderness His scope is plainly this to prove that the change made by Consecration is not Substantial but Figurative like that of the Manna which could not be properly Transubstantiated into Christ's Body before his Incarnation before he had a Body prepared him And yet a wanton Wit might in Mr. Boileau's way as handsomely elude all Arguments against Ratram's belief of a substantial change of the Manna and Water into Christ's Body as he doth our Arguments against the Corporal Presence from Bertram If he object that Bertram speaks of the substance of Manna and tne Water it is easily answered that the word Substantia even by the confession of Mr. Boileau (o) Remarques p. 246 247. is not always taken in the strict Philosophical Notion but sometimes more largely for the Sensible Qualities of things If he urge that Bertram calls them Corporal Things it may be answered that by (p) Remarques p. 222. Mr. B's confession that may signifie no more than the External appearance of a Body and the sensible Accidents If he further press the Impossibility of the Thing that Manna should be substantially converted into a body not Existing It may be plausibly replied That Bertram saith (q) N. 25. We must not exercise our Reason but our Faith in this matter It is a Miracle a Mystery Incomprehensible a Work of God's Omnipotence which is not to be limited by the pretence of Impossibilities and Absurdities In fine when he comes to determine the first Question and make his Inference from all the Arguments and Authorities which he had before alledged he concludes thus (r) N. 49. Figurae sunt secundum Speciem Visibilem at vero secundum Invisibilem Substantiam id est Divini Potentiam Verbi vere Corpus Sanguis Christi Existunt The Body and Blood of Christ orally received by the Faithful may be considered either as Visible Creatures and so they are Figures and feed the Body or according to their Invisible Substance which is as he explains himself The Power of the Divine Word and so they are truly Christ's Body and Blood feeding and sanctifying the Souls of the Faithful From which Passage it is plain not only that Ratram proves a Figure in the Sacrament but that this Figure is more than the outward appearance of Bread and Wine that it is the Substance for what he meant by the visible Species he after explains by calling them the (Å¿) Visibilis Species is Expounded by Visibilis Creatura Visible Creature and affirming that it feeds the Body and though he oppose hereunto the Invisible Substance the words that follow direct us to take Substance in an improper sense For he delivers himself with great Caution as if it were on purpose to prevent any such Mistake according to the Invisible Substance (t) Invisibilem Substantiam by potentioris Virtutem Substantiae that is saith he the Power of the Divine Word and again The virtue of a more Powerful Substance which is the Grace annexed to the Sacrament by virtue of the Institution For that he should hereby mean Christ's Natural Body no Body will believe who considers that he affirmed (u) Inerat corporeis illis Substantiis SPIRITUALIS VERBI POTESTAS quae mentes potius quam Corpora credentiâ—m pasceret atque potaret n. 22. a Spiritual Power of the Word to have been in Corporeal Substances of Manna and Water in which no R. C. ever pretended that Christ was present in verity of Substance In the second Part it is as evident that he encounters not that Fictitious Error Mr. Boileau would have him viz. That the outward Species and Sensible Accidents of Bread and Wine are Christ's Flesh and Blood born of the Virgin c. For first The subject of the Question is as hath been already shewn the Consecrated Elements the whole Eucharist as Orally received and not their meer Accidents For he saith (w) Nam secundum Creaturarum Substantiam quod fuerant ante Consecrationem hoc postea consistunt Panis Vinum prius extitere c. N. 54. The substance of the Creatures remains after Consecration what they were before that is Bread and Wine Indeed if the Subject were only the outward Species or Accidents of Bread and
Wine I know no need Mr. Boileau hath to Translate the word Veritas the Sensible verity as he doth forty times over where Ratram denies that which is orally received to be Christ's Natural Flesh For the meer Accidents are in no sense Christ's Natural Body they are in no way Christs Body in verity of Nature neither the Sensible nor yet the Invisible verity thereof 2. The matter in Question cannot be whether the Holy Eucharist is Christs Body born of the Virgin in its proper state with its Sensible Qualities and Dimensions but whether it be his True and Natural Body which Paschase describes as in the Question The former could not be the Notion opposed by our Author for besides that he no where mentions any such Opinion it doth not any way else appear by any Writer either before or of his time that such an Opinion was ever embraced or vented by any Man. The latter was the Doctrine of Paschase a Doctrine which by his own confession gave offence to many and that Ratram disputes against it seems very clear to any Man who observeth in how accurate Terms he establisheth an Essential Difference between the Consecrated Elements and Christs Natural Body He distinguisheth them as things of vastly different Natures using the words aliud and aliud ONE THING and ANOTHER THING THIS Body and THAT Body which was born of the Virgin. He teacheth that Sacraments are ONE thing and the THINGS whereof they are Sacraments are ANOTHER That Christs Natural Body and Blood are THINGS but the Mysteries hereof are SACRAMENTS Num. 36. Again He proves them to differ I think Essentially because the same Definition doth not agree to both For one of their Canonized Schoolmen teacheth (x) Bonav in Sent. 14. Dist 10. p. 1. q. 4. That even Omnipotence it self cannot separate the Definition and the thing Defined Again He calleth the one Christs PROPER Body the other his MYSTICAL Body N. 94 95. And in a word he distinguisheth the Eucharist from Christs Proper Body in almost the same words wherein St. Hierom (y) Tantum interest inter Panes Propositionis Corpus Christi quantum inter umbram Corpora inter Imaginem Veritatem inter Exemplaria ea quae praefigurabantur Hier. in Titum Cap. I. compares the Shew-bread with the Eucharist calling it Christs Body and declaring how much the latter excels the former N. 89. It appears saith Ratram that they are extremely different as much as the Pledge differs from the Thing for which it is given in Pledge as much as the Image differs from the Thing Whereof it is the Image as much as a Figure from the Truth And if the words do not effectually import an Essential Difference it 's hard to devise words that can do it In a word the Scope of all his Arguments and Authorities is to prove such a Difference between the Holy Eucharist and our Saviours Natural Body And in the close of the Book when he sums up the force of all his Reasonings and comes to determine the Point he concludes thus (a) N. 97. From these Testimonies of the Holy Scriptures and Fathers it is most evidently demonstrated that the Bread and Cup which are called the Body and Blood of Christ are a FIGURE because they are a Mystery and that there is NO SMALL DIFFERENCE between the BODY which is so MYSTICALLY and the BODY that SUFFERED c. For this latter is the PROPER BODY of our Saviour nor is there any FIGURE or Signification therein but the very manifestation of the thing it self (b) N. 98. Whereas in the Body which is celebrated by a MYSTERY there is a FIGURE not only of Christ's PROPER BODY but also of the People who believe on Christ For it bears a FIGURE of BOTH BODIES (c) N. 99. Moreover That Bread and Cup which is called and is Christs Body and Blood represents the Memory of the Lords Passion i. e. as he explains himself in the next Number (d) N. 100. they are placed on the Altar for a FIGURE or MEMORIAL of the Lord's Death And lest his Adversaries should misrepresent his Doctrine as though he taught that Christs Body and Blood were not received by the Faithful but a meer Memorial and Figure of them as the Romanists slander the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches he (e) N. 101 closeth all with a caution against any such Inference adding that Faith receives not what the Eye beholds but what it self believes for it is Spiritual Meat and Spiritual Drink which do spiritually feed the Soul. Which words if Mr. Boileau take to be a Declaration in favour of their Real Presence I shall the less wonder since our Adversaries at Home have the confidence from such Apologies of our own Divines to infer that they and the Church of England are for their REAL PRESENCE Having thus shewn how Mr. Boileau either grossly mistakes or wilfully misrepresents the Authors Design in the account he hath given I shall now proceed to take a view of his Translation Now this Book of Ratram's being a Theological Controversie whosoever shall undertake to turn it into any other Language ought to employ his utmost care in truly expressing the Authors Sense and as much as the Language will bear it in his own words He may not take those liberties of Paraphrase which are llowable in the Translator of a Poem or a Piece of History or Morality He may not to adorn his Version or smooth his Stile add omit or change a word for the Nature of the Subject forbids it And moreover Mr. Boileau hath obliged himself to observe the strictest Laws of Translation having professed to have made this Version with all possible exactness and brought severaâ— of his Brethren of the Sorbon to al vouch its conformity to the Author 's Text. He is severe upon (f) Preface p. 47 48. M. Dacier and the Protestant Translator of Bertram for taking as he conceives undue Liberties He will not allow the (g) Remarques p. 250. and p. 277. latter to express in French what is plainly understood in the Latin and expressed within four Lines before and he cries out Falsification and Corruption because the Protestant Publisher of Bertram doth with an Asterisk refer the Reader to the Margin and there explains a word in the Text by another Latin word which he thought equivalent A Man might therefore reasonably expect that Mr. Boileau had avoided all these Faults and that if his Version had any defect it should be in the grace of his Language only by his keeping too close to the Authors own Terms But I perceive Mr. Boileau is subject to that general Weakness of Humane Nature which makes men very severe against those Vices in others which they discern not in themselves For certainly never did any Man use those undue liberties of adding omitting and altering the Authors words at a more Extravagant rate than he hath done in Translating Bertram Insomuch that
should he rise from the Dead he would find his Sense and Doctrine as much changed as the French Tongue is since his days For Mr. Boileau doth not content himself to refer the Reader to the Margin or to his Remarks for the Exposition of a controverted Term which he might have done without impeaching his own Sincerity but he mixeth his gloss by way of Paraphrase with the Text and doth not by any difference of Character or by enclosing them in Hooks distinguish his own words from the Authors so that the Reader who understands not Latin cannot tell when he reads Bertram and when Mr. Boileau I shall not tire my self or the Reader with a compleat List of his unfair Dealings but give him some remarkable instances by which he may take an estimate of Mr. Boileau's exactness and fidelity I shall begin with his Fraudulent Omissions which are but few and of these I shall give you two Instances both near the beginning of the Book Mr. Boileau For it is not the Appearance of Flesh that is seen in that Bread or of Blood in the Wine Ratram N. 10. (h) Car ce n'est pas l'apparence de la chair que l'on voit dans ce pain ny du sang dans le vin Non enim secundum quod videtur vel carnis Species in illo Pane cognoscitur vel in illo vino cruoris unda monstratur Having rendred Species Carnis the appearance of Flesh he gently slides over the word unda and leaves it Untranslated by which means he tacitly insinuates to the unwary Reader that Ratram doth not deny the Substance of Flesh and Blood to be in the Sacrament But only saith that the Appearance of Flesh and Blood is not discerned therein Whereas the word unda Liquor imports the Liquid Substance of Blood and therefore by parity of Reason Species must signifie somewhat more than the meer visible accidents of Flesh So that if he deny the Substance of Blood to be in the Wine he could not believe the Substance of Flesh to be in the Bread. If it be alledged that Ratram only saith that they are not known or discerned or shewn therein he doth not say they are not there invisibly The answer is obvious Ratram esteemed our Senses competent Judges of what we orally receive in the Sacrament and able to distinguish Flesh from Bread. And withal as I shall shortly prove the words cognoscitur and monstratur and ostenditur are frequently used as the Copula of a Proposition and signifie no more than Est and have nothing of Emphasis in them Another crafty omission is of the word Sacrament which he leaves out in Translating the last words of Number XII Ratram Hic vero Panis Vinum prius fuere (i) Avant qu'ils passassent au Corps au sang de J. C. quam transitum in Sacramentum Corporis Sanguinis Christi fecerunt M. Boileau But here the Bread and Wine did exist before they passed into or were changed into the Body and Blood of Christ How wide difference there is between being turned into Christs Body and Blood and into the SACRAMENT of his Body and Blood any one knows who is not blind because he will not see I wonder why Mr. Boileau did not omit the same word in other like Passages as where our Author saith That Wine is made the Sacrament of Christs Blood by the Priests Consecration thereof And again That the Elements are Spiritually made Mysteries or Sacraments of Christs Body and Blood c. For these Expressions teach us how to understand him in other places where he saith That Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Christ viz. that they are made the Memorials Symbols or Sacraments thereof For we have no reason to doubt that Ratram who from St. Augustine observeth that it is familiar to give the name of the thing signified to the Sign or Sacrament by reason of its Analogy thereunto I say we have no reason to doubt but that he frequently doth so himself in this Book I shall next give you a taste of his bold Paraphrases and Additions to the Author's Text so that it is very difficult for a Common Reader to distinguish Ratram's own words from Mr. Boileau's Exposition of them And passing by many of his less Material though large Interpolations I shall instance in some foisted in to serve the Cause of Transubstantiation against the Author's true Sense What is not in the Latin I have enclosed thus in Hooks for the Readers ease Ratram N. XI (k) Et que tout ce que l'on y voit soit la Pure Veritè Sed totum in Veritate conspiciatur Mr. Boileau But the whole that is seen there is the Pure verity So N. XXXII And in several other places he renders Veritas the Pure Verity If he believe that really to be the Author's meaning he might have advertised his Reader in a Marginal Note but the inserting that Explication into the Text is more than well consists with that great exactness in Translating to which he pretends It were easie to guess though he had not acquainted us in a Remark for what end he foisted in the word Pure it was to insinuate that Ratram disputes not against Paschase but against some unknown Adversaries who held there was no Vail or Figure in the Sacrament and that Christ's Body presented it self Naked to our View Now that these Extravagant Opinionists never had any being save in Mr. Boileau's Imagination hath been already shewn And as he is pleased to make them express their Sentiments viz. That the whole which is seen is the pure Verity it were more reasonable to think that they believed nothing but a Figure in the Sacrament nothing but Bread and Wine since nothing else is discerned by the Eye And he makes them elsewhere to say (l) Mais que tout y est tel qu'il paroist aux yeux n. 54. That the whole is just what it appears to the Eye If the Notion were that the Accidents of Bread and Wine whose first Subject was destroyed were translated into Christ's Natural Body it was very improper for him to make them say that the Sensible Object was the Pure Verity for it must needs be a Prodigious Compound of one Substance divested of its natural Qualities and the proper Accidents of another Substance Again This Translator in many places doth greatly corrupt the Author's Sense by inserting the Particle there which though it be the addition of a single Letter y in the French yet it makes almost as great a change in Ratram's Doctrine as the Arrians made in the Christian Faith by the addition of an Iota to the word Homoousios For hereby he insinuates the Presence of Christ's Natural Body in an invisible manner where the Author had no intention to say any thing of Christ's Presence at all but only to shew that the Consecrated Elements are Christ's Body and Blood which in Ratram's sense
we also acknowledge them to be I shall give an Instance or two of his Fraud in this kind For we there see nothing which passed from not being into being N. XII (m) Car on n' y voit rien qui c. Nam nec ex eo quod non erat transivit in aliquid quod sit His design is by that addition to insinuate that although we see it not some other Substance is there present under the Vails or Accidents of Bread and Wine Whereas Ratram only saith that the Consecrated Elements did not pass from a state of Non-entity into Being Now if none of these three changes be here made we must conclude that nothing is there but what was before But there is some other thing for the Bread is made the Body and the Wine the Blood of Christ Again N. XIII (n) Or s'il n' y a aucun de ces trois changemens il en faut conclure qu'il n' y a rien qui n' ait etè auparavant Cependant il y a autre chose Si ergo nihil est hic permutatum non est aliud quam ante fuit Est antem aliud quoniam Panis Corpus Vinum Sanguis Christi facta sunt Here he insinuates the Presence of some other thing in the place and under the Accidents of Bread and Wine whereas all that Ratram saith is this That if there be no change upon Consecration not as our Translator makes him speak none of those three Changes which were to make him argue against himself who had newly in express terms denied any of those three Changes I say if there be no change at all made then the Elements after Consecration are nothing more than they before were But they are something more for the Bread and Wine are made Christ's Body and Blood that is as our Author often expounds himself Mystically Spiritually Figuratively And this may very well be without the Invisible Presence of Christs Natural Flesh in the place of the Bread. Again N. XVI (o) S' y rencontrent y existent Quoniam sub Vâ—lamento Corporei Panis Corpo eâ—que Vini Spirituale Corpus Christi Spiritualisque Sanguis existit For under the Vail of Corporeal Bread and Corporeal Wine the Spiritual Body of Christ and his Spiritual Blood is there found and there exists The Presence of Christs Natural Body and Blood under the Accidents of Bread and Wine is intimated in the Addition of the Particle there in this Sentence Whereas Bertram saith nothing like it but only proves that the change wrought by Consecration is not a Physical but a Figurative or Mystical change because Christ's Spiritual that is as hath been shewn his Symbolical or Sacramental Body and Blood are in or under the Vail of Material Bread and Wine I should not so much have regarded this little Interpolation but Mr. Boileau swaggers so much with these Passages both in his (p) P. 26. 226. Preface and Remarks and draweth Inferences from them whereas he therein imposeth on the Reader who consults not the Author's Latin which without his Interpolation gives no colour for such Inferences In the same Paragraph immediately before the words last cited we have another Instance of his exactness in Translating And this change is not made Corporally that is to say in that which falls under the Bodily Senses but Spiritually (q) Corporellement c'est a dire en ce qui tombe sous les sâ—ns corporels mais spirituellement Neque ista commutatio Corporaliter sed Spiritualiter facta sit Whether he hath given the true meaning of the Term shall be elsewhere considered but in the mean time it was fit that Mr. Dean should be told that he deals not fairly to foist his own gloss into the Author's Text. Here ariseth a Question touching which many hold That in all these things there is not any Figure but the whole is done in Pure Verity that is to say in a manner that is Sensible and Corporal by which the Flesh of Jesus Christ is cut into bits like our ordinary Meat (r) Mais que tout s'y fait dans la pure verite c'est a dire d'une maniere sensible corporelle par la quelle la chair de JESUS CHRIST est divisee par morceaux comme une viande ordinaire Again n. XXXII Hic jam illa suboritur Quaestio quam plurimi proponentes loquuntur non in Figura (r) Mais que tout s'y fait dans la pure verite c'est a dire d'une maniere sensible corporelle par la quelle la chair de JESUS CHRIST est divisee par morceaux comme une viande ordinaire sed in Veritate ista fieri Most exacty Translated But sure Veritas is one of the most pregnant words in the Latin Tongue which carries all this in its Belly Now the use of this Gloss appears more plainly N. XXXIV where Mr. Dean makes this to be the Notion of Carnally eating Christ's Flesh Bertram having cited (Å¿) Facinus vel Flagitium videtur habere Figura ergo est praecipiens c. n. 33. St. Augustine to confirm his own Exposition of our Saviour's Words John 6.54 Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye shall have no Life in you Which is that they must be understood Figuratively and not Literally He adds that in this Fathers Judgment to eat Christ's Body Carnally is so far from being an Act of Religion that it would be a piece of horrid Wickedness But what is this barbarous crime of eating Carnally Why Mr. Boileau here explains the Point It consists (t) Recevoir charnellement c'est a dire en le broiant avec les dents le coupant par morceaux in cutting Christ's Body into bits and in bruising it between the Teeth like our ordinary Meat What pity is it that Mr. Boileau had not been in our Saviour's Train to have answered those Disciples which were offended at this Doctrine and complained of it as an (u) John 6.60 hard saying I warrant you it would have given marvellous satisfaction had any one told them Sirs you grossly mistake the matter you imagine that Christ's Flesh is to be eaten like common Meat out of the Shambles that it must be cut in bits on your Trencher and chewed small before it will go down It is no such it is not a dead but living Body that he gives you to eat nor are you to touch it with your Knife or Teeth but swallow him whole And because it might otherwise go against your Stomach you are not to receive his Body under the Offensive Species or Appearances of Flesh but in the same manner as Physicians sometimes give a Nauseous Bolus wrapt up in a Wafer so that you shall neither see nor taste it This would have been very Edifying no doubt it would have removed the Scandal and have reduced those Apostates to our
Saviour But can any man in his Wits believe that their Scruple was meerly about the cutting and mangling of our Saviour's Body and that they would have made no bones of swallowing him whole No sure they stumbled at the Literal Sense of his Words they could not digest a command to eat mans Flesh which seemed as St. Austine observes to be an impious Precept and they would no doubt have as much abhorred him could such a Monster have been found who should swallow a man whole as an ordinary Canibal But is Mr. Boileau in earnest when he tells us (w) J'ay ajoute c'est a dire en la broiant avec les dents le coupant par morceaux parce que c'est le veritable sens de ces mots Charnellement c. Remarques p. 236. that to cut Christ's Body in pieces and tear it with the Teeth is the true Notion of Carnal eating Doth our Saviour's answer to those murmuring Deserters any wise countenance this Notion Doth it give the least hint that their mistake and scandal lay in apprehending that Christ's Body was to be eaten piece-meal No but he blames their stupidity for taking his Words which are SPIRIT and LIFE in a carnal or litteral Sense St. Austine cited by Bertram expounding our Saviour's Answer makes it import that his words touching the necessity of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood must be Spiritually that is Mystically and not carnally or literally understood In another place cited by (x) N. 33 34. Bertram he makes the hard saying an Instance of the necessity of understanding the words of Scripture in a Figurative Sense telling us those words are a FIGURE enjoyning us to communicate in our Saviour's Sufferings by a faithful and profitable commemoration of his Death on the Cross for us I confess both St. Austine and Bertram describing the mistake of these Disciples deny that his Body was to be cut into pieces and eaten by bits but they make not this to have been the scruple of those Infidels nor do either of those Writers so much as hint that Christ's Body was to be swallowed whole On the contrary St. Austine makes it to have been their Erroneous conceit that (y) Illi putabant se erogaturum Corpus suum ille autem dixit se ascensurum in coelum utique integrum Apud Ratram n. 80. Christ intended to give them his Natural Body his Body which they saw with their Eyes And Bertram shewing how our Saviour's Words confute that gross Conceit saith by way of Paraphrase on them that when his Disciples should behold him ascend into Heaven with his Body and Blood entire and without Diminution they should then understand the mistake of those carnal Infidels viz. That he did not command them to eat his Natural Body which was impossible since it was conveyed from them unto Heaven This Paraphrase he borrowed from (z) Verba quae locutus sum Spiritus Vita sunt spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum Non hoc Corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis c. Aug. in Ps 98. in Joannem Tract 27. Intellexerunt quia disponebat Jesus carnem qua indutum erat verbum veluti concisam distribuere credentibus c. St. Austine whom he cites for it N. 80. And (a) Sax. Hom. Fol. 44. Aelfric as hath been shewn expounds the words as did (b) Aug. in Ps 98. St. Aust Again N. XL. (c) Parce que comme la Substance visible c'est a dire ce qui paroist aux yeux de ce pain de ce vin Sicut hujus Visibilis Panis Vinique substantia exteriorem nutrit inebriat hominem c. As the Visible Substance that is to say what appears to our Eyes of this Bread and this Wine nourisheth and quencheth the thirst of the outward man c. In rendring this half Sentence there is a double Fraud committed 1. The Adjective Visible is unduly applied to the word Substance whereby he hoped to persuade the Reader that Substance is not here to be understood in its proper Sense but only for the Sensible Qualities of Bread and Wine whereas this Author joyned that Adjective to the Bread and Wine Isidore saith (d) Hujus visibilis Panis Vinique Substantia The substance of this Visible Bread and Wine not as Mr. Boileau Translates him the Visible Substance i. e. Qualities of this Bread and Wine feed the outward Man. 2. The Notion of the word Visible is corrupted by the Translator's Gloss inserted into the Text of Isidore viz. That which appears to the Eye of this Bread c. viz. the Accidents whereas the Author meant material Bread and Wine The Passage is a clear Authority against Transubstantiation and deserves a Remark or two 1. The Bread and Wine whereof he speaks is Consecrated Bread and Wine which the Pronoun THIS demonstrates 2. He saith that the SUBSTANCE of this Bread and Wine after Consecration do nourish the Body 3. He calls it Visible Bread and Wine which Term is so far from importing what our Adversaries would have it viz. The Sensible Qualities only that it signifies Material Bread and Wine as I hope to prove beyond all Dispute when I come to Examine Mr. Boileau's Exposition of the Controverted Terms So that I do not wonder that these words are not now read in Isidore's Works In the like manner he corrupts Bertram N. LII (e) Car ce Corps Visible Sensible que l'on recoit Hoc enim quod sumit Corpus Corruptibile est For this Visible and Sensible Body which is received is subject to Corruption The Epithetes Visible and Sensible are impertinently as well as deceitfully foisted in for if he had minded the Authors words Corpus in that place imports not the Body of Christ received but the Body of the Receiver and the Clause should have been thus rendred That which the Body receives is Corruptible I should not have taken notice of this Slip as I have not of some other meer slips in Translation had it not been for the Fraud thereby designed A worse piece of false dealing appears in the next Paragraph N. LIII where he adds a false Gloss to the words of St. Ambrose Doth it not require a greater power to Create a thing of nothing than to change the Natures that is the Substances of things Nonne majus est novas res dare quam mutare (f) Pour changer les Natures c'est a dire les Substances des choses naturas He tells us (g) Remarks p. 245. That the Natures here mentioned can be no other than those of Bread and Wine changed into Christs Body and Blood and this obliged him to add the word Substances by way of Explication Now admitting what he saith I can see no such necessity of understanding the word of the Natural Substances of the Elements Neither this Context of St. Ambrose to which he refers nor Bertram's Exposition of that Father nor yet
the force of the word Nature it self do any way oblige him to it For 1. St. Ambrose parallels the change made by Consecration in the Holy Eucharist with several others which are not Substantial changes as the dividing the Waters of the (h) Nonne claret Naturam vel maritimorum fluctuum vel fluvialis cursus esse mutatam Ambros Ibid. Red Sea and Jordan The sweetning of the Waters of Marah the causing of Iron to swim which are only changes of the Natural Qualities not of the Substances of things 2. Neither doth Bertram expounding St. Ambrose any way Authorize that Gloss but on the contrary directs us to take the word Nature in another Sense by an express denial of any change in the Substance of Bread and Wine As to (i) Nam secundum Creaturarum Substantiam quod fuerunt ante Consecrationem hoc postea consistunt Panis Vinum prius extitere c. N. LIV. the Substance of the Creatures they continue after Consecration what they were before viz. Bread and Wine 3. Neither will he say that the word Natures can bear no other Sense who contends that the word Substance may signifie no more than the Sensible Qualities of a thing And it were gross Trifling for me to labour in the proof of the contrary by Examples Nevertheless I shall give him one out of Salvian speaking of some of those changes which St. Ambrose parallels with that in the Sacrament Having proved Gods Providence by miraculous methods in which he brought the Israelites out of Egypt protected and fed them in the Wilderness he goes on thus (k) Adde huc fontes repentè natos adde medicatas aquas vel datas vel immutatas SPECIEM servantes NATURAM relinquentes Salv. de Gub. l. 1. p. 21. Edit Baluz Par. 1669. To this add new Fountains instantly springing out of the Earth also Medicated Waters the one given Miraculously the others changed and made wholesome keeping their Species or Natural Substance and forsaking their Nature i. e. Natural Qualities viz. Bitterness and Unwholesomeness Here Species signifies the Substance and Natura the Sensible Quality of Bitterness Another corrupting Interpolation may be observed in the words which immediately follow N. LIV. (l) St. Ambroise dit due le changement qui se fait d'une chose en une autre est admirable c. Dicit Sanctus Ambrosius in illo Mysterio Sanguinis Corporis Christi commutationem esse factam mirabiliter c. St. Ambrose saith That in this Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood the change of one thing into another is admirable Not to insist on his licentious alteration of the Syntax I appeal to any Man that understands Latin whether Ratram make St. Ambrose to say (l) St. Ambroise dit due le changement qui se fait d'une chose en une autre est admirable c. that in the Sacrament one thing is changed into another that is as Mr. Boileau would have it (m) Remarquer p. 246. one Substance into another Ratram infers no more than this That there is a change made which no Body denies But that this change is of one thing or substance into another is Mr. Boileau's Fiction who basely imposeth on his Reader both in his Preface and Remarks citing this place so Translated to prove that this Author's Sentiments could not possibly be different from those of the Church of Rome Whereas in the words immediately following as I observed just before he denieth expresly any substantial change I might add many more Instances of his foul Glosses inserted into the Text such as Translating Veritas the Visible and Sensible Truth or with all its Dimensions Proprium Corpus Christi the Proper Body of Christ together with its Natural Properties c. But I am weary of tracing him in these By-ways and should I follow him further my trouble would be endless almost every Paragraph to the end of the Book being thus corrupted I shall therefore give but an Example or two of his bold Variations from the Author's Words as well as Sense N. XIV Quaerendum ergo est ab eis qui nihil hic Figurate volunt accipere sed totum in veritatis simplicitate consistere (n) Il faut donc demander comment ce Changement soit fait de sorte que les choses qui etoient auparavant ne soient plus c'est a dire que le pain le vin qui etoient auparavant ne soient plus mais c. secundum quod demutatio facta sit ut jam non sint quod ante fuerunt videlicet Panis atque Vinum sed sint Corpus atque Sanguis Christi It must be demanded of those who pretend that there is no Figure and who maintain that all is there spoken in the pure and simple Verity how this Change is made so that the things which were before are no longer that is the Bread and Wine which were or did exist before are or do exist no longer but are become the Body and Blood of J. Christ All that the Author intended to say was no more than this That after Consecration the Elements are not what they were before it but somewhat more excellent than common Bread and Wine viz. The Body and Blood of Christ He never intended to deny the Existence of the Elements as this Version makes him to do The words are plain and intelligible but Mr. Boileau by some unknown Rules of Construction inverts their natural Order and joyns a Nominative Singular to a Verb Plural and then by a sort of Logick as peculiar to himself making the Predicate the Subject of his Proposition so renders the Passage as by a (o) A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter vel ab est tertii adjecti ad est secundi adjecti in propositione Negativa quales consequentiae non necessario valent non raro falsissimae sunt Notorious Fallacy to make the Author deny the Existence of Bread and Wine immediately after he had been proving it and against the Scope of his Discourse in this place For Ratram thus argues against his Adversaries Either Consecration makes a Figurative Change of the Elements or else it makes no change The absurdity of saying the latter is this that then the Consecrated Elements are not the Body and Blood of Christ which to say is Impious And to make good his Consequence he reminds them of what he had largely proved just before that the Elements as to their Species or Nature had undergone no change there being no Substance produced a-new none corrupted nor yet so much as altered in its Natural Qualities by Consecration and therefore no Physical Change made thereby But Mr. Boileau is resolved in defiance both of Priscian and Aristotle to make poor Ratram say what he pleaseth I hope it may be denied of the Water in Baptism or the Chrism or a Church after Consecration that they are what they were before that is common
Water or Oil or an Ordinary House without denying Water Oyl or the Building to exist my longer And in this sense (p) Cyril Catech. Mystag 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. St. Cyril of Jerusalem saith As the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are not meer or common Bread and Wine so after the Invocation of the Holy Ghost the Chrism is not common Oyl And in like manner Catech. 1. He compares the Sacramental Bread and Wine with Meats offered to Idols teaching That as the former by the Invocation of the Holy Trinity of common Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Christ so the Meats offered to Idols are in their nature common Meat i. e. Lawful but by Invocation of Devils they are rendred profane or unlawful Which infers no destruction of the Old Substance but only the introducing of a new Quality or relation to the impure Daemons which rendred the Meat prophane or unclean So that to be made what a thing was not before infers not necessarily that it ceaseth to be what it was before it is sufficient that it receiveth some new perfection or additional Dignity Again N. LVI Intellige quod (q) Les choses qui y tombent sous le sens ne sont pas le Corps le sang de J. C. dans leur espece ou apparence visible mais qu'ils y sont par la Vertu du Verbe non in Specie sed in Virtute Corpus Sanguis Christi existant quae cernuntur Know assuredly that the things which fall under the Senses are not Christs Body and Blood in their Species or Visible Appearance but that they viz. Christs Body and Blood are there by the Vertue of the Word Ratram saith That the Visible Elements are Christ's Body and Blood not in Nature but in Virtue which is a distinction understood by every Freshman but Mr. Boileau makes him to say That which destroyeth the Antithesis which insinuates an unheard of distinction of Appearance and Virtue and which is not a proper Answer to the Objection started upon the Authority of St. Ambrose Mark you say Ratram's Adversaries This Father teacheth (r) Hic jam surgit Auditor dicit Corpus Christi esse quod cernitur Sanguinem qui bibitur c. that what is seen on the Lords Table and orally received is the Body and Blood of Christ To this Ratram answers by a distinction and sheweth in what sense the Holy Elements are Christ's Body and Blood and in what sense they are not so viz. In their Species or Nature they are not Christ's Body and Blood but in their Virtue and Efficacy It was not his business to affirm the presence of Christs Body and Blood but to give an account in what sense St. Ambrose affirmed the Consecrated Elements to be Christs Body and Blood. Again N. LXXVII (s) Car si ce Corps est celuy de J.C. s' il est ainsi appellè veritablement parce qu'il est le Corps du J. C. il est le Corps de J. C. dans la Verite c'est a dire de la maniere dont il se comporte dont il paroist a nos yeux c. Si enim Corpus Christi est hoc dicitur vere quia Corpus Christi est in Veritate Corpus Christi est si in veritate Corpus Christi est c. If this Body which is celebrated in the Church be Christ's and it be so called truly because it is the Body of Christ then it is the Body of Christ in Truth that is as it sheweth it self to the Eye if so c. It was cunningly done to make Non-sense of an Argument which truly translated would have quite spoiled the whole design of M. Boileau's Version and Remarks He could not be ignorant that dicitur vere quia c. ought to have been rendred if it be truly i. e. properly affirmed that it is Christ's Body And that he argueth that it is not in propriety of Speech affirmed to be Christ's Body because it is not so in Truth of Nature in regard Christ's Natural Body is Incorruptible Impassible and Eternal whereas the Sacrament is undeniably corrupted being broken in pieces chewed small by the Teeth digested and turned into the Substance of the Receivers Body But to trouble my self and the Reader with no more particulars of his false dealings I shall give you an entire Paragraph exactly translated from his French which I desire may be compared with the Authors Latin. N. LVII Quam diligenter quam prudenter facta distinctio De carne Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepulta est id est secundum (t) C'est a dire dans l'apparence sensible de la quelle J. C. a eie crucifie enseveli quam Christus crucifixus est sepultus ait Vera itaque Caro Christi de illa quae sumitur in Sacramento Vere ergo carnis illius Sacramentum est Distinguens Sacramentum Carnis a Veritate Carnis Quatenus in Veritate Carnis quam sumpserat de Virgine diceret eum crucifixum sepultum quod vero nunc agitur in Ecclesia Mysterium verae illius carnis in qua crucifixus est diceret esse Sacramentum Patenter Fideles instituens quod illa Caro secundum quam crucifixus est Christus Sepultus non sit Mysterium sed Veritas Naturae haec vero Caro quae nunc similitudinem illius in Mysterio continet non fit Specie Caro sed Sacramento Siquidem in Specie Panis est in Sacramento verum Christi Corpus sicut ipse clamat Dominus Jesus Hoc est Corpus meum Now observe with what prudence St. Ambrose establisheth this distinction He saith of the Flesh which was crucified and buried that is according to which Christ was crucified and buried (t) C'est a dire dans l'apparence sensible de la quelle J. C. a eie crucifie enseveli that is to say in the sensible appearance whereof Jesus Christ was crucified and buried It is the True Flesh of Jesus Christ But of that receivd in the Sacrament he saith it is truly the Sacrament of that Flesh distinguishing of his Flesh from the Sensible Verity of his Flesh meaning that according to the Sensible Verity of his Flesh Christ was crucified and buried and that the Mystery celebrated in the Church is the Sacrament of that True and Sensible Flesh in which he was crucified And thereby plainly teaching the Faithful that this Sensible in and according to which Christ was Crucified and Buried is no Mystery but the (u) Mais la verite de la nature avec toutes ses dimensions au lieu que cette chair qui en contient l'Image dans le Myst cre n' est pas la chair selon l'apparence selon ce qui tombe sous le sens mais dans le Sacrament Puis que selon les apparences sensibles ce que
l'on voit est du Pain c. Verity of Nature with all its dimensions whereas that Flesh which contains the Image hereof in the Mystery is not Flesh according to Sensible Appearance but in the Sacrament For according to the Sensible Appearance that which we behold is Bread and that in the Sacrament it is the True Body of Christ as he himself declareth in these words This is my Body This is a remarkable Specimen of Fidelity in Translating and may suffice to let the Reader see how far he is to rely on the Translators exactness and sincerity or to give credit to the Testimony of his Brethren of the Sorbon who have under their hands declared this Version of M. Boileau and his Notes to be conformable in every thing to the Text of this Ancient Author I shall now in the last place endeavour to shew that the Sense which he imposeth on the Technical Terms by which we are to learn the Author 's true Sentiments is generally forced and often absurd that it is not agreeable to the scope of the Author neither are those Terms so used by Ecclesiastical Writers of the same or elder Times I shall begin with the word Veritas which is one of the Terms of the first Question and often occurs in this Tract Now when Ratram denieth that which is orally received in the Sacrament to be Christ's Body and Blood in Verity or his True Body and Blood we understand him to deny the Holy Eucharist to be his Body and Blood in Reality or Truth of Nature or which is all one his Natural Body And in case we (w) Si cette pretention avoit ete autorisée de quelque bonne preuve il n'y auroit pas lieu de doubter qui n' eust ete l'Inventeur de l'Heresie du Calvin p. 27. Pref. be in the right M. Boileau confesseth that he must yield the Point in dispute and abandon poor Ratram as the Author of Calvin's Heresie so he is pleased to style the Doctrine of the Ancient Church for the nine or ten first Centuries He therefore tells us that of (x) Pref. p. 31. Two and forty places in which those Terms Verum and Veritas are found in this Book there are not above seven or eight of which the Protestants can make no advantage in which they signifie Real or Reality and in the other Three and thirty so curious hath Mr. Dean been in his Observations it imports only the Manifestation or Sensible Appearance of Christ's Body That in this sense Ratram opposeth Verity to a Figure and denieth the Holy Eucharist to be Christ's true Body and Blood from which nothing can be concluded against the Real Presence which is as he explains it the Proper Substance and Humane Nature of Jesus Christ. Now on this Point we will joyn Issue and I will first examine the Proofs he brings for his sense of the word and afterwards I shall shew that sense to be false absurd and contrary to the use of that Term in other Ecclesiastical Writers of the same and elder Times To make out his Notion of the Word two things are offer'd by M. Boileau 1. He saith That Ratram himself expounds Verity by Manifestation 2. That the Writers of the middle Ages use it to signifie the Depositions of Witnesses and the Proof of things To the former of these somewhat hath already been said in the (y) Pag. 66. Dissertation before this Tract and in this Appendix which I desire the Reader to consult and I shall further add what I conceive will take off the force of this Argument I admit that Ratram doth so expound Verity and defines it to be the manifest Demonstration of a thing but he no where expounds Manifestation to be the Sensible Appearance I have already shewn that the Verity which he defines is Propriety and Plainness of Speech in opposition to Figurative Speech and in that Notion of this word divers things are manifested which have no Sensible Appearances These sayings that the Father is God the Soul is a Spirit that Angels are Creatures are in Ratram's sense the naked Manifestation of the Truth or the plain or manifest Demonstration of the things which have no Sensible Appearance at all that is the words in their native signification import that which they are used to express whereas in the Figurative and Mystical Forms of Speech the words are used to express quite another thing than what they really and naturally import So that the one is a covert and obscure the other a plain proper and natural way of speaking and this Bertram calls the clear light of Manifestation the plain or simple Verity and our Saxon Homilist as I have shewn useth a word (z) geƿissum ðing Fol 29. of the same importance whereas had he understood Bertram in that sense M. Boileau doth he must have expressed Manifestation by another word which is afterwards used for the (a) sume sƿutelunge be ðam halgan husel Fol. 38. Sensible Demonstration of a thing Now as this Term when applied to Forms of Speech imports Propriety of Speech so when applied to Things it signifieth Propriety of Nature or the Very thing it self without any Mystical Signification of or Respect unto another thing And thus it stands opposed to a Pledg an Image or Figure instituted to represent one thing whilst it is in Substance in Reality and Truth of Nature another When it s urged to prove that Ratram useth the word Manifestation to signifie the Reality That he must use it in the same sense it was used by his Adversaries who must either thereby understand the Reality or else believe the Holy Eucharist to be our Saviour's Body in humane Form which none pretends they did Mr. Dean briskly denies the Consequence and like a Doctor of great Authority adds (b) P. 35. Je Soutiens qu'ils se persuadoient seulement de voir le Corps le Sang'de J. C. affectez des qualitez du pain vin c. I maintain that they only believed it to be Christ's Body affected with the Qualities of Bread. Now I appeal to any Man of common sense whether any thing can be more absurd than some Passages of this Book are if so expounded For Example in that Prayer (c) N. 85. Quod in imagine contingimus Sacramenti manifesta participatione sumamus wherein the Church begs of God to grant the manifest Participation of that which is received in a Sacramental Image the meaning must be that they might partake of our Saviour's Flesh under the Sensible Appearance of Bread. And again where (d) N. 97. Nec in eo vel aliqua figura vel significatio sed ipsa rei Manifestatio he saith the Body which suffer'd and rose again is our Saviour's Proper Body and in it there is no Figure or Signification but the Manifestation of the thing it self he must mean if M. Boileau hath hit upon the true Notion of Ratram's Adversaries
Austine but are cited from Prosper's Sentences of St. Austine and are cited by Lanfranc and other Zealots for Transubstantiation I marvel why And they run thus (k) Sicut ergo coelestis Panis qui vere Christi caro est suo modo vocatur Corpus Christi cum REVERA sit SACRAMENTVM Corporis Christi illius videlicet quod Visibile Palpabile mortale in cruce est suspensum vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit Christi Passio Mors Crucifixio non REI VERITATE sed SIGNIFICANTE MYSTERIO Sic c. De Consecr dist II. c. 48. Sect. sicut Therefore as the Heavenly Bread which is truly the Flesh of Christ is suo modo in its peculiar manner called the Body of Christ though in REALITY it is the SACRAMENT of Christ's Body namely of that Body which was Visible Palpable Mortal and Hanged on the Cross and the very Immolation of his Flesh by the hands of the Priest is called the Passion Death and Crucifixion of Christ not that it is so in VERITY of NATURE but in MYSTICAL SIGNIFICATION And the Gloss is very extraordinary (l) Caeleste Sacramentum quod VERE REPRAESENTAT Christi carnem dicitur Corpus Christi sed IMPROPRIE unde dicitur SVO MODO sed non REI VERITATE sed significati MYSTERIO ut sit sensus Vocatur Corpus Christi id est SIGNIFICAT Glossa in verbum Caelestis The Heavenly Sacrament which truly represents the Body of Christ is called the Body of Christ but improperly So that the meaning is it is called the Body of Christ that is it signifies it I shall make two or three brief Remarks on this Passage 1. As Bertram (m) Secundum quid secundum quendam modum Corpus Christi esse cognoscitur Modus iste in Figura est in Imagine N. 84. saith of the Holy Eucharist that it is in some respect or in some particular manner the Body and Blood of Christ so here it is said to be in a peculiar way called Christ's Body though (n) RE VERA in Reality it is only the Sacrament thereof 2. As Bertram declares that manner and respect to be Figurative and in the way of an Image so here the Holy Eucharist is said to be as the Gloss teacheth us (o) Sed improprie improperly so called it being the Body of Christ only in Mystical signification not in Verity of Nature 3. That verity when opposed in Sacramental Discourses to Signs Mysteries Figures Pledges Images and the like imports Reality or Truth of Nature But to come nearer Bertram's time the Venerable Bede (p) Cum omnes electi carne agni immaculati id est Dei Domini nostri non amplius in Sacramento credentes sed in REIPSA VERITATE videntes reficientur Beda in Esdram l. 2. c. 8. hath a Passage in which he expounds the Truth to be the THING it self Having mentioned the Resurrection he proceeds When all the Elect shall feast on the Flesh of the Immaculate Lamb that is of our God and Lord no longer exercising Faith in the Sacrament but beholding him in REALITY and in TRUTH I shall close all with a Manuscript Prayer which I found among the Saxon MSS. (q) In libro cui titulus Anglo-Saxon Remaines ad calcem Psalterii Saxonici Anglice redditi per M. Lisle Quarto Cod. 1249. of Arch-Bishop Laud's gift to the Publick Library at Oxford which was Copied by that Industrious Collector of Saxon Monuments Mr. Lisle from a MS. Rule of Nuns in Bennet Colledge Library (r) In Biblioth Coll. S. Bened. Cod. 274. pag. 16. vide titulum apud James Ecloge Oxonio Cantab. p. 89. in Cambridge which I have gotten compared with the Original and is found exactly to agree with it The Title Another to be said at receiving the Sacrament of the Aulter Concede quaesumus Omnipotens Dens ut quem enigmatice sub aliena Specie cernimus quo Sacramentaliter cibamur in Terris facie ad faciem eum videamus eo sicuti est VERACITER REALITER frui mereamur in Coelis Per eund Grant we beseech thee Almighty God that him who we see darkly and under another Species on whom we feed Sacramentally on Earth we may behold Face to Face and enjoy him TRULY and REALLY as he is in Heaven Through c. The Antiquity or Author of this Prayer I know not but I believe it may be somewhat more Ancient than the Saxon Prayers among which I found it which I believe to be as Dr. James saith later than the Conquest by the Language which is much nearer English than Elfric's Sermon The Prayer is a plain Allusion to those words of St. Paul 1 Cor. 13.12 (s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now we see as in a glass darkly but then face to face now I know in part but then shall I know even as also I am known And the Allusion makes it apparent that the Author of the Prayer did not believe the Real or Oral Manducation of Christ in the Sacrament The words (t) Quem aenigmatice sub aliena specie cernimus whom we see darkly and under another Species are of the same importance with those of (u) Per speculum in aenigmate St. Paul as in a glass darkly which import not the direct and immediate Vision of the thing it self but an obscure and reflex Vision of it by an Image so the Author of the Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles that go under the Name of (w) Apertum est nunc Imagines videri per Fidem tunc Res ipsas Ambros in Loc. St. Ambrose It is plain that now we behold Images by Faith but then we shall see the very things themselves And as Tertullian (x) Tertul. Adv. Praxtam cap. 14 Non in aenigmate id est non in imagine Aenigma Figura sive Typus sive Sprcies Isidor in Glossis interprets the word which our Translators render darkly in an Image and as Ecclesiastical Writers commonly style the Types of the Old Law (y) Veteris literae putruerunt aenigmata Autor de Vnctione Chrismatis apud Cyprianum Vide Origen Hom. 7. in Num. Aenigmata so the Sacramental Symbols are called (z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dion Areop de Hierarch cap. 3. Aenigmatical vails so that the former Antithesis imports a denial that the Visible Object is the TRUE Body of Christ And then the latter Antithesis between the Sacramental feeding on him here on Earth and the True and Real enjoyment of him in Heaven as plainly implieth that it is the Sacrament and not the Real Body of Christ which is Orally received and our Spiritual repast on Earth and that the TRUE and REAL enjoyment of Christ is reserved for our entertainment in Heaven These things I thought good briefly to observe but the design on which I cited this Prayer is only to prove (a) Veraciter realiter conjunctio
Specierum sed ipsae quae postulantur Species inferendae Cod. Theod. l. xi Tit. 2. Leg. 4. requiring them to be brought in kind and not a composition for them in Mony Particularly that the (m) Speciem Vini Ibid. Leg. 2. Species of Wine be paid in Kind There are Laws to compel all Farmers to furnish their proportions of all Species to oblige Men and Ships and Wagons for the Carriage of them to Rome and other places Laws also directing the mixing of sweet and fresh with the Species decayed and corrupted by long lying in publick Granaries and Cellars Cassiodorus (n) 1. Speciem Laridi lib. 2. Ep. 12. 2. Tritici Speciem l. 3. Ep. 41. Vini tritici panici Speciem l. 12. Ep. 26. Vini olei vel tritici Species l. 12. Ep. 23. 3. 4. Casei Vini Palmatiani Species l. 12. Ep. 12. 5. De ferro l. 3. Ep. 25. Convenit itaque hanc Speciem diligenti indagatione rimari in his Epistles issues out orders for the providing of the Species 1 of Bacon 2 wheat 3 4 Cheese wine and 5 Iron And the Law-Notion of the Term I conceive took its rise from the great variety of Necessaries of several sorts and kinds that are requisite for the subsistance of Armies or great Cities or else from the variety of such Provisions paid in the Nature of Rents or Tribute Now as the word Sacrament is generally acknowledged to be a term borrowed from the Roman Military Laws so probably was the word Species and as Corn and Wine and other stores for the publick use either of the Prince the City or Army go by that Name especially what came in by way of Pension (o) Species praeterea quae mensis Regiis apparentur perquirite l. 12. Ep. 18. or Tribute so it is not unlikely that the Oblations of the Faithful brought to the Altar as a Tribute to God for the use of his Holy Table consisting of Bread and Wine the two main supports of Life might in allusion thereunto be called Species by Ecclesiastick Writers Now this premised I shall attempt to shew two things 1. That Species in Bertram imports the same thing which ' its used to signifie in the first (p) Bestias terra juxta Species suas Gen. l. 25. of Genesis by the Author of the Vulgar Latin Version viz. the Specifick Nature the Substance as well as the Appearance 2. That the word bears the same sense in other Authors and particularly in the Books de Sacramentis falsly ascribed to St. Ambrose To evince the former I shall present you with some passages which will appear very absur'd if the word be understood in Mr. Boileau's sense And I shall begin with that on which he himself hath bestowed a Remark (q) Quoniam secundum veritatem Species Creaturae quae fuerat ante permansisse cognoscitur n. 12. For ' its well known that the Species of the Creature remains in Truth what it was before Now if by Species we are with Mr. Boileau to understand the sensible Appearance these absurdities will follow 1. Ratram will contradict himself in what he had said in the very Sentence next before viz. (r) Hic quoque non iste transitus sc ab esse ad non esse factus esse cognoscitur Ibid. That in the Sacrament nothing is changed by way of Corruption nothing passeth from being into a state of Non Existence If in these words he intended only to affirm that the Accidents of Bread and Wine and not their Substance do remain after Consecration How can he say that nothing here is Corrupted if he thought that Accidents only remained and that their Specifick Nature perished 2. Whereas Ratram proposeth a distinction consisting of three Members if Species import only the sensible Qualities the two latter Members will be Coincident For in the next Paragraph (Å¿) Nihil enim hic vel tactu vel colore vel sapore permutatum esse deprehenditur n. 13. he proves there is no alteration because we perceive no Alteration either as to Touch Colour or Tast Now if in the preceeding Paragraph he designed only to assert that the sensible Qualities remain after Consecration I desire to be informed what other sensible qualities the Holy Elements have besides those here mentioned 3. It is plain that as passing from Non Entity into being is a substantial Change so the contrary is a substantial Change whereas if Species do not import the substance instead of the universally received distinction of two sorts of Substantial Mutation and one Accidental he makes Ratram the Author of a Novel and unknown Distinction of two kinds of Accidental Mutation and one Substantial And I might add that the Emphatical word in Truth which I take to signifie verity of Nature must stand for just nothing whereas the true meaning of the place is That the Creatures of Bread and Wine remain in Reality after Consecration what they were before Again (t) Figurae sunt secundum speciem visibilem n. 49. They are Figures in respect of the Visible Species In this place if we understand him of the Sensible Qualities the Assertion is false for it is the substance of Bread and Wine which have any resemblance of the Body and Blood of Christ the Accidents have no Analogy to it or the Benefits of our Saviours Death It is not Whiteness or Roundness or Driness or Moistness but the substance of Bread and Wine which feeds the Body and therefore aptly represents the Spiritual Improvements which the Soul finds in the worthy participation of the Holy Eucharist and therefore what Ratram calls the Visible Species in the former part of the Paragraph is stiled the Visible Creature in the latter Again (u) Quod illa Caro secundum quam Crucifixus est Christus sepultus non sit Mysterium sed Veritas Naturae haec vero Caro quae nunc similitudinem illius in Mysterio continet non sit Specie caro sed Sacramento Si quidem in Specie Panis est c. n. 57. where he tells us That the Flesh in which Christ suffered was no Mystery but the Truth of Nature whereas his Body in the Holy Eucharist is not Flesh in Specie but in Sacrament or Mystery for in Specie its Bread There will be no Antithesis unless we understand him to deny the Sacrament to be Flesh in the same sense wherein he affirmed his Body born of the Virgin to be Flesh viz. in verity of Nature Also where he declareth (w) Ast nunc Sanguis Christi quem Credentes ebibunt Corpus quod comedunt aliud sunt in specie aliud in significatione n. 69. That what the Faithful do Orally receive is one thing in Specie and another in Signification if Species imply only the outward appearance the Antithesis is frigid and without force For in Sacramental Discourses Things are opposed to their Mystical signification so that the force of such Antithesis lies
diversitas inter eos esse dinoscitur n. 2. In quo nulla permutatio facta esse cognoscitur n. 12. Non iste transitus factus esse cognoscitur ibid. There is no small difference known to be among them Again How can that be called Christ's Body in which no change is known to be made And the same Occurs at least four times over in the same and the next Paragraph and is expounded by the Author himself saying expresly (l) Si ergo nihil hic EST permutatum c. n. 13. Nihil HABENT in se permutatum n. 14. that there IS nothing changed and that the Bread and Wine HAVE NOTHING changed in them Again (m) Num mare secundum quod Elementum VIDEBATVR i. e. fuit Baptismi potuit habere virtutem Vel Nubes juxta quod densioris crassitudinem aeris OSTENDEBAT i. e. aer crassus condensatus fuit n. 20. could either the Sea as it was seen to be an Element have a Baptismal vertue or the Cloud as it did shew condensed Air sanctifie the People Did the Sea only seem to be Water or had the Cloud only an Appearance of condensed Air or were they in substance the one Water and the other thick Air I must needs say M. Boileau plays at small Games when he lays so much stress on nothing and hath the confidence because Ratram saith That the Body and Blood of Christ celebrated in the Church are different from that Body and Blood which now is known to be Glorified to aver that (n) Toute la difference qu'il y etablit entre le Corps de J. C. dans la gloire est que ce dernier per resurrectionem jam glorificatum cognoscitur ae lieu qu'il n'avoit qu' a dire jam glorificatum existit qui est un mot en usage c. Pref. p. 40. all the Difference that Ratram makes between Christ's Body in Heaven and on the Altar is that both being his Glorified Body the former Glorificatum Cognoscitur is known to be Glorified whereas he might as easily have said simply IS Glorified Now if by Cognoscitur M. Boileau means is sensibly Glorified as I presume he doth Christ's Body in Heaven to us appeareth not Glorious being received up out of our sight He likewise mightily vapours with the word (o) P. 40. Pref. p. 224. Rem c. Iste Panis Calix qui Corpus Sanguis Christi nominatur EXISTIT n. 99. Existit as though it imported the Existence of Christ's Natural Body in the Sacrament and ten times over twits us with these words The Bread and Cup is called the Body and Blood of Christ and IS SO. Now all this Flourish hath nothing in it For first Our Author (p) N. 21. Baptismum tamen extitisse pro fuisse n. 26. Angelorum cibus existit n. 40. Mortis Passionis cujus existunt repraesentationes useth the word Existit for Est in forty places of this Book of which see two or three Examples in the Margin 2. Where he useth the word Existit he generally addeth something that is Inconsistent with their Notion of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament (q) Spirituale Corpus Spiritualisque Sanguis existit n. 16. Existum repraesentationes ejus sumunt appellationem cujus existunt Sacramentum n. 40. Secundum quid n. 83. id est Secundum quendam modum nimirum Figurate quemadmodum clarius rem exponit Ratramnus n. 84. Item de Corpore ex Virgine Proprium salvatoris Corpus existit de Mystico Corpus quod per Mysterium existit n. 97. 96. Claret quia Panis ille Vinumque Figurate Christi Corpus Sanguis existunt Telling us either that the Bread and Cup are his Spiritual Body and Blood or they are the SACRAMENT of his Body and Blood. That in some respect not simply they are truly his Body and Blood and elsewhere intimates that they are not his proper Body but only a Figure or Mystery thereof and expresly saith near the beginning of this Tract that it is clear that the Holy Bread and Wine are FIGURATIVELY the Body and Blood of Christ by which Exposition of the Author himself we are satisfied how we must understand that Passage M. Boileau so much Triumphs in But what most amazeth me is to find that in his Remarks on N. 16. and these words whence it necessarily followeth that the change is made Figuratively he makes a Flourish with Authorities and makes a Parallel between Ratram Paschase and the second Nicene Council (r) Rem p. 225. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making them all teach the same Doctrin whereas our Author saith That the Holy Elements are Figuratively the Body and Blood of Christ or the Spiritual Body and Blood which is all one and the Nicene Doctors say that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly his Body and Blood. I would gladly be informed in what Greek Lexicon Mr. Boileau finds that word expounded by Figurate But thirdly Those words of Ratram overthrow the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and by very firm (ſ) Ab est vel existit adjecti tertii ad est adjecti secundi valet consequentia Panis Corpus Christi existit ergo Panis existit consequence infer that the Bread and Wine do remain after Consecration For by the Rules of Logick this Argument is good M. Boileau is Dean of Sens therefore M. Boileau IS in being and in like manner after Consecration Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ Therefore after Consecration Bread and Wine do exist Thus at length I have done with his Exposition of our Author 's controverted Terms which if true Mr. Dean would do well to Publish a Glossary on purpose to assist the Reader who by the help of all the Dictionaries yet extant will never be able to comprehend this Author's sense But I must needs say the difficulties are all Fictions of the Translator who delights to perplex the most plain Expressions and by new and bold Figures and forced Significations invented to serve his design hath offered manifest violence to our Author's words in an hundred Passages of this small Piece I confess he useth so great License and indulgeth his Fancy at so extravagant a Rate that I was almost tempted to think that M. Boileau the Poet had commenced Doctor in the Sorbon and began unluckily to play the Divine as Poets commonly do when they begin their Theological Studies in their Old Age. If it had really been so I could have pitied and forgiven him many Extravagancies which are venial Faults in a Poet but unpardonable in a Professor of Divinity Here I once thought to dismiss him but upon second Thoughts I resolved to attend him a little further and consider the Reflections wherewith he concludeth his Preface I shall say nothing in defence of Protestant Translators three Reflections which stand firm after all his weak assaults upon them His first Reflection is That supposing though
born of the Virgin Mary in which our Lord suffered on the Cross and rose from the Grave is the same Body which is received from off the Altar against which Errour c. I hence observe 1. That the Opinion censured by him is the express Doctrine of Paschase and the Roman Church at this day Nor is there any colour for M. Boileau to say That he censured men who held the Accidents to be Christs Body for he speaks of the Body received from the Altar which he will not deny to be somewhat besides the sensible Figure and Accidents of the consecrated Elements 2. He censures this Opinion as a Falshood and Error against which he had purposely written 3. He condemns it as a late Opinion so that it had not Antiquity to plead 4. He represents it as no Vniversal Opinion but as the Sentiments of some few (c) 1. Quidam non omnes ubique 2. Nuper non semper 3 Non rite sentientes ergo erronei So that in short the Doctrine which was made an Article of Faith in the Eleventh Century was in the Ninth Century not so much as a Probable Opinion but rejected by Rabanus as a false Novel and private Opinion and by no means the Ancient Catholick and True Belief of Christ's Church If Mr. Boileau could produce any Piece of the Ninth Century wherein the Proposition censured by Rabanus and Ratram is expounded as it is by him or that contradicted Cellot's Anonymus we would readily yield the Point in Dispute But that without any proof nay against so notorious Evidence and so express a Testimony he should hope to obtrude upon us his own Chimera's touching the Design and Adversaries of Bertram in this Book argues a degree of Confidence unbecoming a Divine of his Character F. Mabillon (d) A. B. S. 4. p. 2. Praef. n. 56. Rabanum Ratramnum Anonymum Herigerum aliosque siqui sint Paschasii Adversarios in reali Christi corporis in Sacramento praesentia cum ipso convenisse contentionem hanc in vocum pugna sitam fussse hath more Ingenuity and Discretion than to attempt it and frankly confesseth that both these Writers did dispute against Paschase though to salve all again he pretends that they believed the Real Presence as much as he did that they differed only in Words not in Doctrine so that it was rather a Verbal than a Real Controversie But by this Learned Fathers leave the difference appears much more weighty Paschase and his Adversaries are at as wide a distance as Protestant and Papist and of this the Reader will be satisfied upon perusal of the Fifth Chapter of my Dissertation wherein I have set down the Doctrine of Paschase and the Church of Rome together with Ratram's contrary Doctrines and have from the Author himself shewn in what Sense he hath used those Terms which seem proper to establish Transubstantiation but really overthrow it and this without the help of those new and bold Figures which M. Boileau hath been forced to invent Hitherto I have been detecting the weakness of those Arguments which this Doctor makes use of to prove his Paradox that the Doctrine of Ratram is conformable to that of Paschase and the Faith of the Church of Rome I shall now offer some few Reasons that convince me of the contrary 1. It is a just and strong Presumption of this Authors being against them that for above 120 Years together after his first appearance in Print their most eminent Doctors have with one consent yielded the Point I will not except his Lovain Friends whose Expedient to make him Orthodox is with good Reason by M. Alix declared impracticable since the appearance of Manuscripts for they justifie those passages to be Genuine which the Lovain Divines would have expunged as spurious Mixtures If Bertram be so full and considerable a Witness of the perpetuity of their Faith touching the Presence of Christ in the Holy Sacrament How comes it to pass that their Supream Judge of Controversies hath treated him as a Knight of the Post The Doctors of the Church of Rome in former daies were not unacquainted with the Art of Expounding which is now practised with so much applause but have shewn themselves much greater Masters in it than M. Boileau and have used it with greater dexterity for evading the Testimonies produced out of other Fathers by our Divines against Transubstantiation Nor can we doubt but that they were bred under the strongest Prepossessions and Prejudices for the Real Presence and consequently as well disposed to understand all the obscure and harsh Passages of this Book in the sense of their own Church if the Words could possibly have born it If it be now so plain as (e) Nous avons son livre il ne faut que le lire Pref. p. 24. 25. M. Dean of Sens would have it thought That Bertram wrote neither against the Stercoranists nor the Real Presence If the very reading of the Book be sufficient to convince a man thereof How came it to pass that so many Popes and Cardinals with other eminent Prelates and Doctors have conspired in the Condemnation of so Useful and Orthodox a Work To pass a (f) Pref. p. 5. Sentence quite contrary to its merit and such as no man who had well examined it could reasonably have expected Did they condemn it without Examination Then God preserve us from such Judges Did they not understand the Book Or did they want Skill to try it by the Roman Standard For my part I cannot think so meanly of the Trent Fathers who were employed to censure Books and who composed the Index What pity was it that no Artist of that time could furnish those Fathers with a pair of M. Boileau's Spectacles F. Mabillon (g) A. B. Ubi supra n 126. At cum haec classis contineat libros qui propter Doctrinam quam continent non sanam aut Suspectam rejiciuntur nihil inde in Ratramni fidem inferri potest nisi quod ob duriores quasdam obscuriores sententias suspectam Doctrinam visus est continere tells us that Bertram is not placed in the first Class of the Index which consists of condemned Authors but in the second Class in which the Works of Catholick Writers containing false or suspected Doctrine are prohibited so that nothing can be hence concluded against the Soundness of his Doctrine but only that some harsh and obscure Sentences rendred it suspected To this I Answer 1. That nothing appears in the Censure by which we can learn that the Book was prohibited only for Suspected Doctrine and not for unsound Doctrine which is also assigned as the Reason why some Books of Catholick Divines are rejected 2. If the Censors of Books had only rejected Bertram for the Obscurity of his Expressions or Suspicious Doctrine and not for false and unsound Doctrine why might they not have allowed him as they have done others in the same Class the favour