Appearance In other Authors it implieth the Creature also the kind or sort of Creatures in conformity to the use of the word in the Roman Laws or the Natural Substance Gaudentius (p) Recte etiam Vini Specie tum sanguis ejus exprimitur quia cum ipse in Evangelio dicit Ego sum Vitis Vera satis declarat sanguinem suum esse omne Vinum quod in Figura Passionis ejus offertur Gaudent Brix ad Neophyl Serm. 2. Bibl. Pat. tom 2. Edit Par. 1610. saith Likewise is our Saviour's Blood fitly set forth by the Species or Creature of Wine because that he himself in his Gospel by saying I am the true Vine doth sufficiently declare that all the Wine which is offered in the Figure or Sacrament of his Passion is his Blood. Here Species Vini and Vinum are the same and signifie the Natural substance of Wine and not the meer Appearances and sensible Qualities thereof Salvian (q) Speciem servantes naturam relinquentes lib. 1. de Gub. useth the word Species for the Natural Substance of Water in the place already produced upon another occasion Isidore of Sevil saith (r) Post Speciem Maris Terrae formata duo Luminaria magna legis Isid Hisp de Ordine Creat c. 5. After the Species of Sea and Earth you read that two great Luminaries were Created Species there signifieth the Creatures of Sea and Earth What St. Austin (Å¿) Aug. Serm. ad Infantes apud Fulgent de Bapt. Aethiopis meant by the Visible Species in the Sacrament which he opposeth to the Spiritual Fruit in a Passage cited and expounded by Bertram who addeth that the Visible Species feedeth the Body may be best learn'd from himself in the same Sermon where he hath these words (t) Sicut enim ut sit Species Visibilis panis multa grana in unum consperguntur tanquam illud fiat quod de Fidelibus ait Scriptura Sancta Erat illis anima Cor unum in Deum Sic de vino fratres recolite unde sit unum Grana multa pendent ad botrum sed liquor granorum in unitate confunditur Ita Dominus Jesus Christus NOS significavit NOS ad SE pertinere voluit Mysterium Pacis Vnitatis nostrae in sua mensa consecravit As to the making the Visible Species of Bread many Grains of Corn are moulded into one Mass as it is said of the Faithful in the Holy Scripture that they had one Soul and one Heart so my Brethren consider how the Wine is made one Body Many Grapes hang on the Bunch but the Juice of those Grapes is pressed together into one Body of Liquor Thus our Lord Jesus Christ hath signified US viz. the Body of Believers and would that we should belong to him that is as Members of the Mystical Body whereof he is Head and hath consecrated the Mystery of our Peace and Unity on his own Table There are several things to be Remarked from this Passage 1. That he saith the visible species of Bread is made up of many Corns moulded together and made up into one Lump Now this cannot be said of the Accidents but of the Substance of Bread made up into one Loaf before Consecration For in another place (u) Quod cum per manus hominum ad illam Visibilem Speciem perducitur non Sanctificatur ut sit tam magnum Sacramentum c. de Trin. l. 3. c. 4. he useth the same Expression with relation to Vnconsecrated Bread Which saith he after it is by the hands of Men brought to that Visible Species is not Sanctified and made so great a Sacrament but by the Invisible Operation of God's Spirit 2. When he comes to speak of the Sacramental Wine he doth not call it the Visible Species of Wine but simply Wine which is an Argument that by the visible Species of Bread he meant real Bread. 3. St. Austin makes the visible Species of Bread to be a Figure of the Unity of the Faithful among themselves as also of their Union with Christ their Head. Now the meer Appearances of Bread and Wine have no resemblance of many Members compacted into one Body the Figure Colour or Taste of the Consecrated Elements suggest not the least hint of the Union of the several Members of Christ's Mystical Body whereas their Natural Substances are very apt and lively Representations thereof 4. Bertram (w) N. 94. Exterius quod videtur speciem habet corpoream quae pascit corpus expounding St. Austin ascribeth an effect to the Corporeal Species which cannot be wrought by the Sensible Appearances severed from their Subject he saith They feed the Body which is Nourished only by substantial Food digested and turned into its own Substance Now how meer Accidents can be converted into Chyle and Blood and become substantial Flesh is inconceivable whereas how this may be effected by true Bread and Wine it is very easie to apprehend Caesarius (x) Etiam in hoc ipso quod innumerosis tritici granis confici novimus unitatem constat assignari populorum Sic enim frumentum solita purgantis solicitudine praeparatum in candidam Speciem molarum labore perficitur ac per aquam ignem in unius panis Substantiam congregatur Sic variae gentes diversaeque nationes in unam fidem convenientes unum de se Christi Corpus efficiunt Caesar Arel Hom. 7. de Pasch in Bibl. Patr. Tom. 2. Par. 1610. Bishop of Arles hath a Passage very like this of St. Austin Also in that the Bread is made of innumerable Grains of Wheat its certain that it signifieth the Unity of the People For thus Wheat carefully made clean and prepared is by the Mill brought to a white Species and by Water and Fire united into the substance of one Loaf Thus also various People and divers Nations agreeing in one Faith make up of themselves one Body of Christ Doubtless the Species spoken of by this Father is not the bare Appearance but the Substance of Meal And before where he speaks of the (y) In eadem Homilia Species of Manna he must be understood of the thing it self It is evident that Walafridus Strabo had this place of St. Austin in his eye when having said (z) Post Paschae Veteris solemnia Corporis Sanguinis sui SACRAMENTA in Panis Vini SVBSTANTIA eisdem Discipulis Tradidit Nihil ergo Congruentius his SPECIEBVS ad significandam Capitis atque Membrorum unitatem potuit inveniri Quia videlicet sicut Panis de multis Granis aquae coagulo in unum corpus redigitur Vinum ex multis acinis exprimitur Sic Corpus Christi ex multitudine sanctorum coadunata completur de â—eb Eccles cap. 16. That after the Solemnity of the Old Passeover our Saviour delivered to the same Disciples the SACRAMENT of his Body and Blood in the SVBSTANCE of Bread and Wine and taught them to Celebrate it in remembrance of
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
his most Holy Passion He adds That nothing could be found out more proper to signifie the Vnity between the Head and Members than those SPECIES For as the Bread consisting of many Grains is by Water reduced into one Body and as the Wine is pressed out of many Grapes Thus also is the Body of Christ made up of the Vnited Multitude of Saints Observe that in the words immediately preceding our Author stiles these Species the Substance of Bread and Wine and in the following words describing the way in which they are made and thereby adapted to signifie the Union between Christ and his Members he calls them simply Bread and Wine The same Author (a) Vnde Eutychianus XXVIII Sedis Pomanae Praesul constituit fruges super altare tantum Fabae Vvae benedici Alias autem diversarum SPECIES rerum statutum est ubilibet benedici a sacerdotibus c. Ibid. cap. 18. Fruges Species pro Synonymis habuit Walafridus useth the word Species for the Fruits of the Earth and cites for it a forged Decretal Epistle under the name of Pope Eutychian which orders all other Species that is Fruits of the Earth except what by the Apostles constitutions may be offered on the Altar to be brought home to the Priest to receive Benediction and the Species allowed to be Blessed on the Altar are Beans and Grapes And Regino citing that Canon of the Apostles to which Walafridus or rather the pretended Eutychian referreth gives it this Title (b) Quae Species ad altare non ad Sacrificium sed ad Benedictionem simplicem debent offerri Regino de Discip Eccles l. 1. c. 64. ex Can. 4. Apost What Species ought to be offered at the Altar not for Sacrifice but for simple Benediction and the Canon mentions (c) Praeter novas Spicas Vvas Oleum Thymiama id est incensum Can. 5. Reliqua poma omnia ad domum Episcopi vel Presbyteri dirigantur c. Ears of new Corn Grapes Oyl and Incense Now in these Instances none can doubt but by Species the Specifick Nature the Substance is to be understood and not the Sensible Qualities of the Particulars mentioned In the very same sense Arnobius Junior (d) Non solum Speciem frumenti sed Vini Olei administrans Arnob. in Ps 104. useth the Term speaking of God's bounty to the Israelites Whom he furnished not only with the Species of Corn but also with those of Wine and Oyl And it appears that the Unconsecrated Elements were stiled Species from a Prayer in the Gothick Missal to be used after the Sanctus which is before Consecration (e) Vt Dominus Deus Noster SPECIEM istam suo ministerio CONSECRANDAM coelestis gratiae inspiratione sanctificet Missale Gothicum p. 375. Collectio post Sanctus in Codd Sacramentorum editis per Thomasium Quarto Romae 1680. Most dear Brethren let us pray that our Lord and God would Sanctifie by the Inspiration of his Heavenly Grace this SPECIES which is TO BE Consecrated c. Now here Species must necessarily import the Substance for our Adversaries themselves do not pretend that the substance of Bread and Wine cease before Consecration But in regard M. Boileau will have it that Ratram learn'd this use of the word from St. Ambrose and particularly from his Books De Sacramentis I shall crave leave a little more largely to expose the falshood and indecent confidence of that Assertion That the Instance produced by M. Boileau is Impertinent and Mistaken I have already shewn and shall now make some Instances to disprove his pretence intirely In the Book De Initiandis which more plausibly pretends to the Authority of St. Ambrose than the six Books of the Sacraments which follow it we have manifest Examples of the use of the word Species for the Specifick Nature or Substance (f) SPECIEM autem pro VERITATE legimus de Christo Specie inventus ut Homo dâ— Patre Deo Neque Speciem ejus vidistis Ambr. de iis qui Myst initiantur c. 4. He tells us That the word Species is sometimes used to signifie the truth and not the bare resemblance as when it is said of Christ that he was found in Specie in fashion as a Man and of God the Father neither have ye at any time seen his Species it 's plain that this Author understands by Species in the first place Christ's true Humane Nature and in the latter the Divine Substance or Essence (g) Gravior est enim ferri Species quam aquarum liquor cap. 9. For the Species of Iron is heavier than the Liquor of Water Here Species ferri implieth the substance of Iron And the Author who some Ages after St. Ambrose enlarged this Tract into six Sermons (h) The fourth of these is among St. Austins Sermons de Verbis Dom. Serm. 28. which have long passed for so many Books of that Father on the Sacraments but plainly appear both by the beginnings and conclusions to be Homilies I say that Author expounds Species by Matter or Substance saying of Iron (i) Est enim Materies gravior quam aquarum est Elementum de Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. For it is a more weighty Substance than the Element of Water Again (k) Ante Benedictionem Verborum coelestium species nominatur post Consecrationem Corpus Christi significatur De initiandis c. 9. Before Consecration the Species is named after Consecration the Body of Christ (l) De Consecr dist 3. c. 69. Gratian cites the words thus Before Consecration another Species is named and the Gloss (m) Alia Species i. e. alterius rei Species id est substantia fuit Glossa expounds the word Species by Substance as the Homilist (n) Panis iste PANIS est ante verba Sacramentorum c. l. 4. c. 4. Dixi vobis quod ante verba Christi quod offertur PANIS dicatur c. Ibid. l. 5. c. 4. doth by Bread twice Also our Ambrosiaster in his comparison between the Supernatural Effect of Baptism and the Miracle wrought by the Prophet Elisha when he made Iron to swim saith That (o) Vbi Baptizatus fuerit non tanquam ferrum sed tanquam jam levior fructuosi ligni Species levatur de Sacram. l. 2. c. 4. before Baptism every Man sinks like Iron but when Baptised he riseth like the lighter Species of fruitful Wood. In this place who doubts but he intended the Substance and not the appearance of Wood In the third Book he saith The (p) Hesterno die de fonte Baptismatis disputavimus cujus Species veluti quaedam Sepulchri forma est de Sacra l. 3. c. 1. Species of the Font is of the form of a Grave where doubtless he meaneth the very Font-stone or if not then its Figure united with the Stone Again He starts an Objection (q) Forte dicis Speciem Sanguinis non video Sed habet
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
is the same Body which was born of the Virgin Suffered on the Cross and rose from the Grave as Paschasius did and the other puts the Proposition into the Form of a Question and determines it in the Negative as (i) Through the whole discussion of the Second Question Bertram hath done I conceive there needs no witness to make any man who is not sunk quite over head and ears into Scepticism believe that this latter opposeth the Doctrine of the former But Secondly He doth not say that no body hath mentioned him as an Adversary to Paschasius he acknowledgeth that F. Cellots Anonymous Author hath expresly affirmed it And tho' he thinks it enough to invalidate his Credit by saying of him as the Bishop of Meaux doth of M. Imbert (k) See the Bishop of Meaux his Letter in the Vindication of his Exposition p. 116. Vn homme sans nom comme sans scavoir He is a man of neither Repute nor Learning that he is an Author of little Sense or Merit whose Name or Age cannot be discovered This will not serve his turn for the credibility of a Witness depends more upon a man's Honesty and the means he hath of truly informing himself touching the matter he attests than on his renown or deep Learning an ordinary Parish Priest may be as credible a Witness of a matter of Fact within his knowledg as the Bishop of Meaux or the Dean of the Metropolitical Church of Sens. We were in a miserable case if none under the Dignity of a Dean could tell Truth or if we were to know no more than some Sorbon Doctors are content to let us But what if Mr. Boileau be mistaken when he tells us that by the confession of all Mankind he hath little Sense or Reason and that his Age is unknown What if his Time and Name be well known and he appear to have been an Author of some Figure and Note for Learning F. (l) Acta Ben. S. IV. p. 2. Praef. n. 48. Proinde auctorem Herigerum Abbatem Laubiensem affirmare non vereor De Herigero autem Girardus in vita Adalbardi Corbeiensis apud Mabillon Ibidem n. 48. Abbas Laubiensis HERIGERUS qui eo tempore inter Sapientes habebatur celeberrimus Mabillon thinks he knows both his Name and Time and that he was no meaner a Person than Herigerus Abbat of Lobes who lived about 120 Years after Ratram But if the discovery had never been made it is a slender Argument that he was not worth the Publishing because Sirmondus and Arch-Bishop Vsher could have Published him but did not How many other Authors which they could have Published but did not must be judged worthless Scribblers if this be true reasoning Let M. Boileau despise him as much as he pleaseth he is a far better Witness that Ratram wrote against Paschasius than any he can produce to inform us who those Divines were in the Ninth Century that held the Opinions of Abbaudus and Prior Gaultier the imaginary Adversaries which he makes him to encounter He can neither shew the Books of that time wherein those Opinions are taught nor yet prove by any Author that they were then held by any body That (m) Preface p. 4. neither Sigebertus Gemblacensis nor Trithemius who both mention this Tract say any thing of its being written against Paschasius is no convincing Proof that it was not For those Authors ordinarily give us no further account of Books than the bare Titles afford and they omit many unquestionable Works of those Writers whom they mention F. Mabillon (n) Acta Ben. S. IV. p. 2. Praef. n. 149. 150. makes no doubt but the two Books De partu Virginis were Written by Paschasius against Ratram's Book on that Subject yet neither Sigebert or Trithemius say one Word of that Dispute nor can M. Boileau produce any one Writer from those times to the beginning of this Century who so much as mentions it Neither the Popes nor those Councils which they assembled against Berengarius at Rome and Verceli doubted but Joannes Scotus wrote against Paschasius and yet neither (o) No very accurate Writers who make two Authors of Joannes Scotus and Joannes Erigena as Mr. Sclater or his Printer doth p. 76. Trithem de Script Eccles fol. 63. 65. Quarto Paris 1512. Sigeb cap. 65. cap. 95. Trithemius nor Sigebert (p) He wrote in Defence of the Emperor Henry IV. against Pope Gregory VII Paschal II. And Died A. D. 1113. who lived and was a Writer in the latter daies of Berengarius saith one Syllable of it As for Bishop Fisher he did not as M. Boileau pretends (q) Preface p. 4. Qui le cite cite Bertram he only mentions his Name among other Catholick Writers on that Subject His Second Argument concludes as little as the first for we pretend not that this Tract was written against the Book of Paschasius but only against his Sentiments so that there was no occasion to mention it It was upon the command of his Prince who propounded those two Questions that he medled with this Controversie and if he wrote about the Year 850. whilst Paschasius was Abbot of Corbey there is another obvious Reason for his Silence in that Point But tho' we confess that this Tract confutes not the Book of Paschasius yet we think it too boldly said (r) Preface p. 21. That it makes as little mention of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation as it doth of Stercoranism unless his meaning be that they are not mentioned in those proper Terms which were not then in use He ought to be very well assured that Veritas in Bertram doth not signifie Verity of Nature but such a Verity as is discerned by our bodily Senses otherwise he must retract this confident Assertion and give us leave to believe some other great Doctors (s) Espenceus Genebrard c. of the Sorbon who do acknowledg that he both mentions and denies them But whether he doth or not as also whether he uses Terms proper to establish Transubstantiation I shall have a fitter occasion hereafter of discoursing with our Author and shall therefore proceed to consider What he can fairly collect from the favourable Opinion which some Learned Doctors of the Church of Rome have had of this Piece The Lovain Doctors think he needs a Comment to give him a tolerable Sense And though Writing invisibly for visibly be but the Correction of a Typographical Error yet the Exposition of external Species or Accidents of the Creatures where the Author saith the substance of the Creatures and the other that follows is a Gloss that marrs the Text at least when t Index Exp. Philippi II. Regis Catholici jussu Ant. 1571. p. 7. the Expositors themselves confes that Bertram knew not that the Accidents did subsist without their subjects And when they have done all they can by way of Exposition they think it necessary
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
of a Temporary Prohibition (h) Vide Indicem in Classe 2. B. donec corrigatur till he be corrected or explained I fear those Fathers despaired of softning his harsh Expressions into any tolerable Catholick Sense 3. If we may judge of the Sense of the Pope who published the Index and the Council which ordered it to be made by the Judgment of the most eminent Doctors in and soon after that time we must believe that False and Heretical Doctrine was the fault which the Trent Censors found with it Sixtus Senensis who wrote within three Years after the Council was dissolved calls it (i) Perniciosum Oecolampadii volumen in vulgarunt sub titulo Bertrami Sixtus Sen. in Praef. Biblioth S. a pernicious Book of Oecolampadius against the Sacrament of Christ's Body And saith (k) Aug. Expositionem hujus loci Bertramus detorquet ad Haeresin Sacramentariorum Lib. 6. Annot. 196. n. 1. vide n 2. That he wrests St. Austin's Exposition of these words I am the Living Bread to the Sacramentarian Heresie making the Holy Eucharist to be nothing else but Bread and Wine in substance bearing a Figure and Resemblance together with the Name of Christ's Body which is not truly and corporally present but only in a Spiritual and Mystical way And makes (l) Berengarius ducentis pene post Bertramum annis eandem Haeresin instauravit ib. n. 6. Berengarius to have revived the same Heresie Two hundred Years after him Espencaeus an Author of the same time points out the very Propositions which shew the Pseudo-Bertram (m) Espencaeus de ador Euch. lib. 2. c. 19. as he stiles him to have been no true Son of the Church but the Son of a Strange Woman (n) Vide pref p. 8. Claudius Sainctes who was at the Council of Trent judged the Book full of Errors and Heresies and therefore spurious Gregory de Valentia (o) Greg. Valen. Comment Theol. Tom. IV. Disp VI. Punct 3. tells us that the Book is leaven'd with the Sacramentarian Error and justly sure for false Doctrine condemned in the Trent Index And Possevin (p) Appar T. 1. p. 219. Bertramus Prohibitus est omnino a Clem. VIII Pont. Max. in postremo indice Librorum prohibitorum Itaque amplius legendus non est nisi quis concessus Sedis Apostolicae ad refellendos qui ex illo errores afferuntur Bertramo qui Divinum hoc mysterium haud recte intelligebat neque credebat acquaints us that notwithstanding the favourable Judgments of the Lovain Divines It may by no means be read save by the Pope's special License in order to confute it being utterly Prohibited So that it is not for an obscure Expresson or suspected Proposition but for downright Heresie that he stands condemned M. Boileau (q) Preface p. 8. He might have added Baronius who could not be ignorant of this Work yet never vouchsafeth to mention it nor the Author more than once and that with Disgrace as an Adversary to Hincmare in the Controversie of Predestination confesseth that not only the Trent Censors but Pope Clement the VIII with the Cardinals Bellarmine Quiroga Sandoval and Alan utterly rejected this Book as Heretical But he gives an incredible account of their inducement to do so viz. That the Protestants run them down by the pure dint of Impudence (r) Estant imprime par le soin des Protestants d' Allemagne comme un ouvrage qu'ils s'imaginerent leur estre favourable ils en furent â—rus sur leur parole presque tous les Catholiques le rejetterent comme un tres-mechant livre c. Pref. p. 5. see also p. 12. They first Published it they claimed it as favourable to their Sentiments and made Translations of it into French to serve their own turns and they had the fortune to have their bare word taken and thereupon the R. Cs. generally rejected it as a pernicious Forgery These were Candid Doctors indeed to take an Adversaries bare word and let go so considerable a Champion for the Real Presence This was an extraordinary piece of Civility for those Doctors are not usually so prone to believe us though we produce Scripture and Authentick Testimonies from the Fathers in proof of our Assertions The first Editions of this Book have little appearance of that confidence we are accused of there were no large Prefaces or Remarks printed with the Text no Expositions or Paraphrases but plain Translations for many Years after the Roman Doctors had censured it but the naked Text was fairly left to the Readers Judgment The first Publishers of our Party could not possibly make a more confident pretence to the favour of Bertram than M. Boileau doth and yet we must beg his Pardon that we cannot return the Civility and give him up to the Church of Rome on his bare word Whatever motives prevailed with them it is undeniable and by M. Boileau himself confessed that their greatest Men have judged this Book Heretical and I see no reason to believe that Espenceus Genebrard and other Sorbon Doctors of the last Age were not as competent Judges whether the Doctrine it contains be agreeable to the Faith of the Church of Rome as himself M. le Faure and the other Doctors his Approvers And yet if after all the Judgment of so many great Prelates and Doctors of the Church of Rome must stand for nothing and be no prejudice to the Notion of Ratram's Orthodoxy advanced by Mr. Dean of Sens I think it but a modest and equitable request to him and his Friends that they make no use of the Concession of the Centuriators (s) As Mr. Boileau doth Remarks on n. 15. and some others citing Cent. IX de Doctrina Transubstantiationis habet Semina Bertramus utitur enim vocabulis commutationis conversionis Non sequitur Vide in Dissertationis nostrae cap. 5. quo sensu his Vocabulis utatur Centuriatores etiam objiciunt Mabillonius N. Alexander who acknowledg in this Author the Seeds of Transubstantiation Especially when it is remembred that those Authors being Lutherans have no power to make Concessions for us and being for Consubstantiation which Doctrine is utterly inconsistent with Ratram it was indifferent to them since he was no Friend of theirs whether they gave him up for a Calvinist or Papist if their Inclinations were determined one way rather than the other they must be stronger to allow him for a Transubstantiator who agrees with them in the Belief of a Corporal Presence than to acknowledg him a favourer of our Sentiments which are against both 2. A Second Reason why we cannot understand this Tract in the Sense of M. Boileau and for Transubstantiation is because Aelfric and our Saxon Ancestors who lived in the Tenth Century have taught us to understand it in a contrary Sense And if there be any thing in the Vulgar Plea for Oral Tradition we may justly expect a better account of the Doctrine
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
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
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
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
frequently and by great variety of Expressions equivalent to the Reality or very Truth as will appear in the following Instances N. XV. Verity is expounded by Proper Essence (n) Fatebuntur ergo necesse est aut mutata esse secundum aliud quam secundum Corpus ac per hoc non esse hoc quod in Veritate videntur sed aliud quod non esse secundum propriam Essentiam cernuntur N. 15. They must needs confess either that they are changed in some other respect than that of their Bodies and that in this respect they are not what we see they are in Truth but somewhat else which we discern them not to be in their Proper Essence c. what he styles Verity or Truth in one Member of the Antithesis is called the Proper Essence in the other which I take to be equivalent to the Reality In this Passage the Lobe MS. varies from the Printed Copies which read Existence instead of Essence and I think the Variation of some moment and that it is advantageous to the Protestant Cause Again In discussing the Second Question he often describes the Real and Natural Body of our Saviour in Terms as clear and express as Human Wit can devise viz. His Body born of the Virgin which suffered was buried and rose again This he calleth our Lord's True or Very Body and denieth the Holy Eucharist to be that Body For Instance he saith that Christ's Natural Body (o) Non sit Mysterium sed Veritas Naturae N. 57 is no Mystery but Truth of Nature which he denieth the Sacrament to be Again N. LXII The Body which he took of the Virgin Mary which Suffered was Buried and Rose again was a True Body that is such as remained Visible and palpable 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 felt From which words we may learn what Ratram's Notion of a True Body is viz. such as our Senses judge to be a Body discernible by the sight and touch A Real Body and not a Spirit or Phantasm So N. LXXII He describeth Christ's to be an Organical Body animated with a Reasonable Soul to be the True or Real Flesh of a True or Real Man (p) Vera Caro veri hominis existebat Corpus utique Verum in Veri Corporis specie consistens N. 72. A True Body in the shape of a True Body which cannot be affirmed of his Spiritual Flesh or the Holy Sacrament which expressions most evidently import the Reality and not the Sensible Appearance And therefore in denying the Holy Eucharist to be such a True Body he denieth the Real Presence Again He sometimes expounds Verity by ipsa Res the thing it self which is the Reality N. 77. (q) Exterius igitur quod apparet non est IPSA RES sed Imago REI mente vero quod sentitur intelligitur Veritas REI n. 77. 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 Verity of the thing or the very thing it self Here ipsa res and veritas Rei are manifestly the same Thus also speaking of Christs Body in the Sacrament in opposition to his True Body he saith that the former (r) Secundum quendam modum Corpus Christi esse cognoscitur modus iste in Figura est imagine ut Veritas RES IPSA sentiatur n. 84 is only in some particular manner or respect the Body of Christ which manner is Figurative and in the way of an Image so that the Verity is the THING IT SELF And again (Å¿) Veritas vero erit cum jam nec Pignus nec Imago sed IPSIVS REI veritas apparebit n. 87. The Truth we shall then have when the VERY THING it self shall appear And elsewhere comparing the Natural Flesh of our Lord with the Holy Eucharist which is commonly called his Body he saith (t) Et hoc Corpus Pignus est Species illud vero IPSA Veritas n. 88. This Body is a Pledge and Figure but that is the TRUTH IT SELF where we owe the Emphatical Pronoun ipsa to the Lobez MS. He saith (u) Sed IPSA REI manifestatio cognoscitur n. 97. of Christ's Natural Body That it is the very Manifestation of the THING whereas he denied the Holy Eucharist to be the (w) Non per IPSIVS REI manifestationem n. 88. Manifestation of the THING IT SELF N. 88. Which two latter Phrases are perfectly equivalent to the (x) Ipsius Veritatis nuda manifestatione n. 3. Manifestation of the TRUTH IT SELF in the Preface of this Tract and all these Expressions plainly import the REALITY Moreover He calls our Saviour's Body born of the Virgin (y) Illud namque proprium Verum nihil habens in se vel Mysticum vel Figuratum hoc vero Mysticum his Proper and True Body having nothing Mystical or Figurative in it So many several ways is the Term Verity explained and in all the Holy Eucharist denied to be the True that is REAL Body of our Saviour Again The Sense of the word Verity may be learned from the Terms to which it stands opposed through the whole Discourse which manifestly declare the subject of which they are affirmed not to be Christs Real Body Sometimes it is opposed to a Figure now nothing is a Sign or Figure of it self sometime to a Pledge sometime to an Image to a Similitude a Remembrance and the like and by affirming the Consecrated Elements to be Christ's Body in any of the forementioned respects he virtually denieth them to be his Natural and Real Body and by consequence when he saith they are Christ's Flesh and Blood in Figure and not in Truth he must mean thereby not in Reality Lastly If this be not the Sense of that Term Ratram's Reasoning N. 77. is false and absurd (z) Si enim hoc vere dicitur quia Corpus Christi est 1 In Veritate Corpus Christi est si in Veritate Corpus Christi est ' 2 Incorruptibile est impassibile c. n. 77. He argues thus If the Holy Eucharist be Christs Body and be truly and properly said to be the Body of Christ then it is such in Verity and if so then it is Incorruptible impassible and by consequence Eternal c. Now as M. Boileau expounds that Term the former 1 consequence is false and Ratram must contradict himself as our Adversaries understand him It followeth not that if the Eucharist be properly and truly said to be Christs Body that therefore it is so in the sensible appearance on the Principles of the Church of Rome Nor is the latter 2 Inference valid viz. That if it be Christs Body in sensible Verity then it is incorruptible and impassible For the Incorruptibility of Christs Body depends not upon the Sensible Qualities but upon
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
Mystically turned into the Substance of his Body and Blood whence we may learn that it is not properly changed it is a Mystical not a Natural and Substantial change and therefore doth not change the H. Elements from their own Natural Substance into the Proper Substance of our Saviours Flesh and Blood. There may appear some Emphasis in the Adverb Vere in Truth but the Addition of Per Mysterium mystically clears the Authors meaning who useth the Word to import the Sacramental Verity not the Natural For Sacraments give a true Representation and the Real Benefits and Virtue of the thing signified tho they do not Exhibit the very thing it self And this sense of the word True in Opposition to False or Imaginary also to the Natural Sustance is clearly expressed by the Author of the Books (b) De Sacram. l. 6. c. 1. In Similitudine quidem accipis Sacramentum Sed verè Naturae GRATIAM VIRTVTEMQVE consequeris Suspicor legendum verae sed nil ex conjectura statuo de Sacramentis who to an Objection which I have mentioned before I see the Similitude not the Truth of Blood Answers Tho thou receivest the Sacrament in a Similitude yet thou truly obtainest the Grace and Virtue of the Natural Substance which may improperly be stiled the Substance of his Blood. And good Authority I find for this improper use of the word Substance in Sacramental changes in the Old Gallican Missal published first at Rome by Thomasius and after at Paris by F. Mabillon in which we have this Collect. (c) Confirma Domine famulos tuos quos ex Aqua Spiritu sancto propitius redemisti ut veterem hominem cum suis actionibus deponentes in ipsius conversatione vivamus ad cujus SVBSTANTIAM per haec Pasc halia Mysteria TRANSTVLISTI Per. Miss Gallic Miss Paschal Fer vi Confirm O Lord us thy Servants whom thou hast graciously redeemed with water and the Holy Ghost that putting off the Old Man with his works we may live after the Conversation of him into whose SUBSTANCE thou hast by these Paschal Mysteries TRANSLATED us c. This Prayer was made in the name of the New Baptized Persons on the Friday in Easter week And you may observe that it speaks of those Neophytes as turned into the Substance of Christ by the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper received immediately upon it Which cannot be understood of the Natural Substance of his Flesh but of his Mystical Body into which they were Incorporated by the Sacrament of Baptism and made true Members of Christ not in Verity of Nature but in Veritate Mysterii vel Sacramenti deriving true Grace and Spiritual strength from Christ their Head. I shall but in a word shew how vainly he baulks the Adverb Figurement Figuratively in Translating Figurate and constantly renders it in a Figure which I should not have noted but that there is a manifest design to Insinuate that the Accidents are the outward Sign and Figure under which not Bread and Wine but the Natural Substance of Christs Body and Blood do exist And F. Mabillon (d) A.B. Sec. iv p. 2. n. 116. Vno in versu duo sunt facinora Primum quod Sub Figura vertit Figurement uti etiam pag. 2. non enim ait Auctor haec Mysteria in Figura celebrari sed Sub Figura quae Corpus Christi velet non excludat imputes it a great Crime to the Hugonot Translatour that he hath rendred Sub Figura Figuratively whereas to any Man who will consult this Author throughout it will soon appear that the good Father departed from his usual Candour in passing that severe Censure on his Country-man For Ratram doth indifferently use the following Phrases viz. (e) Mysteria Corporis Sanguinis Sub Figura dicit celebrari n. 34. Verba autem St. Augustini ita se habent Figura ergo est n. 33. quibus contraria esse affirmat Ratramnus placita eorum qui docent non in Figura n. 32. Aliud exterius per Figuram ostentans n. 92. Figurate Christi Corpus Sanguis existunt n. 10. Secundum quendam modum Corpus Christi esse cognoscitur modus iste in Figura est n. 84. Vnder a Figure in a Figure by a Figure Figuratively and it is a Figure affirming in all these various ways of Expression that the Holy Eucharist is Christs Body as may be seen by the Instances in the Margin and indeed the words in a Figure do not imply the Holy Eucharist to consist of the Person of our Saviour under the Accidents of Bread and Wine which our Adversaries call the Figure or Vail For St. Austin (f) Petra Christus in Signo Verus Christus in Verbo in Carne n. 78. i. e. Signum Christi non Verus Christus cited by Ratram saith That the Rock was Christ in Signo which imports not that it was Christ personally present under the Appearance of a Rock but that the Rock was a Sign or Type of Christ So in his Exposition of the LIV (g) David in Figura Christus est Tom. 8. in Ps 54. Psalm he saith David was Christ in a Figure that is a Figure of Christ or Figurately stiled the Christ or Anointed of God. 2. He likewise amuseth us as though there were some special Mystery in those Verbs which according to the Tumid Stile of the Middle Ages Ratram useth instead of the Verb Substantive Est And therefore he renders (h) N. 12. Et alibi passim Cognoscitur is sensibly known Cernitur and Videtur appears to our Bodily sense in the like manner Ostenditur and Monstratur Now if there were any Emphasis intended in the use of these words as perhaps sometimes there was though not generally yet the Emphasis is directly contrary to what M. Boileau makes it for the Author doth not use those Terms by way of Reserve and Caution or to express an uncertainty as this Translator very ridiculously makes him rendring Videntur it seems N. 54. For where there is an Emphasis they do vehemently affirm or deny and imply the highest assurance of the Truth of what is said the Evidence of Sense and certain Knowledge being the best grounds upon which we can conclude a thing either to be or not to be So that in the place newly mentioned Ratram doth expresly say That we see the Consecrated Bread and Wine remain in the former Species or Kind and not as our (i) Et depuis il semble qu'elles demeurent dans la meme espece c'est a dire apparences Remarque p. 250. Translator hath it it seems they remain after Consecration in the same Appearance And he useth promiscuously Videtur Ostenditur and Cernitur which last is not capable of that doubtful sense which the first may sometimes bear However I say commonly these Verbs are not Emphatical but used for the Verb Substantive as in the following Instances (k) Non parva