hunc caput habeant ut Judices Regem Quando quidem sit Romana Civitas omnibus imperii Romani civitatibus honorabilior Romanus Pontifex principatum obtineat Sacerdotii super omnes Episcopos utpote cum sit Civitas haec Domina omnium illi civitati quisquis praefuerit Episcopus ex antiquitatis constitutione non Christi princeps omnium habeatur Ecclesiarum paulo post Quis autem ferat ut Constanopolitanus Patriarcha cunctis praeferatur Ecclesiis quod nec Antiquitas ei contulit nec ulla decreta majorum constituunt nec rationis habetur vel Ecclesiasticae vel humane jurae fundatum but on Ecclesiastical Constitutions the Grants of Princes and the Dignity of the City of Rome the Head and Mistress of all Cities in the Empire as the Pope hath the Preheminence over all Bishops and Churches which though at the time when our Author wrote was as much as the Pope himself could wish yet comes so short of the Papal claims since the Hildebrandine times that he now passeth at best but for a Trimming Catholick with F. Cellot and his Friends This I hope will suffice to vindicate Ratramnus both in point of Faith towards God and of good manners towards his Governors so that there appears nothing in his Person to prejudice us against his Doctrine delivered in this Book which whether it be his or not and whether it be come pure and undepraved to our hands I shall enquire in the next Chapter CHAP. III. That this Book is neither wholly forged nor yet depraved that Ratramnus is its true Author and not Joannes Scotus Eregina AMong our Adversaries of the Roman Church who allow the Author but condemn his Work there pass Three several Opinions and all false 1. That it is a * Sixtus Senens in Praefat Biblioth Sanctae Possevinus in Praefat. Apar Sac. Breerly Parsons in his three Controvers p. 2. c. 10. But he makes the forgery committed by the Followers of Berengarius late forgery that it was written by Oecolampadius and published under the venerable Name of an Author of the IX Century by the Hereticks This Sixtus Senensis and after him Possevine with extreme impudence pretend But for want of good memories they elsewhere tell us that the Author of that Book wrote under Charles the Great A. D. 810. or the Grosse A. D. 886. and was confuted by Paschasius Radbertus Sure Sixtus Senensis forgot himself very much when in the very next Page he accused Oecolampadius for rejecting St. Ambrose his Books of the Sacrament which are cited by Bertram in this Work. It is withal pleasant to observe that Bishop Fisher (a) Praef. lib. 4. De veritate Corp. Saug Christi contra Oecolam Colen 1527. against Oecolampadius names Bertram among other Catholick Writers of the Sacrament five years before the first Edition of it 1532. and I am apt to believe he had read it in Manustript and was of the same mind with the University of Doway who think with candid expounding he is Catholick enough But it were doing too much honour to this shameless calumny for me to insist longer on its confutation 2. Others more plausibly allow Bertram to have written a Book of this Argument and that this is the Book but falling into the hands of Hereticks the disciples of Berengarius and Wiclef it is come down to us wretchedly corrupted and depraved This is the Opinion of * Espenc De Ador. Euchar. l. 4. c. 19. Espencaeus †Greg. De Valentia in Thom. Tom. 4. disp 6. q. 3. punct 1. Gregory of Valentia and many others particularly the Publishers of the last Bibliotheca Patrum at Lyons who give this reason why they have not inserted it into that Collection viz. ‖ Bibliothecae Patrum Lugd. 1677. T. XV. ad finem libri secundi de Praedest Because it is if not a suspicious piece yet depraved and adulterated with spurious mixtures This is easily said but not so easily believ'd In whose hands have the Manuscripts been kept in ours or theirs Hath not the Popish Interest prevailed all Europe over till the beginning of the XVI Century Have not the Popish Clergy had the keeping all famous Libraries and have they kept them so negligently that Hereticks have had access and opportunity of depraving all the Copies in the World If they say their number was small and it might easily be done whom are we to thank for that If they are interpolated why do they not assign the passages and by genuine Copies convince the World of so gross an Imposture But alas the pretence of Interpolation is very idle and he that would go about to clear it of what they call Heresie must do it una litura and with a single dash expunge the whole Book for though they may pick out two or three passages that seem to favour them yet if they read the next sentences before and after they will plainly see they are nothing to their purpose For my own part I doubt not but that this Book is come to our hands as free from corruption as any Book of so great Antiquity it is manifestly all of one piece but if it be corrupted those of the Church of Rome are likely to have been the Interpolators it being more easie to foist in two or three passages into a Book than two hundred and I can beyond all possibility of contradiction make out that those passages which we alledge in favour of our Doctrine against Transubstantiation are near an hundred years older than Berengarius who was for almost thirty years together baited in one Council after another and died about the Year 1088. For Aelfrick Abbot of Malmsbury in a Homily translated by him into into the Saxon tongue about the year 970. hath taken word for word most of those passages which now sound harsh to Roman Ears This was observed by the Learned (a) Answer to the Jesuits Challenge ch 3 of the Real Presence Vsher who hath collected several and I having with care compared Bertram and that Homily have observed several others and I conceive it will not not be unacceptable to the Reader to see them set in parallel which I shall do following the (b) This Homily is extant in the second Tome of the Book of Martyrs And in Lisle's Saxon Monuments in quarto Lond. 1638. In English alone at Oxford about the Year 1674. And in Saxon and Latin by Mr. Wheelock in his Notes on Bede Hist Eccl. L.V. c. 22. p. 462. Edition Printed by John Day in 12º about the year 1566. And it is remarkable that after the Homilist comes to treat of the Sacrament for a good part of their discourse is about the Paschal Lamb there scapes hardly one Page without somewhat out of Bertram till he resume his former discourse I shall only note by the way that the old word †Husel ab Hostia derivari modeste conjicit Eruditissimus Somnerus at
Sacrament made him weary of his Abby is F. Mabillon's conjecture and not mine And if so we have reason to believe that the Doctrine of Ratramnus had rather the Princes countenance and the stronger party in the Convent And it will yet seem more probable when we consider that Odo afterwards Bishop of Beauvais a great Friend of Ratramnus was made Abbot in the room of Paschasius What the Doctrine of Paschasius was I shall now briefly shew He saith * Pasch Radb de Corp. Sang. Dom. c. 1. Licet Figura Panis Vini hic sit omnino nihil aliud quam Caro Christi Sanguis post consecrationem credenda sunt Et ut miâ—abilius loquar non alia plane quam quae nata est de Maria passa in Cruce resurrexit de Sepulchro That although in the Sacrament there be the Figure of Bread and Wine yet we must believe it after consecration to be nothing else but the Body and Blood of Christ. And that you may know in what sence he understands it to be Christ's Body and Blood he adds And to say somewhat yet more wonderful It is no other Flesh than that which was born of Mary suffered on the Cross and rose again from the Grave He illustrates this Mystery further by intimating that whosoever will not believe Christs natural Body in the Sacrament under the shape of Bread that man would not have believed Christ himself to have been God if he had seen him hanging upon the Cross in the form of a Servant And shelters himself against all the Absurdities that could be objected against this Opinion as the Papists still do under God's Omnipotence laying down this Principle as the foundation of all his Discourse That the nature of all Creatures is obedient to the Will of God who can change them into what he pleaseth He renders these two Reasons why the miraculous change is not manifest to sense by any alteration of the visible form or tast of what is received viz. * Sic debuit hoc mysterium temperari ut arcana Secretorum celarentur infidis meritum cresceret de virtute Fidei c. 13. ubi plura ejusmodi cceurrunt That there may be some exercise for Faith and that Pagans might not have subject to blaspheme the Mysteries of our Religion Yet notwithstanding this no man who believes the Word of God saith he can doubt but by Consecration it is made Christ's Body and Blood in Verity or Truth of Nature And he alledgeth stories of the miraculous appearance of Christ's Flesh in its proper form for the cure of doubting as a further confirmation of his carnal Doctrine These are the sentiments of Paschasius Radbertus and differ little from those of the Roman Church at present which I shall deduce from the Authentick Acts of that Church especially the Council of Trent 1. In the Year 1059. there was a Council assembled at Rome by Pope Nicolaus the II in which a form of Recantation was drawn up for Berengarius wherein he was required to declare * Apud Gratianum de Consecratione Dist 2. c. 42. Ego Berengarius c. That Bread and Wine after Consecration are not only the Sacrament Sign and Figure but the very Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which is not only Sacramentally but Sensibly and Truly handled and broken by the Priests hands and ground by the Teeth of the Faithful And this being the form of a Recantation ought to be esteemed an accurate account of the Doctrine of the Church yet they are somewhat ashamed of it as may appear by the Gloss upon Gratian who hath put it into the body of the Canon Law. But the Council of Trents difinitions are more Authentick which hath determined I. If any one shall deny that in the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is contained really and substantially the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently whole Christ But shall say that it is therein contained only as in a Sign or Figure or Virtually let him be accursed II. If any one shall say that in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of Bread and Wine together with the Body or Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and shall deny that singular or wonderful conversion of the whole substance of Bread into his Body and of the whole substance of 1. Concil Trid. sess 13. can 1. 2. Conc. Trid. Ibid. c. 2. Wine into his Blood there remaining only the species i. e. Accidents of Bread and Wine which conversion the Catholick Church very aptly calls Transubstantiation let him be accursed i. e. By faith and not orally III. If any man shall say that in the Eucharist Christ is exhibited and eaten only Spiritually and not Sacramentally and Really let him be accursed These are the definitions of the Church of Rome in this matter and now let us see whether the Doctrine of Ratramnus in this Book be agreeable to these Canons I might make short work of it by alledging all those Authors who either represent him as a Heretick or his Book as forged or Heretical and in so doing I should muster an Army of the most Eminent Doctors of the Roman Church with two or three Popes in the Head of them viz. Pius the IV. by whose Authority was compiled the Expurgatory Index in which this Book was first forbid Sixtus V. who inlarged the Roman Index and Clement the VIII by whose order it was Revised and published They are all competent 3. Conc. Trid. Ibid. can 8. cap. 8. Witnesses that his Doctrine is not agreeable to the present Faith of the Roman Church And our Authors * Vide Indic Belgic in Bertramo Excogitato commento kind Doway Friends are forced to Exercise their Wits for some handsome invention to make him a Roman-Catholick and at last they cannot bring him fairly off but are forced to change his words directly to a contrary sense and instead of visibly write invisibly and according to the substance of the Creatures must be interpreted according to the outward species or accidents of the Sacrament c. Which is not to explain an Author but to corrupt him and instead of interpreting his words to put their own words into his Mouth And after all they acknowledge that there are some other things which it were not either amiss or imprudent wholly to expunge in regard the loss of those passages will not spoil the sense nor will they be easily missed But I shall not build altogether upon their confessions in regard others who have the ingenuity to acknowledge the Author Orthodox and the work Catholick have also the confidence to deny our claim to Bertram's Authority who is as they pretend though obscure yet their own Therefore I shall shew in his own words that his sentiments in this matter are directly contrary to Paschasius
this Author and Work that he doth in his Paper given in to Queen Maries Commissioners at Oxford besides his own Answers and Confirmations insist upon whatever Bertram wrote on this Argument as a further proof of his Doctrine professing that he doth not see how any Godly Man can gain-say his Arguments and that it was this Book that put him first upon examining the old Opinion concerning the Presence of Christ's very Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament by the Scriptures and Elder Fathers of the Churcb and converted him from the Errours of the Church of Rome in that point And Dr. (a) Dr. Burnet's Hist of the Reform p. II. Book I. p 107. Burnet tells us the same adding That Ridley having read Bertram and concluding Transubstantiation to be none of the Ancient Doctrines of the Church but lately brought in and not fully received till after Bertram 's Age communicated the matter with Cranmer and they set themselves to examine it with more than ordinary care Thus he in the account he gives of the Disputation concerning the Real Presence A. D. 1549. which is the year in which the first Common-Prayer-Book of King Edward VI. was published at which time also Bertram was Printed in English by order of Bishop Ridley So that a Reverend and Learned Divine of our Church b had reason in asserting the Doctrine of Bertram was the very same Doctrine which (a) Several Conferences between a Popish Priest c. p. 61. the Church of England embraced as most consonant to Scripture and the Fathers Which is not what our Adversaries would put upon us that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a naked Commemoration of our Saviour's Death and a meer Sign of his Body and Blood but an efficacious Mystery accompanied with such a Divine and Spiritual Power as renders the consecrated Elements truly tho' Mystically Christ's Body and Blood and communicates to us the real Fruits and saving Benefits of his bitter Passion And this is the Doctrine of Bertram in both parts of this Work. CHAP. VI. That Ratramnus was not singular in his Opinion but had several other Great Men in his own and the following Age of the same Judgment with him in this Point BUt after all that I have said if Ratramnus tho' never so Learned or Orthodox were singular in his Sentiments touching Christ's Presence in the holy Eucharist we can make little of his Authority If the general Belief of the Church in his Time were contrary it only sheweth that one Eminent Divine had some Heterodox Opinions Let us therefore examine the Writers of his own Age and the next after him and see whether he or Paschasius delivered the current sence of the Church I shall not stand to examine the Belief of the more Ancient and Pure Times of Christianity but refer my Reader to Albertinus Archbishop Vsher and Bishop Cosins for an account of it I shall confine myself to the IX and X Centuries in which we shall find several of the most Eminent Doctors and Writers of the Church of the same Judgment with Ratramnus and some who were offended at the Doctrine of Paschasius And indeed there are manifest Tokens in his Book but more evident Proofs in his Epistle to Frudegardus that his Doctrine did not pass without contradiction in his own life time When he delivers his Paradox he prepares his Reader for some wondrous Doctrine And so strange was that new Doctrine of his that if the (a) Anonym de Euch. ad finem Sec IV. p. 2. Anonymous Writer published by F. Mabillon be Rabanus his Epistle to Egilo this Great and Learned Bishop professeth That he never heard or read it before and he much wondred that St. Ambrose should be quoted for it and more that Paschasius should assert it But F. Mabillon offers it only by way of conjecture modestly submitting it to the Judgment of Learned Men whether that Tract against Radbertus be the Epistle of Rabanus or not And I conceive there are better reasons to perswade us that it is not than those he offers to prove that it is As that it bears not the Name of Rabanus though himself mention his writing on that Subject to Egilo That it is not in an Epistolary Form Egilo is not so much as named nor doth any address to a second person appear throughout it but it is plainly a Polemical piece To which I may add that in the Anonymous piece there occurs an odd distinction of the same Body Naturaliter and Specialiter and yet in expounding the Doctrine of the Sacrament to Heribaldus it is not used by Rabanus though that Epistle to Egilo were first written But whoever he were that wrote it he was in all likelyhood an Author of the same Time and treats Paschasius very coursly and severely It is not likely that it was written while he was Abbot since the Author flouts him and in an Ironical way calls him Pontificem Among the Writers of the IX Century I shall number (a) Inter scriptores de Divinis Officiis Ed. per Hittorpium Par. 1610. col 303. Charles the Great though perhaps the Epistle to Alcuin was written somewhat before wherein he affirms that Christ supping with his Disciples brake Bread and gave it them with the Cup for a FIGVRE of his Body and Blood and exhibited a Sacrament highly advantagious to us As Venerable Bede before him speaks He gave in the Supper to his Disciples a FIGVRE of his Holy Body and Blood which notion consists not with the carnal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament (a) Apud L' Arroque Hist Euch. l. 2. c. 13. Theodulphus Aurelianensis near the beginning of this Century saith that by the visible offering of the Priest and the invisible consecration of the Holy Ghost Bread and Wine pass into the Dignity not the Substance of the Body and Blood of our Lord. As Jesus Christ is figured by the Wine so are the Faithful People by Water Amalarius (b) Amalarius Fortunatus Ibidem In Praefat. Col. 307. l. 1. c. 24. Fortunatus in the Preface of his Books of Divine Offices makes the Sacramental Bread and Wine to represent the Body and Blood of Christ and the Oblation to resemble Christ's own offering of himself on the Cross as the Priest doth the Person of Christ And elsewhere he saith that the Sacraments of Christ's Body are secundum quendum modum after some sort Christ's Body which is like Bertram's secundum quid not absolutely and properly but in some respect the Body of Christ and Amalarius cites that Passage of St. Augustine which Bertram alledged to render a reason why the Sacramental Signs have the name of the Thing signified What the Doctrine of Joannes Scotus was is hard to say only in the general 't is agreed that it was contrary to that of Paschasius though perhaps he erred on the other extreme making it a naked empty Figure or Memory of our Saviour's Death And
l'on voit est du Pain c. Verity of Nature with all its dimensions whereas that Flesh which contains the Image hereof in the Mystery is not Flesh according to Sensible Appearance but in the Sacrament For according to the Sensible Appearance that which we behold is Bread and that in the Sacrament it is the True Body of Christ as he himself declareth in these words This is my Body This is a remarkable Specimen of Fidelity in Translating and may suffice to let the Reader see how far he is to rely on the Translators exactness and sincerity or to give credit to the Testimony of his Brethren of the Sorbon who have under their hands declared this Version of M. Boileau and his Notes to be conformable in every thing to the Text of this Ancient Author I shall now in the last place endeavour to shew that the Sense which he imposeth on the Technical Terms by which we are to learn the Author 's true Sentiments is generally forced and often absurd that it is not agreeable to the scope of the Author neither are those Terms so used by Ecclesiastical Writers of the same or elder Times I shall begin with the word Veritas which is one of the Terms of the first Question and often occurs in this Tract Now when Ratram denieth that which is orally received in the Sacrament to be Christ's Body and Blood in Verity or his True Body and Blood we understand him to deny the Holy Eucharist to be his Body and Blood in Reality or Truth of Nature or which is all one his Natural Body And in case we (w) Si cette pretention avoit ete autorisée de quelque bonne preuve il n'y auroit pas lieu de doubter qui n' eust ete l'Inventeur de l'Heresie du Calvin p. 27. Pref. be in the right M. Boileau confesseth that he must yield the Point in dispute and abandon poor Ratram as the Author of Calvin's Heresie so he is pleased to style the Doctrine of the Ancient Church for the nine or ten first Centuries He therefore tells us that of (x) Pref. p. 31. Two and forty places in which those Terms Verum and Veritas are found in this Book there are not above seven or eight of which the Protestants can make no advantage in which they signifie Real or Reality and in the other Three and thirty so curious hath Mr. Dean been in his Observations it imports only the Manifestation or Sensible Appearance of Christ's Body That in this sense Ratram opposeth Verity to a Figure and denieth the Holy Eucharist to be Christ's true Body and Blood from which nothing can be concluded against the Real Presence which is as he explains it the Proper Substance and Humane Nature of Jesus Christ. Now on this Point we will joyn Issue and I will first examine the Proofs he brings for his sense of the word and afterwards I shall shew that sense to be false absurd and contrary to the use of that Term in other Ecclesiastical Writers of the same and elder Times To make out his Notion of the Word two things are offer'd by M. Boileau 1. He saith That Ratram himself expounds Verity by Manifestation 2. That the Writers of the middle Ages use it to signifie the Depositions of Witnesses and the Proof of things To the former of these somewhat hath already been said in the (y) Pag. 66. Dissertation before this Tract and in this Appendix which I desire the Reader to consult and I shall further add what I conceive will take off the force of this Argument I admit that Ratram doth so expound Verity and defines it to be the manifest Demonstration of a thing but he no where expounds Manifestation to be the Sensible Appearance I have already shewn that the Verity which he defines is Propriety and Plainness of Speech in opposition to Figurative Speech and in that Notion of this word divers things are manifested which have no Sensible Appearances These sayings that the Father is God the Soul is a Spirit that Angels are Creatures are in Ratram's sense the naked Manifestation of the Truth or the plain or manifest Demonstration of the things which have no Sensible Appearance at all that is the words in their native signification import that which they are used to express whereas in the Figurative and Mystical Forms of Speech the words are used to express quite another thing than what they really and naturally import So that the one is a covert and obscure the other a plain proper and natural way of speaking and this Bertram calls the clear light of Manifestation the plain or simple Verity and our Saxon Homilist as I have shewn useth a word (z) geƿissum ðing Fol 29. of the same importance whereas had he understood Bertram in that sense M. Boileau doth he must have expressed Manifestation by another word which is afterwards used for the (a) sume sƿutelunge be ðam halgan husel Fol. 38. Sensible Demonstration of a thing Now as this Term when applied to Forms of Speech imports Propriety of Speech so when applied to Things it signifieth Propriety of Nature or the Very thing it self without any Mystical Signification of or Respect unto another thing And thus it stands opposed to a Pledg an Image or Figure instituted to represent one thing whilst it is in Substance in Reality and Truth of Nature another When it s urged to prove that Ratram useth the word Manifestation to signifie the Reality That he must use it in the same sense it was used by his Adversaries who must either thereby understand the Reality or else believe the Holy Eucharist to be our Saviour's Body in humane Form which none pretends they did Mr. Dean briskly denies the Consequence and like a Doctor of great Authority adds (b) P. 35. Je Soutiens qu'ils se persuadoient seulement de voir le Corps le Sang'de J. C. affectez des qualitez du pain vin c. I maintain that they only believed it to be Christ's Body affected with the Qualities of Bread. Now I appeal to any Man of common sense whether any thing can be more absurd than some Passages of this Book are if so expounded For Example in that Prayer (c) N. 85. Quod in imagine contingimus Sacramenti manifesta participatione sumamus wherein the Church begs of God to grant the manifest Participation of that which is received in a Sacramental Image the meaning must be that they might partake of our Saviour's Flesh under the Sensible Appearance of Bread. And again where (d) N. 97. Nec in eo vel aliqua figura vel significatio sed ipsa rei Manifestatio he saith the Body which suffer'd and rose again is our Saviour's Proper Body and in it there is no Figure or Signification but the Manifestation of the thing it self he must mean if M. Boileau hath hit upon the true Notion of Ratram's Adversaries
BERTRAM OR RATRAM Concerning the BODY and BLOOD OF THE LORD In LATIN With a New English Translation To which is Prefix'd An Historical Dissertation touching the Author and this Work. The Second Edition Corrected and Enlarged with an APPENDIX WHEREIN Monsieur Boileau's French Version and Notes upon BERTRAM are Considered and his Unfair Dealings in both Detected LONDON Printed by H. Clark for Thomas Boomer at the Chirurgeons-Arms in Fleetstreet near Temple-Bar 1688. Imprimatur Liber Ratramni de Corpore Sanguine Domini cum Versione Anglica Praefatione secundum hoc Exemplar ab Interprete recognitum cum Appendice Oct. 6. 1687. H. Maurice Rmo. in Christa P. D. Willielmo Archiepiscopo Cant. a Sacris Amplissimo Viro Generis Eruditions Virtutis Omnigenae Ornamentis Praenobili HENRICO COVENTRY Armigero Serenissimo Regi JACOBO II. uti pridem Fratri Charissimo CAROLO II. A Privatis Consiliis Cui etiam Optimo Principi Ob Fidem Patri Sibi nec non S. Matri Ecclesiae Anglicanae In adversis fortiter servatam Ob munera in S. Palatio honorifica Egregie defuncta Ob res arduas variis apud exteros Legationibus Summa Fidelitate Singulari Prudentia Parique felicitate Gestas Apprime Charus extitit Secretariusque Primicerius Hoc Opusculum Ratramni Corbeiensis De S. Eucharistia Fidei Veteris Ecclesiae Gallicanae Testis luculenti Nec non Nostrae vere Catholicae Anglicanae Vindicis Eximii Vna cum Versione Vernacula Dissertatione praemissa In Testimonium Obsequii Gratitudinis LMQDDDCQ VVHSAEPR Editor THE PREFACE IT is now seven Years and more since I first read over this little Piece of Bertram in Latin and the Satisfaction I had to see so Learned a Writer expresly confute the Error of Transubstantiation at its first rise in the Western Church invited me to a second and third Reading and the Book not being very common I entertained thoughts of Reprinting it both in Latin and English for remembring where I had seen an English Bertram Published by Sir Humphrey Lynd A. D. 1623. I promised my self that Publishing it in English would add but little to my trouble not suspecting that a Translation published by that Learned Gentleman could have been other than accurate I therefore got together as many various Editions of the Book as I could and sent for the English Version upon sight of which I saw my self disappointed For there are some Mistakes in rendring the Latin words two of which may be seen in the Preface For Instance Catholice Sapere is Translated to be universally Wise which should have been rendred to be Orthodox or Catholick in his Judgment and again Non aequanimiter ista perpendens is rendred though perhaps not quietly and indifferently considering of these things instead of sadly laying to heart these things viz. the Schism on occasion of the new Doctrin of Transubstantiation And several other slips of that kind I observed which made me guess the Translation could not be the work of the worthy Knight who recommended it to the Publick But had this been all a little time and pains might have rectified those Mistakes That which rendred the Translation unserviceable to me was the perplexity of the style through unnecessary Parentheses and the multiplying of Synonimous words and in some places by rendring the Author too much word for word so that it doth not give the Reader a clear apprehension of the Author's sense And to justifie this charge I need only refer the Reader to the ninth and tenth Pages of the new Impression of Bertram where he proves that Consecration makes no Physical change in the Bread and Wine but as he is there Translated his reasoning is hardly intelligible Yet I accuse not the Translator of unfaithfulness but freely acknowledge that had his skill been equal to his Fidelity I would have used his Version and saved my self the trouble of a new one which I made and transcribed in Septem 1681. Having finished my Translation I proceeded to collect materials for the Dissertation I intended which I cast into loose Papers and desiring a Learned Friend to assist me with what he knew on that Subject he put into my hands an Edition I had not before met with in French and Latine with a Learned Advertisement prefixed in which I found the Work designed by me was already very well performed so that my Labour might be spared Thus I laid aside my Papers and all thoughts of making them publick till about two Months since and then resumed them upon the request of some worthy Friends who judged it necessary since the Reprinting of the former Translation Besides the faults of the Translator in the new Impression there are great ones committed by the Printer in the Technical words of the Discourse particularly in the beginning of the Eleventh Page he hath printed Verity instead of Variety At the desire of those Gentlemen I resolved to Review and Print my Translation with the Authors Text that the Reader might have it in his Power to judge of my Fidelity therein And though I see no reason to be proud of my performance yet I persuade my self this Book will be somewhat more useful than that which now goes abroad In the Dissertation prefixed I have Collected all the little Historical Passages I have met with any where touching our Author and his Works and perhaps the Reader may think I insist too long upon some matters of no great moment But in regard Ratramnus was an extraordinary Man and no Body that I know hath in our Language given any considerable account of him and his Writings I thought it would not be altogether unacceptable to the Reader Though the French Advertisement be exceedingly well done yet I have had great helps for the clearing the Antiquity and Authority of that Tract which the Author of that Advertisement wanted To mention no other the most Learned and Ingenuous Father Mabillon to whom I acknowledge my self obliged for my best Informations had not then published the Acts of the Benedictines of the IX Century in which our Author lived What I design in my Dissertation the Contents of each Chapter will inform the Reader I shall only add that my design is not to engage in the Controversie of Transubstantiation which is so compleatly handled and clearly discussed by the Learned and Reverend Author of a small Discourse against it that it is wholly needless for me or any one else to write further on that Argument All I intend is with Fidelity to relate what I have upon diligent search been able to Collect touching the Author and Work which I Publish and I hope I have said what may prevail with all Impartial Judges to admit our Author for a competent Witness of the belief of the Church in his Age touching Christs Presence in the Holy Sacrament THE CONTENTS Chap. I. AN Historical Account of the Author and his Writings Chap. II. Of his Treatise concerning Christ's Body and Blood and the Author
cleared of Heresie and the other Accusations of F. Cellot Chap. III. That this Book is neither wholly forged nor yet depraved that Ratramnus is its true Author and not Joannes Scotus Erigena Chap. IV. Of the true sense of the Author in some controverted Expressions Chap. V. That this Treatise expresly confutes the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and is very agreeable to the Doctrin of the Church of England Chap. VI. That Ratramnus was not singular in his Opinion but had several other great Men in his own and the following Age of the same Judgment with him in this Point CHAP. I. Of the Author's Name Countrey and Profession of his Eminent Learning With an account of his Works IN regard the Author of this Treatise hath first appeared in Print under the mistaken Name of Bertram and by that Name is best known even to this day I conceive it may not be amiss to see what he is called in the Titles of his own Works and in the Writings of other Authors especially those of his own Time. (a) Serv. Lupus Ep. 79. Servatus Lupus writes to him by the Name of Rotrannus whom (b) Baluz in notis ad Lupum Ad Rotrannum Monachum Corbeiensem Baluzius doubts not to have been our Author and it may be probably collected from the subject of that Epistle Others call him Ratramus so his Name appears to have been written by Sigebertus Gemblacensis from the two Manuscripts mentioned by (c) Ad cap. 96. Sigeberti inter Illustr Eccl. Scriptores ed. 88. Colon. 1580. Suffridus Petrus in his Notes upon him (d) Flodoardi Hist Remens l. 3. c. 15. 28. Flodoardus who flourished about an 100 years after our Author calleth him Ratrannus but in the Inscriptions of his other Works some of which I have seen in Manuscript as also that of this Tract (e) Mabillon Praefat ad Acta Bened. secul 4. p. 2. cap. 1. n. 43. found by F. Mabillon in the Abby of Lobez he is called Ratramnus so in the (f) Ibidem scribitur RATRāNI super posita communi nota literae M vel N unde orta videtur lectio Ratranni Catalogue of that Library taken A. D. 1049. as also by (g) Hincmarus de Praed c. 5. de non trina Deitate Hincmarus Archbishop of Rhemes and (h) In Epistola Metrica edita per Cellotium Append. Opusc II. Amico fer ovans Ratramno Gotteschalcus both contemporary with him and by the Anonymous Writer published by (i) Hist Gotteschalci Praedest F. Cellot who is now discovered to be (k) Mabillon Praef. ad Acta Ben. secul 4. p. 2. c. 1. n. 47 48 49. ex MS. Gemblac Herigerus Abbot of Lobez who flourished in the end of the Tenth Century and died in the Year 1007. His true Name was doubtless Ratramnus which came afterwards to be changed into Bertramus by the error of some Transcriber of Sigebertus who mistook as he easily might the (a) The like mistake hath sometimes happen'd in other Names as Babanus for Rabanus in two MSS. of Cellots Anonymous Writer in the Library of St Victor in Paris when in the preceding Page they call Rabanus Dissert sur Jean Scot Art. 2. p. 6. at the end Mr. Arnaud's Defence in quarto 1669. R in his Copy for a B the letters being not much unlike and Trithemius using a Copy of Sigebert so written hath propagated the mistake which though of no great moment yet ought to be rectify'd and our Author be called by his true Name Ratramnus was in all probability a Frenchman and of the Province of Picardie wherein he became a Monk. He was Educated in the Monastery of Corbey not New Corbey upon the Weser in Saxony but the Old Corbey in the Diocese of Amiens Founded by Batildis Wife to Clodovaeus the Second King of France in the Year 665. This was a very Eminent Monastery of Benedictins in which the (b) Quia in Corbeia Monasterio laudabilis eo tempore Religio Monachorum habebatur Acta Bened. sec 4. p. 1. In translat Viti c. 5. Discipline of that Order was strictly kept up in the Ninth Century when the Monks elsewhere grew very remiss and it was (c) Mabillonius Corbeiam vocat Celebrem Academiam in Act. Ben. sec 4. p. 2. In Elogio Historico Joanis Aethelingiensis c. 5. a famous Academy or Seminary of Learned as well as Religious Men. In this Cloyster our Author was so happy a Proficient in the Study of Divinity that he was esteem'd well qualified for the Holy Order of Priesthood and accordingly received it And after the Death of Bavo the same Ratramnus as it is thought was by Carolus Calvus promoted to the Government of the Monastery of (d) Flodoard Hist Rhem. l. 3. c. 28. ABP Vsher seems to doubt whether he were the same with our Author Hist Gotesc cap. 11. sub finem in margine But Bishop Cosins Dr. Cave and Albertinus doubt not but he was Orbais in the Diocese of Soissons Modern Writers of both the Roman and Reformed Church have been guilty of mistakes touching the time wherein Bertram wrote this Book Some place him in the very beginning of the IX Century and suppose this Tract to be written A. D. 800. or 806. or 810. So (a) Appar Sac. T. 1. Betramus Garetius circa Annum 806. Sir H. Linde in his Preface to Bertram Possevine and others The manifest cause of their mistake is the Inscription To Charles the Great Emperour which they take for the Author's Address to that Prince and therefore conclude this Tract must needs be written before the Year (b) Lambecius in Orig. Hamb tom 2. in tab Chronolog 814. in which he died But that (c) Act. Ben. sec 4. p. 2. Praef. c. 1. n. 129. Inscription is not found in the MS. which F. Mabillon met with in the Abbey of Lobez nor can it be the Author 's For though Carolus Calvus may by some Flatterers be stiled the Great yet the addition of Emperour will by no means permit us to believe it Genuine for he was not Emperour till the Year 875. which was above 20 years after Ratramnus wrote this Book So that what hath passed for the Inscription of the Book is only the conceit of some late Transcriber But as in the first Volume of his 〈…〉 Apparatus (d) Possevin Apar sac t. 2. Paschasius Possevine fixes our Author in the very beginning of the IX Century so forgetting himself in the second Volume he errs as much on the other hand and giving an account of the Works of Paschasius Radbertus thrusts Bertram down into the latter end of that Age and makes him to have written A. D. 886. under Carolus Crassus and saith that Paschasius confuted his error in a Book to Placidus I presume the ground to this conceit was that by this means all objections against the Address to Charles the Great Emperor seem to
Teste Mabilioni ebi supr n. 156. de Anima at the instance of Odo sometimes Abbot of Corbey and Bishop of Beauvais against a Monk of the same Convent who taught that all Men had but one and the same Soul which Book is extant in Manuscript in the (c) Vsserio Hist Gottesch c. 2. Library of Bennet College in Cambrige in that of Salisbury Church and of St. Eligius at Noyon in France but not Printed About the Year 868. Pope (a) Vide Mauguin T. 2. Dissert c. 17. Titulus libri sic se habet Contra opposita Graecorum Imperatorum Romanam Ecclesiam infamantium libri quatuor Rathramni Monachi Teste Mabillonio Nicolaus I. having desired Hincmarus and the French Bishops to Consider and Answer the Objections of the Greeks against the Latine Church and Hincmarus having employed Odo Bishop of Beauvais therein it is likely he recommended our Author to the Bishops as a Man fit to underrake such a Work and accordingly he wrote four Books on that Occasion published by (b) Spicileg T. 2. Dacherius He hath also among the (c) Vide Felleri Catal. Codd MSS. Biblioth Paulinae in Acad. Lipsiensi Duod 1686. p. 125. MSS. of Leipsick Library an Epistle concerning the Cynocephali Whether they be truly Men and of Adam's Seed or Bruit Creatures What moved him to discuss this Question or how he hath determined it I know not The Epistle is directed to one Rimbert a Presbyter I am apt to think the same who succeeded Anscharius in the See of Breme and wrote his Life For he was born not far from Old Corbey and bred up by St. Anscharius and therefore more likely to correspond with Ratramn than the other Rimbertus Presbyter who was a Dane and employed in the Conversion of the Northern Nations If the Epistle were addressed to the former it must be written in or before the Year 865. when Rimbert was made Archbishop of Breme and Hambrough I mention this Book of the Lord's Body and Blood in the last place written by him as some guess about the Year 850. or perhaps sooner Of which I shall say no more at present in regard it will furnish matter sufficient for several Chapters CHAP. II. Of his Treatise concerning Christ's Body and Blood and the Author cleared of Heresie and the other Accusations of F. Cellot THis Treatise of the Body and Blood of the Lord was first Printed at Colon A. D. 1532. (a) Cellot saith it was first published from a Copy prepared for the Press by Oecolampadius who died before it was Printed That it was not Printed at Colen but Basil How truly I know not who was the Publisher or what Copy he followed or what became of the Manuscript afterwards I know not The Name of Bertram and the Inscription to Charles the Great are an unquestionable proof that it was not the Lobes MS. but some other not so ancient which it is probable fell into bad hands and is made away The appearance of an Author near 700 years old and so expresly contradicting their Doctrine put the Romish Doctors into great confusion They all saw it was necessary to take some course to deprive the Protestants of the advantage they were likely to make of so material a Witness against them But they were very much divided in their Opinions what course would prove most effectual Some have condemned the Author for an Heretick which is a quick and sure way to invalidate his Testimony in a point of Faith. Others have spared the Author but condemned the Book for Spurious as well as Heretical or at least as corrupted by the Disciples of Berengarius and Wiclef Others say that it is not the Work of Ratramne Monk of Corbey but of Joannes Scotus Erigena And lastly their most Learned Writers of this present Age allow the Book to be Bertram's and notwithstanding some rash expressions in it which may bear a Catholick sense acknowledge the Work as well as its Author to be Orthodox and say he doth not oppose the present Doctrin of the Roman Church being rather for Transubstantiation than against it Wherefore to vindicate this Work from our Adversaries who use so many tricks to wrest it out of our hands I shall endeavour these five things 1. To shew that Ratramnus was Orthodox and free from all just imputation of Heresie 2. To prove that this Treatise is a genuine piece of the IX Century that it hath not been maliciously depraved since those times and that Ratramnus and not Joannes Scotus Erigena is the Author thereof 3. To settle the true sence of our Author in some obscure and controverted terms 4. To prove that the Doctre in delivered in this Book is contrary to that of Paschasius and the present Roman Church but very agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of England 5. To shew that he was not singular in his Doctrine but that other Great Men of that and the next Age were of the same Judgment with him First then let us consider the charge of Heresie which some object against him Turrian saith That to cite Bertram is only to shew that Calvin 's Heresie is not new Bellarmine vouchsafes him no place in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers tho' twice he mentions him on the by and fixes him A. D. 850. But in his (a) Bell. Controv. Tom. 3. de Sacr. Eucharist l. 1. c. 1. sec Tertius Controversies he numbers him among his Hereticks and with Possevine who saith notwithstanding the Belgick Index this Book may not be read but with the Pope's License in order to confute it makes him to have lived under Carolus Crassus A. D. 886. So little exactness do these Great Men observe in their Writings as to Chronology so little do they mind what they themselves elsewhere say that an ill-natur'd Protestant Critick might insult over Possevine and Bellarmine for slips in Chronology as often and as justly as (b) Phil. Labbe de Script Eccles quos possim Onochronos Ardeliones Mataeologos appellat Phil. Labbe doth over Gerhard Hottinger Maresius c. But (a) Praefat. ad Act. Ben. sec 14. p. 2. c. 1. n. 125. F. Mabillon observes other Writers every whit as Learned and Orthodox absolve him from the charge of Heresie and he blames those Zealots for giving away an Author to the Hereticks whom their Ancestors always esteemed a Catholick (b) De Script Eccles T. 1. p. 53. Phil. Labbe numbers him among the Catholick Tractators Radbert Lanfranc and Guitmund And the Authors of the Belgick Index say he was a Catholick Priest. And to condemn him upon the Testimony of so incompetent Witnesses as Turrian Bellarmine Possevine c. who are notoriously Parties and lived many hundred years after him is against all Reason and Equity Especially when they charge him with no Heretical Opinions save in the matter of the Sacrament for which he was never condemned in his own Age and which is the point now in
signification p. 31. i. e. figuratively and some in propriety A true thing and certain it is that Christ was born of a Maid suffered death of his own accord He is called Bread by signification i. e. figuratively but Christ is not so in true nature neither Bread c. p. 32. Truly the Bread and Wine which through the Mass of the Priest is hallowed sheweth one thing outwardly to human Senses and another thing they inwardly call to believing minds clypâ—aþ Outwardly they appear Bread and Wine both in figure and in taste And they be truly after their hallowing Christ's Body and Blood through Ghostly Mistery p. 33. So the Holy Font-Water which is called the Well-Spring of Life is like in shape to other Water and subject to corruption but the Holy Ghosts might cometh to the corruptible Water through the Priest blessing and it may afterwards wash the Body and Soul from all sin through Ghostly might Behold now we see two things in this one Creature After true nature that Water is corruptible moisture and after Ghostly Mystery hath hallowing might So also if we behold the Holy Housel or Sacrament after bodily sense then we see that it is a Creature corruptible and mutable if we acknowledge therein Ghostly might then understand we that Life is therein and that it giveth immortality to them that eat it with Faith. p. 35. Much difference is betwixt the Body in which Christ suffered and the Body which is hallowed to housel The Body truly in which Christ suffered was born of the Flesh of Mary with Blood with Bones with Skin with Sinews with human Limbs and with a reasonable Soul living And his Ghostly Body which we call the Housel p. 36. is gathered of many Corns without Blood and Bone without Limb and without Soul whatsoever is in that Housel that giveth the substance of Life that is of the Ghostly might and invisible operation And therefore is the Holy Housel called a Mystery because there is one thing in it seen and another thing understood p. 37. Certainly Christ's Body in which he suffered Death and rose again from Death never dieth henceforth but is Eternal and Impassible But that Housel is Temporal not Eternal corruptible and divided into several parts chew'd betwixt the Teeth and sent into the Belly p. 38. This Mystery is a pledge and a * * Hip and not as above getacnunge which is a figure in speech Figure Christ's Body is the Truth itself This Pledge we keep mystically until we be come to the p. 68. Quod dente premitur fauce glutitur quod receptaculo ventris fuscipitur Truth itself then is that Pledge ended Truly it is so as we said before Christ's Body and Blood not Bodily but Ghostly See p. 35. You should not search how it is done but hold in Faith that it is so done p. 43. We said to you erewhile that Christ hallowed Bread and Wine to Housel before his Suffering and said This is my Body and my Blood. He had not suffered as yet he turned through invisible might that Bread to his own Body and that Wine to his own Blood as formerly he did in the Wilderness before that he was born to Men when he turned that Heavenly Meat to his Flesh and that Water flowing from the Rock to his own Blood. That which next follows is a quotation out of St. Augustine which it is very likely that Elfrick took from Bertram and not at first hand from that Father p. 44. Moses and Aaron and many others of that People which pleased God eat that Heavenly Bread and they died not that Everlasting death though they died the common death they saw that the Heavenly Meat viz. Manna was visible and corruptible and they understood somewhat Spiritual by that visible thing and Spiritually received it p. 46. Once Christ suffered in himself and yet nevertheless his suffering is daily renewed through the Mystery of the Holy Housel at the Holy Mass p. 47. We ought also to consider diligently how this Holy Housel is both Christ's Body and the Body of all Faithful Men after Ghostly Mystery as Wise Augustine saith If you will understand of Christ's Body hear the Apostle Paul thus speaking Ye truly be Christ's Body and his Members Now is your Mystery set on God's Table and ye receive your Mystery p. 48. which Mystery ye be yourselves be that which you see on the Altar and receive that which yourselves be And again St. Paul saith We many be one Bread and one Body * * i. e. Cannons Ecclesiastical not the Holy Scripture Holy Books command that Water be mingled with Wine which shall be for Housel because the Water signifieth the People and the Wine Christ's Blood therefore shall not the one without the other be offered at the Holy Mass That Christ may be with us and we with Christ the Head with the Limbs and the Limbs with the Head. p. 51. And after these words our Homilist resumes his former Discourse of the Paschal Lamb. Thus have I at large set down in Parallel the Passages of that Saxon Homily taken out of Bertram The (a) See the Preface of the Homily Sermon was originally Latin which Elfrick translated into Saxon whether he were the Compiler in Latin I cannot be positive But it seems the succeeding Ages would not bear this Doctrine for which reason the Latin is utterly lost either being wilfully made away or the Governors of our Church not thinking it fit to transcribe and propagate what after the condemnation of Berengarius and the promotion of his great Adversary Lanfranc to the Archbishoprick of Canterbury was generally reputed Heresie But through the wonderful good Providence of God the whole is preserved in the Saxon Tongue which few understood By this account of that Homily you learn Two things and a Third Observation I shall add 1. That Bertram's Book was neither forged by Oecolampadius nor yet depraved by Berengarius or Wiclef his Disciples since the most express Passages against the Popish Real Presence are read in that Homily 70 or 80 years before Berengarius made any noise in the World. 2. What I design to insist upon more largely in the last Chapter of this Discourse viz. That Ratramnus or Bertram stood not alone but had others of the same judgment with him in the IX and X Century and that Paschasius his Doctrine had not received as yet the stamp of publick Authority either by any Popes or Councels confirmation 3. Nevertheless this carnal Doctrine of Paschasius did daily get ground in that obscure and ignorant Age next that he lived in as may appear by some Passages in this Homily which I have not recited because they are not in Bertram the absurd consequences of that errour For instance p. 39 and 40 there are two Miracles inserted to prove the Carnal Presence contrary to the scope of the whole Discourse and the one contrary to their
Recantation he was the veriest Stercoranist who called Stercoranist first and Pope Nicolaus II. with the whole Council that imposed that Abjuration upon him were Stercoranists to some purpose who taught him (b) Of the Stircoranists an Imaginary Sect first discovered by Cardinal Perron see Conferences between a Romish Priest a Fanatick Chaplain and a Divine of the Church of of England p. 63. And Mr. L' Arroque in his Hist of the Eucharist Book II. ch 14. That Christ's Body is truly and sensibly handled and broken by the Priests Hands and ground by the Teeth of the Faithful And it is very unlikely that Bertram writ against such an Heresie when admitting him to have been of the same Faith with the Church of Rome touching Christ's Presence in the Sacrament he must have been a Stercoranist himself who asserts that what the Mouth receives is ground by the Teeth swallowed down the Throat and descends into the Belly nourishing the Body like common Food But (a) Mabillon Praef. ad sec IV. p. 2. nu 93. F. Mabillon waves this Pretence of the Stercoranists and makes Bertram to have through mistake opposed an Errour he thought Haymo guilty of viz. That the consecrated Bread and Cup are not signs of Christ's Body and Blood. I confess the words cited by him I can scarce understand but if that piece of Haymo be genuine by the citation he takes from him in the end of the same Paragraph in which he asserts That though the Taste and Figure of Bread and Wine remain yet the nature of the Substance is wholly turned into Christ's Body and Blood I see no reason why Bertram might not write against Paschasius and Haymo too Though in truth I do not imagine him to have confuted the Book of Paschasius but only his Notion in answer to the two Questions propounded to the King. Who were the Adversaries of Paschasius whose Doctrine is owned to be the Catholick Faith now held by the Roman Church he himself is best able to tell us and he informs us (a) Paschasius in Epist ad Frudegardum That they were such as denied the Presence of Christ's Flesh in the Sacrament but held an invisible power and efficacy in and with the Elements because say they there is no Body but what is visible and palpable which are the Sentiments of Ratramnus as will evidently appear to any unbyass'd Reader But to deprive us of all pretence to the Authority of Bertram they falsly impute to us the utter denial of the Verity of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament which we deny no otherwise than Bertram doth And to vindicate the Reformed Church of England in this point I shall propound her Doctrine out of her Liturgy Articles and Catechism In the Catechism we learn That the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lord's Supper In the 28 Article we profess That to them who worthily receive the Lord's Supper the Bread whith we break is the Communion of the Body of Christ and likewise the Cup of Blessing is the partaking of the Blood of Christ. In the Prayer before Consecration we beseech God that we may so eat the Flesh of Christ and drink his Blood that our sinful Bodies may be made clean by his Body and our Souls washed through his most precious Blood. In the Consecration Prayer we desire to be made partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood. And in the Post-Communion we give God thanks for vouchsafing to feed us with the spiritual food of Christ's most blessed Body and Blood. It is not the Verity of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament that our Church denies but the rash and peremptory determination of the manner of his Presence by the Roman Church 'T is a Corporal and Carnal Presence and Transubstantiation which we deny This our Church declares against in the Rubrick about Kneeling at the Communion asserting that we Kneel not (a) At the end of the Communion Service to adore any corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. That the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain in their very natural Substances after Consecration Also that the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one Our (b) Art. 28. Church declares that Transubstantiation cannot be proved by Holy Writ but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion to many Superstitions That Christ's Body is given taken and eaten in the Supper only in an Heavenly and Spiritual manner And that the means whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith only These are Authentick Testimonies of the Doctrine of our Church out of her publick Acts. I might add others of very great Authority out of the Apology for our Church written by the Learned Jewel together with its Defence by the Author Bishop (a) Eliensis Apolog. contra Bellarm. p. 11. Andrews against Bellarmine the Testimony of King James in (b) Casaubonus nomine Jacobi Regis in Epistola ad Card. Perronum p. 48. 51. ubi exscribit verba Eliensis Casaubon's Epistle to Cardinal Perron (c) Hooker Eccles Policy lib. 5. sect 67. Hooker Bishop (d) Montacutius in Antidiatrib contra Bulenger p. 143. Montague against Bulengerus c. but for brevity's sake I refer the Reader to the Books themselves And also for a Vindication of the Forreign Reformed Churches in this matter I desire the Reader to consult their Confessions and the Citations collected by Bishop (e) Hist Transub c. 2. Cosins out of their Confessions and their most Eminent Writers Both we and they assert the Verity of Christ's Body and Blood as far as the nature of a Sacrament will admit or is necessary to answer the ends for which that Holy Mystery was instituted by our Saviour We own a real communication of Christ's Body and Blood in that way which the Soul is only capable of receiving it and benefit by it We acknowledge the Verity of Christ's Body in the same sence that Bertram doth and deny the same Errors which the Church of Rome hath since imposed upon all of her Communion for Articles of Faith which Bertram rejected though since that time they are encreased in bulk and formed into a more Artificial Systeme Most if not all of these determinations of our Church are to be found in this little Book if not in express terms yet in such expressions as necessarily import them And perhaps the judgment of Bertram was more weighed by our Reformers in this Point than any of our Neighbour Churches Bishop (a) In Praef. libri de Coena Domini Latine excusi Genev. 1556. Ridley who had a great hand in compiling the Liturgy and Articles in King Edward VI. his Reign had such an esteem of
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
the New Testament in my Blood which shall be shed for you You see Christ had not yet Suffered and yet nevertheless he celebrated the Mystery of his own Body and Blood. XXVIII For I am confident no Christian doubts but that Bread was made the Body of Christ which he gave to his Disciples saying This is my Body which is given for you or but the Cup contains the Blood of Christ of which he also saith This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which shall be shed for you Wherefore as a little before his Passion he could change the Substance of Bread and the Creature of Wine into his own Body which was to Suffer and his own Blood which was to be shed so also could he in the Wilderness change Manna and Water out of the Rock into his Body and Blood though it were a long time after ere that Body was to be Crucified for us or that Blood to be shed to wash us XXIX Here also we ought to consider how those Words of our Saviour are to be understood He expounds Joh. 6.53 wherein he saith * John 6.53 Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you have not Life in you For he doth not say that his Flesh which hung on the Cross should be cut in pieces and eaten by his Disciples or that his Blood which he was to shed for the Redemption of the World should be given his Disciples to drink For it had been a Crime for his Disciples to have eaten his Flesh and drunk his Blood in the sense that the unbelieving Jews then understood him XXX Wherefore in the following words he saith to his Disciples who did not disbelieve that Saying of Christ though they did not yet penetrate the true Meaning of it * John 6.53 Doth this offend you What if ye shall see the Son of Man ascending up where he was before As though he should say Think not that you must eat my Flesh and drink my Blood corporally divided into small pieces for when after my Resurrection you shall see me ascend into the Heavens with my Body entire and all my Blood Then you shall understand that the Faithful must eat †John 6.69 my Flesh not in the manner which these Unbelievers imagine but that indeed Believers must receive it Bread and Wine being mystically turned into the substance of my Body and Blood. XXXI And after * John. 6.66 It 's the Spirit saith he that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing He saith The Flesh profiteth nothing taken as those Infidels understood him but otherwise it giveth Life as it is taken mystically by the Faithful And why so He himself shews when he saith It is the Spirit that quickneth Therefore in this Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ there is a spiritual Operation which giveth Life without which Operation the Mysteries profit nothing because they may indeed feed the Body but cannot feed the Soul. XXXII Now there ariseth a Question moved by many who say that these things are done not in a Figure but in Truth but in so saying they plainly contradict the Writings of the Fathers XXXIII St. Augustine St. Augustine quoted an eminent Doctor of the Church in his Third Book De Doctrina Christiana writes thus Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man saith our Saviour and drink his Blood you shall not have Life in you He seems to command a flagitious Crime Therefore the Words are a FIGURE requiring us to communicate in our Lord's Passion and faithfully * In the printed Edition of St. Augustine and Bertram we read sweetly and profitably to lay up to lay up this in our Memory that his Flesh was Crucified and Wounded for us XXXIV We see this Doctor saith that the Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood is celebrated by the Faithful under a FIGURE For he saith To receive his Flesh and Blood carnally is not an Act of Religion but of Villany For which Cause they in the Gospel who took our Saviour's Words not Spiritually but Carnally departed from him and followed him no more XXXV Likewise in his Epistle to Boniface a Bishop among other things he saith thus We often speak in this manner when Easter is near we say to Morrow or the next day is the Lord's Passion although he Suffered many Years since and Suffered but once Likewise we say on the Lord's Day This day our Lord rose again when yet so many years are passed since he rose again Why is no Man so foolish as to charge us with Lying when we speak thus But because we call these Days after the likeness of those Days in which these things were really done So that the Day is called such a Day which in truth is not that very Day but only like it in Revolution of Time and by reason of the Celebration of the Sacrament that is said to be done this Day which was not done this very Day but in Old Times Was not Christ offered up once only in his own Person and yet in the Sacrament he is offered for the People not only every Easter but every Day Nor doth that Man tell a Lye who being asked shall answer that he is offered For if Sacraments had not some Resemblance of those things of which they are the Sacraments they would not be Sacraments at all And from that Resemblance they commonly take the Names of the Things themselves Whereas the Sacrament of Christ's Body is in some sort the Body of Christ and the Sacrament of Christ's Blood is in some sort the Blood of Christ so the (a) The Sacrament of the Faith i. e. Baptism as appears by the following words in St. Austin in his 23. Epistle which is here cited Sacrament of the Faith is the Faith. XXXVI We see St. Augustine saith that Sacraments are one thing and the things of which they are the Sacraments are another thing Now the Body in which Christ suffered and the Blood which issued out of his Side are Things but the Mysteries of these things he saith are Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ which are celebrated in Remembrance of our Lord's Passion not only every Year at the great Solemnity of Easter but every day of the Year XXXVII And whereas there was but one Body of the Lord in which he suffered once and one Blood which was shed for the Salvation of the World yet the Sacraments of these have assumed the Names of the very things so that they are called the Body and Blood of Christ And yet are so called by reason of the Resemblance they bear to the things which they signifie As they stile these respective Days which are annually celebrated the Passion and Resurrection of our Lord whereas in truth he suffered and rose again but once in his own Person nor can the very Days return any more being long since past Nevertheless the Days in which the Memory of
divine Power doth secretly dispense Salvation or Grace to them that faithfully receive them XLIX By all that hath been hitherto said it appears that the Body and Blood of Christ which are received by the Mouths of the Faithful in the Church are Figures in respect of their visible Nature but in respect of the invisible Substance that is the Power of the Word of God they are truly Christ's Body and Blood. Wherefore as they are visible Creatures they feed the Body but as they have the vertue of a more powerful Substance they do both feed and sanctifie the Souls of the Faithful L. We must now consider the Second Question The Second Question and see (a) Which Paschasius Radbertus affirms and Ratramnus denies as also did Rabanus Maurus c. whether that very Body which was born of Mary which Suffered was Dead and Buried and which sits at the Right Hand of the Father be the same which is daily received in the Church by the Mouths of the Faithful in the Sacramental Mysteries LI. Let us enquire what is the Judgment of St. Ambrose in this point He argues from a testimony of St. Ambrose For he saith in his First Book of the Sacraments Truly it is wonderful that God rained down Manna to the Fathers and they were fed every day with Heavenly Food whereupon 't is said that Man did eat Angels Bread and yet they who did eat that Bread all died in the Wilderness But that Food which thou receivest that living Bread which came down from Heaven ministers the Substance of Eternal Life and whosoever eats thereof shall never die and this is the Body of Christ LII See in what sense this Doctor saith That the Body of Christ is that Food which the Faithful receive in the Church For he saith That Living Bread which comes down from Heaven ministers the Substance of Eternal Life Doth it as it is seen as it is corporally received chewed with the Teeth as it is swallowed down the Throat and received into the Belly minister the Substance of Eternal Life In this respect it only feeds the Mortal Flesh it doth not minister Incorruption nor can it be truly said That whosoever eats thereof shall never die For what the Body receives is corruptible nor can it preserve the Body so that it shall never die for what is it self subject to corruption cannot give Immortality Therefore there is in that Bread a certain Principle of Life which doth not appear to our bodily Eyes but is seen by those of Faith which also is that Living Bread which came down from Heaven and concerning which it is truly said that whosoever eats thereof shall never die and which is Christ's Body LIII And afterwards speaking of the Almighty Power of Christ he saith thus Therefore the Word of Christ which could produce things that were not out of nothing cannot it change the things that actually exist into that which they were not Is it not a greater Work to create things at first than to alter their Natures LIV. St. Ambrose saith That in this Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ there is a Change made and wonderfully because it is Divine Ineffable and indeed Incomprehensible I desire to know of them who will by no means admit any thing of an inward secret Virtue but will Judge of the whole matter as it appears to outward Sense in what respect this Change is made As for the substance of the Creatures what they were before Consecration the same they remain after it Bread and Wine they were before and after Consecration we see they continue Beings of the same Nature and Kind So that it is changed Internally by the mighty Power of the Holy Ghost and this is the mighty Object which Faith beholds which feâ—ds the Soul and ministers the substance of Eternal Life LV. And again it follows Why dost thou here require the Order of Nature in the mystery of Christ's Body when our Lord God himself was contrary to the Order of Nature born of a Virgin LVI Now perhaps An Objection obviated some one at the hearing of this may start up and say That it is the Body of Christ which we behold and his Blood that we drink yet we must not enquire how it becomes so but only believe stedfastly that it is so Thou seemest to think aright but yet if thou didst carefully observe the Importance of thy Words when thou sayest That thou faithfully believest it to be the Body and Blood of Christ thou would'st understand that what thou believest thou dost not see For if thou sawest it thou would'st say I see and not I believe that it is the Body and Blood of Christ Whereas now because Faith discerns the whole matter whatever it is and the Bodily Eye perceives nothing of it thou must understand that those things which are seen are the Body and Blood of Christ not in Kind or Nature but Virtually For which Reason he saith That the Order of Nature is not to be considered but the Power of Christ must be adored which changes what he will how he will into what he will creating what had no Being and changing the Creature into what it was not before And the same Author adds Doubtless it was the true Flesh of Christ which was Crucified and Buried (a) Or it may be rendred The Sacrament of that true Flesh therefore this is really the Sacrament of that Flesh The Lord Jesus himself saith This is my Body LVII How warily Another Argument from St. Ambrose and wisely doth he distinguish Speaking of the Flesh of Christ which was Crucified and Buried or in which Christ was Crucified and Buried he saith It is the true Flesh of Christ But of that which is taken in the Sacrament he saith It 's therefore truly the Sacrament of that Flesh distinguishing between the Sacrament of his Flesh and the Verity of his Flesh or his true Flesh in as much as he saith in that true Flesh which he took of the Virgin he was Crucified and Buried whereas he saith the Mystery now celebrated in the Church is the Sacrament of that true Flesh in which he was Crucified expresly teaching the Faithful that that Flesh in which Christ was Crucified and Buried is not a Mystery but true and natural whereas that Flesh which mystically represents the former is not Flesh in kind or Naturally but Sacramentally For in its Kind or Nature it is Bread but Sacramentally it is the true Body of Christ as the Lord Jesus saith This is my Body LVIII And in the following words The Holy Ghost hath in another place by the Prophet declared to thee what it is that we eat and drink saying * Psal 34.8 Taste and see that the Lord is good blessed is the man that trusteth in him Doth the Bread and Wine eaten and drunk corporally shew how sweet the Lord is Whatsoever is an Object of Tasting is corporeal and
they did eat the same spiritual Meat with us He adds And they drank the same spiritual Drink They drank one thing and we another but (a) In its visible Nature only as to what outwardly appeared which by a spiritual vertue signified and same thing How was it the same Drink They drank faith he of that spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ. Thence had they Bread whence they had Drink The Rock was Christ in a Type but the true Christ was the Word incarnate LXXIX Again (b) John 6.63 This is the Bread which came down from Heaven whosoever eats thereof shall never die which must be understood of him who eats the Vertue of the Sacrament not the meer visible Sacrament him who eats inwardly not outwardly who feeds on it in his Heart not who presseth it with his Teeth LXXX Again in what follows quoting our Saviour's Words he saith Doth this offend you that I said I give you my Flesh to eat and my Blood to drink What if you shall see the Son of Man ascending where he was before What means this Here he resolves that which troubled them here he expounds the Difficulty at which they were offended For they thought he would have given them his Body but he tells them that he should ascend in his Body entire into Heaven When you shall see the Son of Man ascend where he was before certainly then you will see that he did not give his Body in the way which you imagine then you will understand that the Grace of God is not eaten by Morsels He saith It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing LXXXI And after many other Passages he adds Whosoever saith the same Apostle hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of his Therefore it is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing (a) John 6.63 The words which I have spoken unto you are Spirit and life What means he by saying they are Spirit and Life That they must be Spiritually understood If thou understandest them Spiritually they are Spirit and Life if thou understandest them Carnally even so also they are Spirit and Life but not to thee LXXXII By the Authority of this Doctor treating on the Words of our Lord touching the Sacrament of his own Body and Blood we are plainly taught That those words of our Lord are to be spiritually and not carnally understood as he himself saith The words which I speak unto you are Spirit and Life That is his Words concerning eating his Flesh drinking his Blood. He had spoken those things at which his Disciples were offended Therefore that they might not be offended their Divine Master calleth them back from the Flesh to the Spirit from Objects of the outward Sense (a) That is to spiritual Objects to the understanding of things invisible LXXXIII So then we see that food of the Lord's Body that drink of his blood are in some respect truly his Body and his Blood that is in the same respect in which they are Spirit and Life LXXXIV Again those things which are one and the same are comprehended under the same Definition We say of the true Body of Christ that he is very God and very Man God begotten of God the Father before the World began and Man born of the Virgin Mary in the end of the World. But since these things cannot be said of the Body of Christ which is mystically celebrated in the Church we know that it is only in some particular manner the Body of Christ which manner is Figurative and in the way of an Image so that the Verity is the Thing it self LXXXV He argues from a Prayer in his time used after the H. Communion In the Prayer used after the Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood to which the People say Amen the Priest speaks thus (a) This Prayer is not found in the present Roman Mass-book We who have now received the Pledge of eternal Life most humbly beseech thee to grant that we may be (a) Or Really manifestly made partakers of that which here we receive under an Image or Sacrament LXXXVI A Pledge and Image are the Pledge and Image of somewhat else that is they do not respect themselves but another thing It is the Pledge of that thing for which it is given the Image of the thing it represents They signifie the thing of which they are the Pledge or Image but are not the very thing it self whence it appears that this Body and Blood of Christ are the Pledge and Image of something to come which is now only represented but shall hereafter be (b) Or Really plainly exhibited Now if it only signifie at present what shall be hereafter really exhibited then it is one thing which is now celebrated and another which shall hereafter be manifested LXXXVII Wherefore it is indeed the Body and Blood of Christ which the Church celebrates but in the way of a Pledge or an Image The truth we shall then have when the Pledge or Image shall cease and the very thing it self shall appear LXXXVIII And in another Prayer He argues from another Collect. mass- (a) This is extant in the ordinary Mass-Book Let thy Sacrament work in us O Lord we beseech thee those things which they contain that we may really be made partakers of those things which now we celebrate in a figure He saith that these things are celebrated in a Figure not in Truth that is by way of Representation and not the (b) Or Real Presence Manifestation of the Thing it self Now the Figure and the Truth are very different things Therefore that Body and Blood of Christ which is celebrated in the Church differs from the Body and Blood of Christ which is glorified That Body is the Pledge or Figure but this the very Truth it self the former we celebrate till we come to the latter and when we come to the latter the former shall be done way LXXXIX It is apparent therefore that they differ vastly as much as the Pledge and that whereof it is the Pledge as much as the Image and the Thing whose Image it is as much as the Figure and Truth We see then how vast a difference there is between the Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood which the Faithful now receive in the Church and that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary which suffered was buried rose again ascended into Heaven and sitteth at the Right-hand of God. For that Body which is celebrated here in our way must be spiritually received for Faith believes somewhat that it seeth not and it spiritually feeds the Soul makes glad the Heart and confers Eternal Life and Incorruption if we attend not to that which feeds the Body which is chewed with our Teeth and ground to pieces but to that which is spiritually received by Faith. Now that Body in which Christ suffered and rose again was his own
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
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
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
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
retorton the Latin Church But the true reason of his Silence on that Question is that he had no occasion to mention it since it was none of the Ten Points which F. Mabillon saith were matter of dispute between the two Churches and the Subject of Ratram's Book (k) Capitula ista numero erant omnino decem nempe de Processione Spiritus Sancti ex patre Filioque de jejunio Sabbati de Coelibatu Presbyterorum de Chrismatione Frontis Baptizatorum Presbyteris vetita de Abstinentia octo heb domadarum ante Pascha non inchoata de Barbae rasione Clericorum de Episcoporum Ordinatione per saltum de Primatâ— Romani Pontificis de Confectione Chrismatis ex aqua fluminis de Obâ—atione agni in Festo Paschae A. B. Sec. 4. p. 2. Praef. n. 160. what they were you may see in the Margin As for what he saith touching the Adoration of the Eucharist it is not my Province to consider it tho I see nothing but what hath been long since objected by their Writers and often Answered by ours but my Appendix being already grown to more than double the Bulk first designed I shall desire the Reader to consult our Authors who handled that Question at large and particularly the Answer (l) A Discourse of the Adoration of the H. Eucharist quarto London 1686. published about two years since to M. Boileau's Book on that Subject which he mentions twice or thrice in the Preface And at parting give me leave to offer one Reflection which any man though of no very profound Reach must naturally make upon M. Boileau's design and methods in this Edition of Ratram As there is nothing the Church of Rome boasts more of than a sure Rule of Faith an Infallible Judge in Controversies and their great Unity and agreement in Doctrin so our late Deserters pretend that our Dissentions which can never be Composed for want of a Supreme Tribunal in our Church and our Uncertainty in matters of Faith and want of any certain Rule for the direction either of our Belief or Conscience was â—he Cause why they left our Communion for one in which they pretend there are none of these defects and private Spirits no such liberty of Interpreting the H. Scriptures as among us Now who ever Reads M. Boileau's Preface must needs see that there is nothing like that Unity which Mr. Sclater (m) Consensâ—s Vet. p. 6 7. c. Celebrates in such Raptures of Joy as would make a man imagine that he had been upon his Conversion taken up into the third Heaven and in an excess of Charity when he came down again would have given all he was worth to find in one single Family in England I presume he means his own where the Father is divided against the Son and the Son against the Father c. according to the Letter of our Saviours Prediction But I leave him in his New Atlantis to entertain himself at this juncture with his Chimerique (n) Consens Vet. p. 11. Speculation of France under the Spiritual Tuition of 17 Arch-bishops 107 Bishops c. Italy under one Supreme Bishop Head of Unity Conservator of Peace and Truth c. and return to consider the wonderful Agreement of the Catholick Doctors This small Tract for sixscore year together is forbidden Condemned for Heretical by the general Vote of most of their Great Divines Popes Cardinals and others I may add the Council of Trent too which had as great an Interest in that Index wherein Bertram stands Condemned as it had in the Catechism Now all on a sudden he is acknowledged for a good Catholick But tho he be so in France I doubt in Spain and Italy his Doctrin were he alive to Answer for it would bring him in danger of the Inquisition Nay tho this Tract be pronounced Orthodox at Paris by M. Boileau and his Brethren yet at Lyons it is Rejected as Spurious or at least Adulterated with Heretical mixture such Blessed Agreement is there among their Doctors of this and the last Age and of those of France with their Brethren in Italy and Spain nay in France it self between M. de Marca A. B. of one Metropolitical Church who saith it was written by Jo. Scotus and condemned in the Councils of Rome and Vercellis and M. Dean of (o) See. another Metropolitical Church who saith it is Catholick and written for the real Presence Perhaps it may be said that this is matter of Fact to which the Infallibility doth not extend but not of Faith But by their leave I look upon it a matter of Faith and what neerly concerns mens Consciences especially in an Age of Conversions For the Question is not whether the Book be Genuin or Spurious but whether the Doctrin which it contains be Orthodox or Heretical Suppose a wavering Catholick should come to M. Boileau and propose his doubts concerning the Trent Doctrin having been shocked in his belief thereof by that passage of S. Austine which made Frudegard doubt the Truth of Paschase his Doctrin and make Confession of his Faith in the words of Bertram Set your Heart at rest your Belief is very sound you are a good Catholick would M. Boileau say But then because this is but one Doctors Opinion should he Consult M. Paris who supported De Marca's conjecture he would tell him this is down right Heresie condemned in several Councils and every body knoweth the Importance of that Sin and that such a Declaration must needs disturb the Conscience which was set at ease by M. Boileau's more favourable Sentence Such certain direction have men in the Roman Communion for their Faith and Consciences over what we have I am of opinion few of their doubting Catholicks or New Converts are able to declare their Faith touching the Sacrament so Intilligibly and distinctly as Ratram hath delivered his Judgment in this Book and I fear few of their Spiritual Guides understand what is the Doctrin of their Church better than those Doctors who have Condemned Ratram for an Heretick And withal Where is the Obedience of private Spirits and their deference to Church Authority when three or four Sorbon Doctors confront three Popes five Cardinals besides Archbishops and Bishops with other Doctors almost numberless Methinks it looks like an Argument that private Spirits in that Communion are as Wanton and Ungovernable as among the Protestants And methinks Mr. Sclater seems to resolve his own Conversion into the Dictates of the private Spirit and that whatever opinion he might have of those Divines who carried Church Authority highest yet he had little Reverence for it himself otherwise he would have listened to the Liturgy Articles and Homilies which are the publick Doctrin of our Church rather than the moderate Declarations of Bishop Forbes Bishop Andrews and Bishop Taylor that is one single Bishop in each of those three Kingdoms who notwithstanding believed Transubstantiation no more than we now do And though