Radbertus and to the Council of Trent in three particulars 1. He asserts that what is orally received is not the true and natural Body of Christ 2. He asserts that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration 3. That what is orally received feeds the body and that Christ is eaten Spiritually and not Orally 1. It is very plain from the determination of the second Question that Bertram expresly contradicts Paschasius for the words of the Question are taken out of his book and Bertram denies flatly what Paschasius affirms viz. That in the Sacrament we receive the same Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin Crucified and rose again He urges a multitude of Authorities out of the Fathers to confirm his own judgment herein and in short but pithy expositions sheweth how they are pertinent to the business In obviating an objection from the Testimony of St. Ambrose he tells us That the sensible object is Christs body and blood not in nature or kind but virtually He observes that St. Ambrose distinguisheth between the Sacrament of Christs Flesh and the Verity of Christs Flesh affirming the latter to be that Flesh which was born of the Virgin and the Holy Eucharist to be the Sacrament of that true Flesh in which he was Crucified mystically representing the former Again upon an objection that St. Ambrose calls it the body of Christ he answers That it is the body and blood of Christ not corporally but Spiritually He shews that what is orally received in the Sacrament is not Christ's Natural body because Christs natural body is incorruptible whereas that which we receive in the Holy Eucharist is corruptible visible and to be felt He farther proves a great difference between Christs Natural and Sacramental Body and Blood in this that his Natural Body really was what it appeared to our senses whereas the Eucharist is one thing in nature and appearance and another thing in signification Likewise expounding St. Hieroms Testimony he saith Christs natural body had all the organical parts of an humane body and was quickened with a reasonable soul whereas his body in the Sacrament hath neither He makes the body of Christ in the Sacrament to be only an Image or Pledge but the Natural body of Christ to be the Truth signified And in the first part he proves that the words of Christ Instituting this Sacrament are Figurative and that the thing orally received or the Symbols had the name of the things signified thereby it being usual to give Signs or Sacraments the name of the very thing represented under them And this he proves from St. Augustine It must be acknowledged that Bertram sometimes saith that it is truly Christs body and blood but mark how he explains himself he saith they are not so as to their visible nature but by the power of the Divine Word i. e. not corporally but spiritually And he adds the visible creature feeds the body but the virtue and efficacy of the Divine Word feeds and sanctifies the soul of the Faithful So that when he affirms the Sacrament to be truly Christs body he means truly in opposition to falshood not truly as that word is opposed to Figuratively But F. Mabillon and F. Alexander make Bertram and Paschasius to say the same thing and tell us that the former doth not deny the Truth of Christs natural body in the Sacrament which he as well as Paschasius holds but only that it is there propria specie i. e. in its proper shape and visible form or in its natural existence I must now requite the candour of F. Mabillon to Archbishop Vsher and impute this Opinion of his to the prejudice of Education For it s very evident that what Ratramnus labours to prove is an essential difference between the Sacrament received by the Faithful and Christs body as great a difference as between a body and a spirit between a corruptible and an incorruptible thing between the Image and the Original Truth between Figure and Verity And it is as plain that he admits these sensible qualities to be clear proofs of an essential difference and also allows our outward senses to be proper Judges in the case appealing to our eyes our taste and smell * Sect. 99. He shews that our Saviours body after its Resurrection was visible and palpable and cites Luke 24.39 Compare this with what he saith Sect. 72. where he sheweth the difference between Christs Natural and Spiritual Body as our Saviour did to the outward senses to prove the Verity of his body after his Resurrection Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self Handle me and see for a Spirit hath not FLESH and BONES as you SEE me to have So that in his Opinion we have the same evidence that the Sacramental Elements after Consecration are not Christs natural body in which he suffered which the Disciples had that the body in which he appeared to them after his Resurrection was the same body in which he was Crucified and buried 2. Ratramnus contradicts the Council of Trent in affirming the substance of Bread and Wine to remain after Consecration which those Fathers deny with an Anathema to all that affirm it He tells us expounding a citation out of St. Ambrose As to the substance of the Creatures what they were before Consecration they remain after it Bread and Wine they were before and after Consecration we see they continue beings of the same kind or nature F. Mabillon conceives Ratramnus to assert Transubstantiation in using the words turn conversion and that it is made Christs Body invisibly by the powerful operation of the Holy Ghost That the Bread and Wine after Consecration are not what they were before That they are truly by the Mystery turned into the substance of his body and blood c. which last is the most plausible sentence he quotes But I would fain know whether when he denies it to be a natural change and affirms it to be a Spiritual and which is all one an invisible change also that the substance of Wine is seen after Consecration and that by Consecration the Wine is made the Sacrament of Christs blood that it is made Christs Blood divini significatione Mysterii by the signification of the Divine Mystery That there was in the Manna and Water a spiritual power of the Word viz. Christ which fed the Souls of the believing Israelites That the Psalmist teacheth us both what the Father 's received in the Heavenly Manna and what the Faithful ought to believe in the Mystery of Christs body in both certainly Christ is signified And in express terms that as he could before his Passion turn the Bread and Wine into his body which was to suffer c. So before his Incarnation in the Wilderness he turned the Manna and Water into his body and blood And that as the Bread is Christs body so is it the body of the Faithful People and that if the
inwardly contains another For what doth outwardly appear but the substance of Wine Tast it there is the relish of Wine smell it there is the scent of Wine behold it there is the colour of Wine But if you consider it inwardly then it is not the Liquor of Wine but the Liquor of Christ's Blood which is Tasted Seen and Smelt Since these things are undeniable 't is evident that the Bread and Wine are Figuratively the Body and Blood of Christ As to outward appearance there is neither the Likeness of Flesh to be seen in that Bread nor the Liquor of Blood in that Wine and yet after the mystical Consecration they are no longer called Bread and Wine but the Body and Blood of Christ XI Another Argument from the nature of Faith. If according to the Opinion of some Men here is nothing Figuratively taken but the whole Matter is real then Faith operates nothing here is nothing Spiritual done but the whole is to be understood altogether corporally And seeing * Heb. 11.1 Faith is according to the Apostle the Evidence of things that appear not that is not of Substances which are seen but of such as are not seen we here shall receive nothing by Faith because we judge of the whole matter by our bodily Senses And nothing is more absurd than to take Bread for Flesh or to say that Wine is Blood Nor can that be any longer a Mystery in which there is no Secret no hidden thing contained XII And how can that be stiled Christ's Body and Blood There must be a Spiritual change for there is no Physical change wrought in the Sacrament in which there is not any change known to be made For every change is either from not being to being or from being to not being or else †That is from one quality to another from one being into another But in this Sacrament if the thing be considered in simplicity and verity and nothing else be believed but what is seen we know of no change at all made For there is no change from not being to being No Generation as in the production of things Since such did not exist before but past from a state of Non-entity into Being Whereas here Bread and Wine were real Beings before they became the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood. Nor is here a passage from being Nor Corruption to not being as there is in things decayed and corrupted For whatever perisheth once did subsist and that cannot perish that never was Now it is certain that there is no change of this kind made for 't is well known that the Nature of the Creatures remains in truth the very same that they were before XIII And as for that sort of change Nor Alteration whereby one thing is rendred another which is seen in things liable to vary in their qualities as for example when a thing that was before black is made white it is plain that this change is not made here For we can perceive no alteration here either as to touch colour or taste Therefore if nothing be changed the Elements are nothing but what they were before And yet they are another thing for the Bread is made the Body and the Wine is made the Blood of Christ For he himself hath said * Matth. 26.26 Take eat this is my Body And likewise speaking of the Cup he saith †Mark 14.24 Take and drink this is my Blood of the New Testament which shall be shed fon you XIV I would now enquire of them who will take nothing Figuratively but will have the whole matter plainly and really transacted In what respect is this change made so that the things are not now what they were before to wit Bread and Wine but the Body and Blood of Christ For as to the Nature of the Creature and the form of the visible things both to wit the Bread and Wine have nothing changed in them And if they have undergone no change they are nothing but what they were before XV. Your Highness sees They who will admit no figure in the Sacrament contradict themselves Illustrious Prince the tendency of their opinion who think thus They deny what they seem to affirm and plainly overthrow what they believe For they faithfully confess the Body and Blood of Christ and in so doing no doubt they profess that the Elements are not what they were before And if they now are other than they were before they have admitted some change This inference being undeniable let them now tell us in what respect they are changed For we see nothing corporally changed in them Therefore they must needs acknowledge either that they are changed in some other respect than that of their Bodies and in this respect they are what we see they are not in truth but somewhat else which we discern them not to be in their proper Essence or if they will not acknowledge this they will be compelled to deny that they are Christ's Body and Blood which is abominable not only to speak but even to think XVI But since they do confess them to be the Body and Blood of Christ which they could not have been but by a change for the better nor is this change wrought Corporally but Spiritually It must necessarily be said to be wrought Figuratively Because under the Vail of material Bread and material Wine the Spiritual Body and Spiritual Blood of Christ do exist Not that there are together existing two natures so different as a Body and Spirit But one and the same thing in one respect hath the nature of Bread and Wine and in another respect is the Body and Blood of Christ For both as they are Corporally handled are in their nature Corporeal Creatures but according to their Virtue and what they are Spiritually made they are Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ XVII Let us consider the Font of holy Baptism He Illustrates the matter by comparing the two Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Body which is not undeservedly stiled the Fountain of Life because it regenerates those who descend into it to the Newness of a better Life and makes those who were dead in Sins alive unto Righteousness Is it the visible Element of Water which hath this efficacy Verily unless it had obtained a Sanctifying virtue it could by no means wash away the stain of our Sins And if it had not a quickning Power it could not at all give Life to the Dead The Dead I mean not as to their Bodies but their Souls Yet if in that Fountain you consider nothing but what the bodily Sense beholdeth you see only a fluid Element of a corruptible Nature and capable of washing the Body only But the Power of the Holy Ghost came upon it by the Priests Consecration it obtained thereby an efficacy to wash not the Bodies only but also the Souls of Men and by a Spitual virtue to
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
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
and that (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore not in verity of Nature in spiritual Mystery they are truly Christs Body and Blood that is Sacramentally or in Signification Again he Illustrates the matter by comparing the change made by Consecration in the Eucharist with a twofold change made in Baptism neither of which is a substantial change 1 (c) Fol. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Inwardly changed With the change made in the Person Baptised who is inwardly changed not in Nature or Substance either of Soul or Body but morally 2 (d) gelice on hiÆ¿oðrum Æ¿aeterum i. e. Common Water a corruptible Liquor So the Eucharist With the change wrought in the Baptismal Water whose Substance as well as the sensible Accidents is confessed to remain and which by Consecration only acquires a Sanctifying Virtue And as he saith of the Water that in Verity of Nature it is a corruptible Liquor So (e) Hit is on gecynd brosniendlic hlaf and brosniendlic Æ¿in In Nature corruptible and therefore common Bread and Wine gesepenlican hiÆ¿e agenes gecyndes Fol. 34. which is of the same importance with Substantiae suae Species in Ratr. de Pred l. 2. p. 88. On gecynd is Substantialiter for so it is Translated by Aelfric where Bertram saith That Christ is neither Bread â—or a Vine Substantialiter n. 8. saith he of the Holy Eucharist it is in kind or nature Corruptible Bread and Wine distinguishing between the Invisible or Spiritual Virtue of it and the visible Species of its proper Nature This latter expression confounds the Popish Notion of Species conjoining the sensible Accidents with the Substance upon which Aelfric immediately addeth It is in kind or nature corruptible Bread and Wine but through the power of the Divine Word it is truly Christ's Body and Blood yet not corporally but spiritually The Saxon Word (f) gecynd signifying kind or nature cannot be perverted as the Latin Species is because though perhaps it may sometimes signifie the Natural Qualities of a thing yet it never signifies the Image or Resemblance of a thing and much less the sensible Qualities without their Subject Again he makes (g) Fol. 36. and Fol. 44. He bad them not to eat the Body ðe he mid befanten Æ¿aes in which he was apprehended but he meant the Holy Housel or Eucharist the Sacrament not to be Christ's Body wherein he Suffered nor his Blood shed on the Cross but to be his Body and Blood as the Manna and Rock in the Wilderness were And how is that (h) Fol. 40. Nas se stan lichamlice Crist ac he getacnode Crist. Not Corporally i. e. Not in Substance or truth of Nature Not Corporally Christ but it signified or was a Type of Christ Again reciting the words of our Saviour spoken to his Disciples Aelfric expounds THIS as signifying Bread which whoever doth cannot understand those words literally by the confession of our Adversaries (i) Etaþ Æ¿isne hlaf hit is min lichama This occurs twice in the Homily Fol. 28. and in Aelfrics latter Epistle Fol. 68. Eat THIS BREAD IT is my Body Which also Ratram in effect doth in those places which M. Boileau with little reason brags of for they make against him where he saith The Bread and Cup which is called and IS the Body and Blood of Christ For if Bread and the Cup be the Subject they cannot be affirmed to be the Body and Blood of our Saviour which was Born of the Virgin For Bread and Wine were not Born of the Virgin. Nor were they in rerum natura when our Saviour's Body was broken and his Blood shed for us on the Cross and consequently could not be that very Body And therefore of two absurd Opinions Transubstantiation seem'd a less absurdity than Consubstantiation and accordingly the Romanists being sensible of it rejected (k) Which appears to have been the Notion of Rupertus and others who held a Corporal Presence see the Preface to a Determination of Joan. Parisiensis Impanation and asserted a Miraculous Conversion whereby the substance of Bread is destroyed Now this Ratram in several places affirms viz. That Bread is Christ's Body but then teacheth us elsewhere in what sense he affirms it is so Figuratively it is so Spiritually which is the same The like also doth Aelfric with great Caution more than once adding nevertheless not so Corporally but Spiritually that is by a Figure In the same sense as the great City where our Lord was Crucified is said to be Spiritually called Sodom and Egypt Rev. 11.8 which all confess to be Figurative To this I shall add as a further evidence of our Saxon Ancestors belief that the Elements remain in their first substance that the Translator (l) Os þysum eorþlican Æ¿ine Mat. 26.29 of St. Matthew's Gospel calleth the Consecrated Wine Earthly Wine which was a voluntary Gloss to the use whereof the (m) De genimine vitis the Vulgar Latine gave him no Invitation and the same words are by Translators of the other Evangelists rendred literally The Fathers understand our Saviour to speak of the Consecrated Wine which this Translator would never have called Earthly Wine if he or the Saxon Church had believed it to be the Natural Blood of Christ or not believed the substance of Wine to remain after Consecration 4. Aelfric all along so expresseth himself that any Man may see he did not hold the Substance of Christ's Body and Blood to be in the Sacrament but only the Virtue and Efficacy thereof This is Ratram's express Doctrine and reflected on with displeasure by Paschase (n) Miror quid velint nunc quidam dicere non in re esse veritatem Carnis Christi vel Sanguinis sed in Sacramento Virtutem Carnis non Carnem virtutem Sanguinis non Sanguinem Figuram non Veritatem who professeth to wonder what some Persons meant who said that the Eucharist was not in reality Christ's true Flesh and Blood but Sacramentally the Virtue of his Flesh not Flesh the Virtue of Blood not Blood a Figure not the Truth Accordingly Aelfric when there is occasion to make an Antithesis of the Visible Sign to the Res Sacramenti doth not oppose an Invisible Substance or a Spiritual Body to the Visible Sacrament but only an Invisible Power or Virtue As in Baptism the Sanctifying Virtue to the Corruptible Liquor So in the Lord's Supper he opposeth a Spiritual Virtue to the Sensible Object which he calls a Corruptible Creature adding that there is a vast difference between the Invisible Virtue of the Holy Eucharist and the Visible shape of its proper Nature And speaking of some Mens receiving a bigger piece of the Consecrated Bread and others a less he saith the (o) Ac hit biþ ðeah phpaeder aeften gast lure miht on aelcum daele eall Fol. 36. whole Virtue not Substance of Christ's Body is as much in the one as the other and the Virtue being entire
Similitudinem Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti ita etiam similitudinem preciosi sanguinis bibis de Sacra l. 4. c. 4. I see not the Species of Blood to which he answers but what thou seest hath a Resemblance of it For as thou hast received the similitude of his Death I presume he means in Baptism so thou drinkest the similitude of his Blood. Now the word Species being opposed to Similitude it is doubtless used for the Reality not for the Appearance And so indeed he Expounds himself objecting the same thing in these words (r) Quomodo vera Caro quomodo verus Sanguis Qui similitudinem video non video Sanguinis veritatem de Sacram. l. 6. c. 1. I see only a Similitude I see not the Verity of Blood. As I remember the word Species occurs but once more in these Books and in that (ſ) De Sacram. l. 2. c. 3. place it unquestionably signifieth a Figure or Type in which sense we find it also used in the Book (t) Cap. 9. De Initiandis and by Ratram too But I know not any advantage our Adversaries can make of this Were it necessary I could produce many Instances out of St. Ambrose to prove that Species imports the Nature or Substance As when he saith of the Pillar which directed the Marches of the Israelites (u) Illa autem columna nubis specie quidem praecedebat filio Israel Mysterio autem significabat Dominum Jesum c. Amb. in Psal 118. Oct. 5. The Pillar went before in the Species of a Cloud but it Mystically signified the Lord Jesus c. Who ever doubted it to be a Real Cloud Again speaking of the Water turned into Wine by our Saviour he saith (w) Vt rogatus ad Nuptias aquae Substantiam in Vini Speciem commutaret Ambr. op t. 5. Serm. 15. ex Edit Par. 1632. That our Lord turned the substance of Water into the Species of Wine That is no doubt into the Specifick Nature as well as the sensible Appearance of Wine But I shall trouble you with no more when I have produced one Instance of the use of this Term out of Paschasius Radbertus if he really did alleadg the Miracles which we now read in his Work to prove the Carnal Presence He makes Plegils a Saxon Priest to pray that God would discover to him What the (x) Quae foret Species latitans sub forma Panis Vini Pasc Radb de C. S. D. c. 14. Species was which lay hid under the form of Bread and Wine In which place according to the Romanists themselves Species must import the Natural substance of our Lord's Body and not the sensible Qualities only And I do not remember that Paschase who useth the word Species for the sensible Qualities of Bread doth any where intimate its substance to be destroyed I know in Berengarius his time it was taken for granted that he did But I am of opinion that this Notion was a refining upon the Doctrin of Paschase and the first Author in which I meet the word Species in the Popish sense is Algerus who disputing against Impanation saith (y) Quum in utero sumpserit Speciem vel formam cum substantia In altari vero Speciem vel formam Panis mutata non permanente substantia Alger de Sacr. l. 1. c. 6. That Christ doth not take on him the Species or Form of Bread in the Sacrament as He took the Species or Form of Flesh in the Virgin Womb For there he took the Species or Form together with the Substance but upon the Altar he assumes the Species or Form of Bread the substance not remaining but being changed I am confident the word Species was never used in the sense of the present Roman Church before the Eleventh Century and that not before the Disputes against Berengarius whose Adversaries were the first who advanced the Notion now currant I have the more largely insisted on these two Terms Veritas and Species in regard the Confutation of M. Boileau's Exposition of them doth effectually Rescue Ratram out of his hands and evince that there is no colour of Reason for him to claim the Authority of this Book for the support of Transubstantiation The other Terms remaining in Dispute I shall dispatch more briefly for in Truth I need only relate M. Boileau's Exposition of them to satisfie any Impartial Reader who is tollerably skilled in the Latin Tongue that the sense which he gives them is very unnatural and absurd I took notice elsewhere (z) Dissert Ch. IV. p. 73. how great Variety of Phrases are made use of in this little Tract to express what we call the outward Signs in the Sacrament and by which we understand as in Baptism the Substance of water so in the H. Eucharist the Substance of Bread and Wine But M. Boileau expounds them all of the sensible Qualities of the H. Elements without their Substance 1. The Adjective Visible which is sometimes joyned with Bread sometimes with Species sometimes with Creature Sacrament Food is by our Translatour so rendred as though it did signifie Apparent in opposition to Real The Visible Substance of Bread is by him made to imply so much of Bread as appears to the Eye viz. Figure and Colour The Visible Creature and Visible Sacrament is with him no more of them than falls under our Senses viz. the outward Appearance Now if this be the true Sense of the Word many passages of Ratram and other Authors are egregious Nonsense for Example S. Augustin (a) Citatus à Ratramno n. 78 79. calleth the Manna Visible Food and in a few lines after saith that in the Sacrament we now receive Visible Food which in the next Paragraph he calls the Visible Sacrament If by the Visible Food or Sacrament we must with the Romanists understand only (b) La Substance Visible cèst a dire ce qui paroist aux yeux de ce pain n. 40. Selonla creature visible et qui tombe soüs les sens n. 49. ce que le Sacrament a de visible n. 79. nourriture visible qui tombe sous les sens n. 78. so much as falleth under our senses viz. the sensible Qualities we must then understand by the Visible Food which the Fathers eat and understood Spiritually only the sensible Accidents of the Manna and believe that more than a million of persons for forty years together lived upon roundness whiteness and sweetness and other like Accidents of Manna Quod credat Judaeus Apella At this rate of expounding who knows but Ratram did with Basilides and Saturninus deny that Christ had true Flesh a Real Humane Body for he saith it was visible and palpable by which possibly he might mean that our Saviour's Body had only the Qualities which are proper to affect the Eye or the Touch without the natural Substance of a true Humane Body Should that old Heresie revive its Proselytes might as
the Jansenists acknowledge his Abilities his great Reputation for Learning in France and style him That Learned Benedictine c. I might add that Servatus Lupus treats him in his Address as (c) Clarissimo suo R. Lupus Ep. 79. an intimate and much esteemed Friend directing his Epistle To his most dear Rotrannus and (d) Familiares habuit Praestantissimos quosque sui seculi viros Hincmarum Rem Rhabanum Mog Wenilonem Senon Heriboldum Ratbertum Corbeiensem Ratramnum Monachum Corbiensem c. Baluz in notis at titulum Beati Lupi p. 340. Baluzius numbers him among the Famous Men who were the familiar Acquaintance of that Learned Abbot As also the Testimony of the Chronicon Hirsaugiense published by Trithemius That he was a Person well accomplished with all sorts of Literature and many other proofs of his admirable Learning But I conceive those already produced will convince all unprejudiced Persons and since his other Works have appeared in Print the Adversaries of his Doctrine touching the Real Presence are ashamed to deny him right in this point and betake themselves to other arts for the evading the force of his Testimony of the Belief of the Church in that Age. To close this Section I shall give a brief account of his Writings as well those which are not extant as those we have in Print The first of his Writings extant is that of the manner of Christ's Birth or of the Virgins Delivery This must have been written before the Year 844. (a) Sirmondus in Vita Paschasii Radberti operibus praefixa Par. 1618. in which Pascasius Radbertus was made Abbot of Corbey if (b) Mabillon in Praef. ad Acta Ben. sec 4. p. 2. c. 3. nu 150. Monachorum omnium peripsema F. Mabillon mistake not when he tells us that his two Books on that Argument are a Confutation of Ratramne For he doth not style himself Abbot but only the off-scouring of all Monks whereas in his (c) Ibidem inter Acta Ben. p. 135. Humilis exiguus Radbertus vester etsi indignus Abbas Levita Christi Monachorum omnium peripsema Epistle to Carolus Culvus published by F. Mabillon he styles himself Abbot Nor could his Book be written after his Resignation of that Abbey being dedicated to Theodrada Abbess of Soissons and her Nuns which (d) Mabil ubi supra Theodrada died A. D. 846. and he resigned not till 851. The occasion of his writing was News out of Germany as I guess from New Corbey which had much correspondence with this Corbey in France of which it was a Colony that some in those Parts held strange opinions touching our Saviour's Birth as though he came not out of his Mothers Womb into the World the same way with other Men. In opposition to that Doctrine (a) Vide Librum Ratramni apud Dacherium Spicil Tom. 1. Ratramnus asserts That Christ was Born as other Men and his Virgin Mother bare him as other Women bring forth to use (b) Tertul. de Carne Christi c. 23. Tertullian's words patefacti corporis lege Those whose opinions he confutes were perhaps some of those Novices for whose use Paschasius had written his Book of the Sacrament and who had not only imbibed his Doctrine touching the Carnal Presence of Christ therein but might have also heard the manner of our Saviour's Birth without opening his Mother's Womb alledged to solve an Objection against it for our Adversaries of the Church of Rome now say (c) Vide Guil. Forbesii Consider Modest de Sacr. Euchar. l. 1. c. 2. that it is no more impossible for one Body to be in two places than for two Bodies to be in one which they conceive must have happened in our Saviours Birth as also in his Resurrection and coming into his Disciples the Door being shut This might provoke Paschasius to write against our Author as well as Zeal for the Blessed Virgins Integrity And having said thus much on this subject I cannot wave so fair an opportunity of doing right to the ever memorable Archbishop Vsher whom Lucas Dacherius having published this Work reproacheth as a Lyar for saying (a) Vsserius in Hist Gottesc c. 11. That Ratramnus in this Work maintaineth the same Doctrine which he hath delivered in his Book touching the Lord's Body and Blood whereas he makes no mention of the Eucharist in it And F. Mabillon who for his Candor is no less to be honoured than for his great Learning imputes it to prejudice or mistake But I need not use (c) Conringius ad Antiquit. Acad. Supplemento 39. apud Mabillon ibid. Conringius his shift to vindicate him and suppose Dacherius hath suppressed those passages which induced the Learned Primate to say what he did It is enough to justifie him that (d) Apud Dacherium Spicil Yom. 1. p. 333. Ratramnus asserts two things which by consequence oppose Transubstantiation and establish the contrary Doctrine (b) Mabillon Act. Ben. Praef. sec 4. p. 2. c. 3. nu 153. and this he notoriously doth 1. In the very scope and drift of his Book contradicting an Illustration of that Doctrine by the manner of Christ's Birth 2. By Denying that Christ though Omnipresent in his Divinity can in his Body be in more than one place so that when he comes to a new place he leaves the place where he was before This Opinion in its consequences maintains the Doctrine of his Book concerning Christ's Body though not expresly in Terms And this is as much as the Primate saith And when we consider where the Dispute concerning Christ's Birth began and that Paschasius defended it what I have said will appear not improbable This Book is also in Manuscript in Salisbury Library and that of Bennet College in Cambridge On what occasion he wrote his two Books of Predestination I have already related They are published by Mauguin and in the new Bibliotheca Patrum Printed at Lyons 1677. Tom. XV. p. 442. He likewise wrote a Book about the Year 853. to justifie an old Hymn which (a) Teste ipso Hincmaro in libro De non Trina Deitate operum T. 1. 450. Et Mauguin Dissert Hist c. 17. Dehinc post aliquot annos cum Hincmarus in Ecclesia Remensi vetustissimum receptissimum Hymni Ecclesiastici hunc versiculum Te Trina Deitas unaque poscimus cantari vetuisset Ipse Ratramnus volumine non modicae quantitatis ad Hildegarium Meldensem Episcopum edito ex libris SS Hilarii Augustini de Trinitate veterem Ecclesiae Traditionem confirmavit Hincmarus of Rhemes had commanded to be altered and that instead of Te Trina Deitas they should sing Te Summa Deitas imagining the former expression to make Three Gods against which Order of Hincmarus Ratramnus wrote a large Book asserting the expression to be Orthodox by the Authority of St. Hilary and St. Augustine but this piece is lost He wrote another Book (b)
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
but their meaning must only be that what they saw upon the Altar was truly certainly and without any Trope the Lord's Body Manifestation doth not necessarily import the Sensible Evidence of a thing but rather its certain Truth And accordingly it is used in this Sense by our Author in another Work (w) Ratramn de Praed lib. 2. p. 77. Apud Mauguin Qui vero ad illum quive atâ— istum pertineant finem in hac mortalitatis caligine nulla veritatis manifestatione comprehenditur Verba Isidori sunt supra Incertum tamen est ad quem sint Finem Praedestinati where expounding Isidores words Who are predestinated to Life and who to Death is uncertain expresseth it thus It is not comprehended by any manifestation of the Truth But more of this when I come to consider how M. Boileau expounds the Controverted Terms of our Author 3. Let us for once admit though it be false that the Writers whom he names did in the Twelfth Century hold the Opinion which he pretends our Author to have confuted How doth this infer that any body held it in Bertram's daies neer 300 Years before This sort of Reasoning is a little of kin to the Logick of that Oxford Alderman who said That if they could prove that King Henry the Eighth Reigned before King Henry the Sixth the City would carry their cause It is true he adds That this was a common Opinion in the middle of the Eleventh Century when Berengarius made his first Recantation and that Opinions do not grow common all on a sudden I hope he doth not think it was the Opinion of Pope Nicolas II. and the Council who ordered Berengarius to recant in that Form if he does it 's a shrewd Reflection on the Pope's Infallibility But suppose it were then commonly believed cannot an Opinion grow common under 200 Years Did not Gnosticism and the Millenary Opinions grow common in a much shorter time Did not Arianism overspread the World in less than 40 Years Nay are not the Doctrines of Molino grown common in 7 Years space There is nothing in that Chapter of Paschase like the Sentiments which he would fix upon Ratram's Adversaries and one of the Passages to which he refers viz. That the Sacrament is digested and passeth into the Draught is precisely Ratram's own Doctrine and he argues thence That what is Orally received is not Christ's Natural Body The Truth is the Opinions of Abbaudus and Walter plainly point out their Original The Dispute about the breaking of Christ's Body sprung from that beastly form of Recantation imposed upon Berengarius by Pope Nicolas the II. of which the Romanists themselves were afterwards ashamed and neither Nubes Testium nor Consensus Veterum think it convenient to be cited among their Testimonies for Transubstantiation The Pope and Cardinal Humbert (x) Ore corde profiteor de Sacramentis Dominicae Mensae eam fidem tenere quam Dominus venerabilis Papa Nicolaus haec Sancta Synodus tenendam tradidit scilicet Panem Vinum quae in Altari ponuntur post consecrationem non solum Sacramentum sed etiam verum Corpus Sanguinem Domini Nostri J. C. esse sensualiter non solum Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri Apud Gratianum de Consecr Dist 2. c. 42. Ego Berengarius resolving to make it full enough quite over-did the Business for they made him profess it as the Faith of the Pope and Council That Christ's Body is Sensibly and Truly and not only Sacramentally handled and broke by the Priest's hands and ground by the Teeth of the Faithful When the Council was over and the Recantation came to be scanned some who were too much (y) Abaelardus and others Vide Sequentiam in Festo Corp. Christi in Missali Rom. Fracto demum Sacramento Ne vacilles sed memento Tantum esse sub Fragmento Quantum toto tegitur Nulla rei fit scissura Signi tantum fit Fractura Qua nec status nec statura Signati minuitur Divines to believe the natural Body of Christ capable of Fraction or Division said it was broken and chew'd in Sacramento non in Re in the Signs only viz. the Accidents and outward Forms of Bread Others as (z) See their Words cited by M. Boileau in his Preface p. 36. And in the Remarks p. 210. 211 212 213 215. Abbaudus and Walter were for adhering to the Letter of the Council and were too much Philosophers to believe Accidents could subsist without a subject and they contended that our Saviours Body under those Accidents was broken truly and said that if it were not really broken it was not really his Body So that to say that the breaking affected only the Species or abstracted Qualities was to revive the Heresie of Berengarius This is the true Pedigree of the Disputes about the breaking of Christ's Body which cannot be deriv'd from any greater Antiquity than the Roman Synod A. D. 1059. This is more than enough to confute all that M. Boileau offers to prove that Ratram's Adversaries believed no Figure in the Holy Sacrament Let us next see how he proves that the Opinion encountred by him in the Second part of this Tract was not the Opinion of Paschase but of some body he knows not who that held the Sensible part of the Holy Eucharist or the Accidents of Bread and Wine to be the same Body which was Born of the Virgin c. Truly for the Proof hereof he misrepresents the Subject of the Question as though it were only concerning the Sensible Qualities of what is received in the Holy Sacrament whereas it is touching the Thing orally received Then he refers us to his Translation and Remarks which we shall consider in their proper place And in the beginning of his Preface he sets aside the Testimony of Cellot's Anonymus who tells us That Ratram and Rabanus both opposed Paschase in this Point tho' the Truth of what he asserts be notorious from the express Words of both those Writers And the Words of Rabanus are so Emphatical that although I have already (a) Dissert c. 6. produced them I cannot but repeat them here and add some few remarks to shew how fully and directly they contradict the Popish Notion of the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Holy Eucharist His words are these (b) Quidam nuper de ipso Sacramento Corporis Sanguinis Domini non rite sentientes dixerunt hoc ipsum Corpus Sanguinem Domini quod de Maria Virgine natum est in quo ipse Dominus passus est in cruce resurrexit de Sepulchro idem esse quod sumitur de Altari cui errori c. Rhabani Ep. ad Heribald ad calcem Reginonis c. 33. Some of late entertaining false Sentiments touching this Sacrament of the Lord's Body and Blood have said That this very Body and Blood of our Lord which was
born of the Virgin Mary in which our Lord suffered on the Cross and rose from the Grave is the same Body which is received from off the Altar against which Errour c. I hence observe 1. That the Opinion censured by him is the express Doctrine of Paschase and the Roman Church at this day Nor is there any colour for M. Boileau to say That he censured men who held the Accidents to be Christs Body for he speaks of the Body received from the Altar which he will not deny to be somewhat besides the sensible Figure and Accidents of the consecrated Elements 2. He censures this Opinion as a Falshood and Error against which he had purposely written 3. He condemns it as a late Opinion so that it had not Antiquity to plead 4. He represents it as no Vniversal Opinion but as the Sentiments of some few (c) 1. Quidam non omnes ubique 2. Nuper non semper 3 Non rite sentientes ergo erronei So that in short the Doctrine which was made an Article of Faith in the Eleventh Century was in the Ninth Century not so much as a Probable Opinion but rejected by Rabanus as a false Novel and private Opinion and by no means the Ancient Catholick and True Belief of Christ's Church If Mr. Boileau could produce any Piece of the Ninth Century wherein the Proposition censured by Rabanus and Ratram is expounded as it is by him or that contradicted Cellot's Anonymus we would readily yield the Point in Dispute But that without any proof nay against so notorious Evidence and so express a Testimony he should hope to obtrude upon us his own Chimera's touching the Design and Adversaries of Bertram in this Book argues a degree of Confidence unbecoming a Divine of his Character F. Mabillon (d) A. B. S. 4. p. 2. Praef. n. 56. Rabanum Ratramnum Anonymum Herigerum aliosque siqui sint Paschasii Adversarios in reali Christi corporis in Sacramento praesentia cum ipso convenisse contentionem hanc in vocum pugna sitam fussse hath more Ingenuity and Discretion than to attempt it and frankly confesseth that both these Writers did dispute against Paschase though to salve all again he pretends that they believed the Real Presence as much as he did that they differed only in Words not in Doctrine so that it was rather a Verbal than a Real Controversie But by this Learned Fathers leave the difference appears much more weighty Paschase and his Adversaries are at as wide a distance as Protestant and Papist and of this the Reader will be satisfied upon perusal of the Fifth Chapter of my Dissertation wherein I have set down the Doctrine of Paschase and the Church of Rome together with Ratram's contrary Doctrines and have from the Author himself shewn in what Sense he hath used those Terms which seem proper to establish Transubstantiation but really overthrow it and this without the help of those new and bold Figures which M. Boileau hath been forced to invent Hitherto I have been detecting the weakness of those Arguments which this Doctor makes use of to prove his Paradox that the Doctrine of Ratram is conformable to that of Paschase and the Faith of the Church of Rome I shall now offer some few Reasons that convince me of the contrary 1. It is a just and strong Presumption of this Authors being against them that for above 120 Years together after his first appearance in Print their most eminent Doctors have with one consent yielded the Point I will not except his Lovain Friends whose Expedient to make him Orthodox is with good Reason by M. Alix declared impracticable since the appearance of Manuscripts for they justifie those passages to be Genuine which the Lovain Divines would have expunged as spurious Mixtures If Bertram be so full and considerable a Witness of the perpetuity of their Faith touching the Presence of Christ in the Holy Sacrament How comes it to pass that their Supream Judge of Controversies hath treated him as a Knight of the Post The Doctors of the Church of Rome in former daies were not unacquainted with the Art of Expounding which is now practised with so much applause but have shewn themselves much greater Masters in it than M. Boileau and have used it with greater dexterity for evading the Testimonies produced out of other Fathers by our Divines against Transubstantiation Nor can we doubt but that they were bred under the strongest Prepossessions and Prejudices for the Real Presence and consequently as well disposed to understand all the obscure and harsh Passages of this Book in the sense of their own Church if the Words could possibly have born it If it be now so plain as (e) Nous avons son livre il ne faut que le lire Pref. p. 24. 25. M. Dean of Sens would have it thought That Bertram wrote neither against the Stercoranists nor the Real Presence If the very reading of the Book be sufficient to convince a man thereof How came it to pass that so many Popes and Cardinals with other eminent Prelates and Doctors have conspired in the Condemnation of so Useful and Orthodox a Work To pass a (f) Pref. p. 5. Sentence quite contrary to its merit and such as no man who had well examined it could reasonably have expected Did they condemn it without Examination Then God preserve us from such Judges Did they not understand the Book Or did they want Skill to try it by the Roman Standard For my part I cannot think so meanly of the Trent Fathers who were employed to censure Books and who composed the Index What pity was it that no Artist of that time could furnish those Fathers with a pair of M. Boileau's Spectacles F. Mabillon (g) A. B. Ubi supra n 126. At cum haec classis contineat libros qui propter Doctrinam quam continent non sanam aut Suspectam rejiciuntur nihil inde in Ratramni fidem inferri potest nisi quod ob duriores quasdam obscuriores sententias suspectam Doctrinam visus est continere tells us that Bertram is not placed in the first Class of the Index which consists of condemned Authors but in the second Class in which the Works of Catholick Writers containing false or suspected Doctrine are prohibited so that nothing can be hence concluded against the Soundness of his Doctrine but only that some harsh and obscure Sentences rendred it suspected To this I Answer 1. That nothing appears in the Censure by which we can learn that the Book was prohibited only for Suspected Doctrine and not for unsound Doctrine which is also assigned as the Reason why some Books of Catholick Divines are rejected 2. If the Censors of Books had only rejected Bertram for the Obscurity of his Expressions or Suspicious Doctrine and not for false and unsound Doctrine why might they not have allowed him as they have done others in the same Class the favour
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
that the Body of our Saviour which was crucified and rose again is his Natural Body affected with the sensible Accidents of Bread which I take to be rank Nonsense and so I am apt to think doth our Translator also For he doth not render that Passage by the word Manifestation as he had elsewhere done leaving the Reader to seek the sense of so uncouth a Phrase in his Preface and Remarks but he renders it by words importing our Saviours Body in Human Shape Though in so doing he makes Bertram a very despicable and impertinent Sophister and to dispute vehemently against an Opinion which his Adversaries did not maintain For so he doth if they affirming the Holy Eucharist to be Christ's Body affected with the Sensible Appearances of Bread he brings Arguments to prove that it was not his Body in its proper state that is retaining the Members Dimensions Lineaments and all other Sensible Qualities of a Man's Body That Ratram used Manifestation as a Term equivalent to the Reality is clear to any Man who will observe how he useth the Adverb Manifeste which is one of its Conjugates When he is describing a Pledge and Image he saith (e) Significant enim ista rem cujus sunt non manifeste ostendunt N. 86. they have a relation to some other thing which they signifie but non manifeste ostendunt do not manifestly shew i.e. really exhibit This must be his sense for he he is delivering the Notion of Pledges and Images in General which are not the very thing for which they are deposited or which they represent in Substance and Reality and only want the Sensible Appearances thereof For on the contrary an Image hath the Sensible Appearance of what it represents without the Reality I do not deny but Ratram supposes Christ's true Body to be Visible when he saith it is the very Manifestation of the thing some of his Arguments to prove the Sacrament not to be Christ's Very Body are drawn from a Supposition that if it were so it would be a Living Organical Body Visible Palpable and Manifest to our Bodily Senses Yet the Visibility of Christs glorified Body is not the thing primarily imported by the word Manifestation but its Truth and Reality As the Apostle speaking of (f) 1 Tim. 3.16 God manifest in the flesh principally design'd to teach the Truth of Christ's Incarnation that the Word was truly made Flesh that is Man and not that God Visibly appear'd to Man. And as (g) Idem ipse Christus illis in Petra figuratus nobis in carne manifestatus est Aug. in Psal 77. St. Austin when he saith The same Christ who was Typified in the Rock to the Jews is now manifested in the Flesh to us doth not by that Phrase imply our Saviour's Visible Appearance to us but that he was truly and actually Incarnate for us As for his Second Reason to prove that Verity imports not the Reality but the Sensible Appearance viz. That the Writers of the Middle Age use the word to signifie the Depositions of Witnesses and the Proof or Evidence of things I conceive it to be weak and unconcluding The Instances to which he refers us are in M. du Cange's (h) Glossarii Tom. 3. col 1283. Glossary And I might tell him that they are not taken out of Writers of the Middle Age but the (i) Scilicet A. D. 1228. Latest Times but not to insist on that Circumstance I think that he cannot infer that Proofs by Witnesses are called Verities because they clear the Point in dispute in regard it seems more likely that Depositions if they are stiled Verities have that name from the Charitable Presumption that every Man hath so just a reverence of an Oath that he will swear nothing but the Truth I say if Depositions are stiled Verities for I conceive the Learned and Industrious M. du Cange is mistaken in the sense of the word Veritas (k) Veritas Depositio Testis Veredictum J. C. Anglis Veritate Scabinorum convincatur Procul dubio hallucinatur Veritas Scabinorum idem valet quod Judicium Scabinorum supra in voce Scabinus ubi statuit Cl. du Cange Scabinos esse Judices urbanos in those Instances he makes to prove that it signifieth the Deposition of a Witness and that he more truly expounds it by the English word Verdict which is the Sentence of the Jury who are Judges of the Fact and not Witnesses and in those places Judgments are stiled Verities according to a known Rule of the Civil Law that a judged Case is taken for Truth His other Instances from the Synod of Coyac A. D. 1050. are much more impertinent for the word Veritas is there a Feudal Term and imports in the former Canon the Title of the Church to its Possessions against which three years Usurpation should not prescribe and in the latter Canon the Homage and Fealty of the Vassals to their Lord and is equivalent to (l) Veritatem Justitiam Regis non contemnant sed sicut in diebus Adelfonsi Regis fideles recti persistant talem Veritatem facient Regi qualem c Fidelitas which signifieth Faith and true Allegiance So that M. Boileau hath made a great flourish with these Authorities to no purpose He tells us moreover that Paschase useth the word Veritas to signifie the Sensible Truth but the words cited out of him seem plainly to import the Reality They are these (m) Quando jam ultra non erunt haec Mystica Sacramenta in fide sed in REIPSA VERITAS quae adhuc recte agitur in Mysterio luce clarius referetur erit omnibus palam in fruitione quod nunc sumimus in Mysterio Pasch apud Boileau p. 216. Then these Mystical Signs in our Faith shall cease but the Truth in Reality which as yet is rightly celebrated in the Mystery shall be shewn clearer than the Light and that shall be evident to all in the enjoyment which we now receive in the Mystery I conceive Reipsa may very aptly be rendred the Real Truth or Truth in Reality Nor doth the latter Clause expound the word Veritas but is easie to observe a double Antithesis of Mystical Sacraments to the Real Verity and of an obscure Representation to the clear Vision which double Antithesis is ordinary in the Writings of the Fathers and in this Tract of Ratram Having thus answer'd that M. Boileau offers to maintain his Notion that Verity signifieth not the Reality but only the Sensible Appearance I shall next prove his Notion not only groundless and precarious but also false and absurd by shewing 1st That this Notion of Verity is inconsistent with Bertram's own Exposition of that Term in this Treatise And 2dly That it agrees not with the Use of the Word in other Writers of the same or elder Times I. It is inconsistent with Bertram's own Exposition of the Term in this Treatise who explaineth it very
its Glorified State. And Christ hath no other Real Body but his Glorified Body In the state of Humiliation when he was Scourged Buffeted and Crucified the Body of our Saviour was visible and palpable and was a true Body with all the sensible Appearances of such a Body yet I am of opinion that M. Boileau will scarce adventure to say that our Saviour's Body was then Impassible Incorruptible or Immortal Whereas if the word Veritas be taken in its genuine and common Sense the Consequence is undeniable For to the Truth of a Proposition it is requisite that the Praedicate do really agree to the Subject and that the Subject be in Truth of Nature what it is affirmed to be And whatever the Subject is not in Reality that is either falsly or improperly affirmed of it I hope this may suffice to shew that Ratram did not use the Term in M. Boileau's sense which is as much as I am obliged to prove But for the further manifestation of his Extravagance in imposing that signification upon it I shall proceed to let you see how contrary it is to the usage of the word Verity in other Ecclesiastical Writers of his own and Elder times I shall give you an Instance or two out of Tertullian who in answering those Hereticks who objected against the Reality of the Incarnation the words of St. Paul Rom. viii 3. God sending his Son in the LIKENESS of sinful Flesh c. thus expresseth himself (a) Non quod Similitudinem Carnis acceperit quasi IMAGINEM Corporis non VERITATEM Sed Similitudinem peccatricis carnis vult intelligi c. Tertul. de Carne Christi c. 16. Not that he assumed the LIKENESS of FLESH as if it were the IMAGE of a Body and not the VERITY i. e. a Real Body Again Answering an Objection of Marcion who said That if the Image of God the Soul sinned in Man the Guilt would affect God himself He saith (b) Porro IMAGO VERITATI haud usque quaque adaequabitur aliud enim est secundum VERITATEM esse aliud IPSAM VERITATEM esse Adv. Marcion l. 2. c. 9. The IMAGE must not be in all respects made equal with the VERITY it is one thing to be made after the TRUTH i. e. in imitation of it and another thing to be the VERY TRUTH it self Again He proves that Christ had a Real Body because the Sacrament was a Figure of it For there could be no Figure unless there were a TRUE Body Irenaeus doth not only use the word in the same sense but establisheth an Essential difference between the Image and Verity (c) Typus enim Imago secundum materiam secundum Substantiam aliquories a VERITATE diversus est secundum autem habitum lineamentum debet servare similitudinem Iren. adv Haer. l. 2. c. 40. A Type and Image saith he is sometimes in Matter and Substance different from the VERITY or TRUTH but it ought to resemble the Shape and Lineaments thereof They differ Substantially St. Cyprian also useth the Term in the same sense where making the deliverance of the First-born in Egypt whose Door-posts were sprinkled with the Blood of the Paschal Lamb a Type of our Salvation by the Cross and Passion of our Lord he saith (d) Quod ante occiso agno praecedit in imagine impletur in Christo secuta postmodum Veritate Cypr. ad Demetrian p. 194. Edit Oxon. That Salvation which antiently in the slaying of the Paschal Lamb went before in the way of an IMAGE is fulfilled in Christ the TRUTH which followed after St. Ambrose frequently useth VERITAS for the Reality speaking of boaring the Ear of the Jewish Servants and the Circumcision of their Flesh c. (e) SIGNA sunt ista non VERITAS Sed ille intelligit qui cor suum Spiritali Circumcisione castificat c. Ambr. in Ps 118. Oct. 13. These things are SIGNS and not the TRUTH which was Sanctification as he tells immediately And in what sense the word Verity must be taken when we find it opposed to Signs he elsewhere teacheth speaking of Abraham's Circumcision (f) Abraham Signum accepit Circumcisionis Vtique SIGNVM non IPSA RES sed ait rius rei est hoc est non VERITAS sed indicium VERITATIS de Abraham l. 1. in Gen. c. 17. The Apostle Paul said that Abraham received the Sign of Circumcision now the SIGN is not the THING IT SELF but the Representation of another Thing that is not the TRUTH but an Indication of the TRUTH where he not only opposeth the TRUTH to a SIGN but also expounds it to be the REALITY So Gaudentius Bishop of Brescia contemporary with St. Ambrose speaking of the Paschal Lamb as a Type of Christ's Death saith (g) Figura erat non Proprietas Dominicae Passionis FIGVRA etenim non est VERITAS sed imitatio VERITATIS Gaudent Brix Serm. 2. in Exod. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 2. Edit Par. 1610. It was a FIGURE of our Lord's Passion and not the PROPRIETY now a FIGURE is not the TRUTH or REALITY but an Imitation of the TRUTH Here he makes a Figure and the REALITY to be Inconsistent in their very Natures I might produce several Passages of St. Austine to the same effect but shall content my self with one or two (h) Hujus Sacrificii Caro Sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas SIMILITVDINVM promittebatur in Passione Christi per IPSAM VERITATEM reddebatur Post ascensum Christi per SACRAMENTVM MEMORIAE celebratur August contra Faustum Manich. l. xx c. 21. Having cited those words of the Psalmist Sacrificium laudis glorificabit me c. He addeth The Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice was promised by Typical Victims before the coming of Christ it was given in VERY TRUTH or Reality in the Passion of Christ and is celebrated in the SACRAMENT which is the MEMORIAL thereof after the Ascension of Christ This is a remarkable Passage not only as it gives us the true sense of the word verity but as it declares the Holy Eucharist to be an Historical Type of our Saviours Oblation on the Cross as the Jewish Sacrifices were Prophetical Types thereof but neither one nor the other his Flesh and Blood in Reality The other place is cited by Gratian whose Decretum the (i) Sed animum hic advertat Sanctitas tua Nam Decretalium Sexti Clementinarum Extravagantium tantum supra Meminimus ac non item Decreti quod minime mirum videri debet Est enim Perniciosus liber Authoritatem tuam valde imminuit c. Concil quorundam Episc de stabilienda Romana Eccles fol. 5. Bishops met at Bononia in their Advice to Pope Julius III. had reason upon account of this and many other Passages of the Antient Fathers and Councils no way favourable to Popery extant in that Collection to call a Pernicious Book The words occur not in the Works of St.
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