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
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
Trithemius in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers BErtram a Priest and Monk a very able Divine and also well skilled in Humane Learning a Person of a subtile Wit and great Eloquence and no less eminent for Sanctity than Learning hath written many excellent Pieces few of which have come to my knowledge To K. Charles Brother to Lotharius the Emperor he wrote a commendable Work. Of Predistination a He wrote two Books of Predestination one Book Of the Lords Body and Blood one Book He flourished in the Reign of Lotharius the Emperour A. D. 840. Here begins the Book of RATRAMNVS Concerning the BODY and BLOOD of the LORD To CHARLES the Great EMPEROUR The Preface I. YOU were pleased to command me Glorious Prince to signifie to your Majesty my Sentiments touching the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ Which Command is no less becoming your Highness than the Performance of it is above my poor Abilities For what can better deserve a Princes Care than to see that he himself be Catholick in his Judgment concerning the Sacred Mysteries of that God who has placed him on the Royal Throne and not able to endure that his Subjects should hold different opinions concerning the Body of Christ wherein it is evident that the sum of our Redemption by Christ consists II. Great disputes concerning the Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament For while some of the Faithful say concerning the Body and Blood of Christ which is daily celebrated in the Church that there is no Vail nor Figure but that the very thing it self is openly and really exhibited and others of them affirm that these things viz the Body the Body and Blood of Christ are present in a Mystery or Figure that it is one thing that appears to our bodily eyes and another thing that our Faith beholds it 's plain there is no small difference in Judgment among them And whereas the Apostle writes to the Faithful * 1 Cor. 1.10 That they should all think and speak the same thing and that there should be no Schism among them there is no small Division and Schism among those who believe and speak differently concerning the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ III. Wherefore your Royal Highness mov'd with Zeal for the true Faith and sadly laying to heart these and being withal desirous that as the Apostle commands The 〈◊〉 Consuâ—â— Ratramnus in the Controversie All Men should think and speak the same thing doth diligently search out this profound Truth that you may reduce those who err from it and for that purpose disdain not to consult the meanest well knowing that so profound a Mystery cannot be understood unless God reveal it who shews forth the Light of his Truth by whomsoever he pleases without Respect of Persons IV. And for my own part your Commands I joyfully obey notwithstanding the great difficulty I find to discourse on a subject so remote from humane Understanding and which no Man unless taught by the Holy Ghost can possibly penetrate Therefore in pure Obedience to your Majesty and with an entire confidence of his aid concerning whom I am to Treat I shall endeavour in as proper Terms as I am able to deliver my Sentiments on this Subject not relying on my own Understanding but following the steps of the Holy Fathers V. The State of the Controversie in two Questions YOur most Excellent Majesty demands Whether the Body and Blood of Christ which is in the Church received by the mouths of the Faithful be such in a Mystery or in Truth That is Whether it contain any secret thing discernable only by the eyes of Faith or whether without the Coverture of any Mystery the same thing appeareth outwardly to the bodily Sight which the eyes of the Mind do inwardly behold so that the whole matter is apparent and manifest to our Senses And whether it be the same Body which was Born of Mary and Suffered Died and was Buried and Rising again and ascending into Heaven sits at the Right Hand of the Father VI. The first Question discussed Let us consider the first of these two Questions And that we be not confounded by the Ambiguity of Terms let us define what a Figure is and what the Truth that having some certain mark in our Eye we may know how the better to direct the course of our Reasoning VII What a Figure is A Figure is a certain covert manner of Expression which exhibits what it intends under certain Vails For example We call the Word Bread as in the Lords Prayer we beg that God would give us our daily Bread Or as Christ in the Gospel speaks * John 6.51 I am the Living Bread that came down from Heaven Or when he calls himself a Vine and his Disciples Branches ‖ John 15.1 5. I am the true Vine and ye are the Branches In all these Instances one thing is said and another thing is understood VIII The Truth is the Representation of the very thing it self not vailed with any Shadow or Figure but expressed according to the pure and naked or to speak more plainly yet natural Signification of the words As when we say that Christ was Born of a Virgin Suffered was Crucified Dead and Buried Here is nothing shadowed out under the coverture of Figures but the very Truth of the thing is expressed according to the natural Signification of the words nor is any thing here understood but what is said But in the forementioned Instances it is not so For †i.e. In propriety of Nature So the Saxon Homily Aefter soðum gecynd nis Crist naþor ne hlaf in Substance neither is Christ Bread or a Vine nor the Apostles Branches These are Figures but in the other the plain and naked Truth is related IX He proves the Sacrament to be a Figure from the notion of a Mystery or a Sacrament Now let us return to the Subject which hath occasioned the saying of all this viz. the Body and Blood of Christ If there be no figure in that Mystery it is not properly called a Mystery for that cannot be said to be a Mystery which hath nothing secret nothing remote from our bodily Senses nothing covered under any Vail But as for that Bread which by the Ministry of the Priest is made Christ's Body it sheweth one thing outwardly to our Senses and inwardly proclaims quite another thing to the minds of the Faithful That which outwardly appears is Bread as it was before in Form Colour and Taste But inwardly there is quite another thing presented to us and that much more precious and excellent because it is Heavenly and Divine That is Christ's Body is exhibited which is beheld received and eaten not by our carnal Senses but by the sight of the believing Soul. X. Likewise the Wine which by the Priests Consecration is made the Sacrament of Christ's Blood appears one thing outwardly and
own Doctrine of Christ's Presence (a) This Miracle is found in Paschas Radbert de Corp. Sang. Dom. in Bibl. Patrum Par. 1610. Tom. VI. c. 14. They tell you of a Woman whofe doubts touching the Real Presence were cured at the Prayers of St. Gregory at whose request God caused the Host she was about to receive to appear as though there lay in the dish a joynt of a Finger all Bloody Whereas according to the Popish Doctrine Christ's (b) Concil Trid. Sess 13. Can. 3. whole Body Soul and Divinity is in every bit of the Host and drop of the consecrated Wine and this Miracle if it proves any thing must prove the contrary Again our Homilist in the beginning of p. 47. saith immediatly after those words cited by me out of the 46 page Therefore the Holy Mass is profitable both to the quick and to the dead The propitiatory Sacrifice was by this time set on foot which necessarily supposeth the Corporal Presence of Christ But it is worth observing however that the Adoration of the Sacrament sprang not up till some Ages after it being not mentioned either by Radbertus or Ratramnus or Elfrick in this Homily 3. The Third Opinion maintained by those who do not condemn our Author though they do this Book is that it is not the Work of Ratramnus but of Joannes Scotus And so it may be for ought I have hitherto said in regard he was more Ancient than our Saxon Homilist and equal with Bertram This Opinion was first delivered by the Learned (a) P. de Marca in Epistola Apud Dacherium in Spicil Tom. 2. Peter de Marca and is urged with great confidence by a (b) At the end of Mr. Arnaud's Defence in quarto Par. 1669. Dissert 1. The Author is Mr. Paris Monk of St. Genouefe whose Modesty M. Arnaud tells us caused him to conceal his Name This Dissertator makes a great dust with his Conjectures and would perswade us that Bertram and Ratramnus are not the same Person by reason of the variety of Names given him as I have shewn in the beginning of this Discourse but this is a poor shift for every one knows how differently Writers report the Names of Men who flourish'd in that Age and in those Parts of France and where the Authors make no difference it often happens by the Transcribers mistake One would think the Instance he gives of Cellot's Anonymous Writer who in his first leaf calls the Adversaries of Paschasius Rabanus and Ratramnus and in the next Babanus and Intramus might have suppressed that Objection In the next Section he saith Trithemius and Sigebert make Bertram to have written but one Book of Predestination whereas Ratramnus wrote two and that the two MSS. mentioned by Suffridus Petrus may be false written And I may better say they are not for he names neither more nor elder Copies that make it out As for the precise number of Books Sigebert and more curious Men are not always exact but many times where the Work is small call two Books Ad Carolum librum de Praedestin because one Work a Book so Sigebert saith and not one Book In his Third Section this Monk of St. Genouefe gives us nothing but a taste of his Modesty in taxing the incomparable Vsher of false dealing and telling the World that his Testimony is of no credit concerning a rasure out of a Manuscript he had seen at Cambridge and wonders he hath the confidence to hope that his bare word should be taken for it after his false dealing about Ratramnus his Book of Christ's Birth without telling how the Passage rased was recovered In the last Section he offers toward an Answer to the Reasons that induced Father Cellot to conclude Ratramnus Corbeiensis the Author of those Books which pass under the Name of Bertram I could were it worth while shew the insufficiency of his Answers and would do it but that I have in reserve such Testimonies from F. Mabillon as will baffle all his amusing Conjectures and to which any man of modesty will submit This he offers to prove that Bertram is not Ratramnus To make good the other part of his undertaking and shew that Joannes Scotus is the Author of this Book he suggests Three things 1. That this Book is agreeable to the account that is given of Scotus his Book whose Authority Berengarius used 2. That the style and manner of arguing are Scotus his peculiar way 3. That the Disciples of Berengarius after Scotus his Book was condemned in the Synods at Vercelli and Rome gave it the disguised Name of Bertram to preserve it from the flames His Arguments from the account given of Scotus his Book are well answered by F. Mabillon and all I shall say is what he omits viz. That the Doctrine of Scotus according to the best accounts we can have of it is not agreeable to that of Bertram for if F. Alexander and others are not Mistaken in (a) Quod Sacramenta Altaris non verum Corpus verus Sanguis sit Domini sed tantum memoria veri Corporis Sanguinis ejus de Praed c. 31. Hincmarus his meaning he taught that the Sacrament was only a Memory of Christ's Body and Blood which this Dissertator to give us a Specimen of his Honesty as he did before of his Modesty changes into a naked figure without any sort of Truth and expresly contrary to his Sentiments imputes to Bertram as his Doctrine 2. The style of Bertram and Scotus are not at all alike Scotus is full of Greek words and notions and citations out of the Greek Fathers which Bertram is free from His way of Arguing is not Syllogistical as Bertram's so far as I can observe by his Books De Naturis And his notion Scotus de Divisione Naturae l. 5 N. XX. Item l. 2. n. XI That Christ's glorified Body is absorpt in the Divine Nature and is not local nor visible nor had the same Members after its Resurrection which it had before will quite overthrow many of Bertram's Arguments to prove that in the Sacrament is not exhibited the same Body in which he died and rose again His Third suggestion is a meer Conjecture and a very weak one For if Berengarius his Disciples feigned that Name to preserve the Book from the fire What use did they preserve it for What service did it ever do them Who ever mentions any of them that alledged Bertram's Authority How comes it to pass that no Copies of it were preserved in the Southern Parts of France where the Albigenses and Waldenses Berengarius Disciples have abounded in all times ever since It is much they should not save one Copy of Bertram But since he is Conjecturing Why may not I offer a Conjecture or two in this matter 1. Why might not Bertram's Book through mistake both with Berengarius and his Adversaries pass under the Name of Scotus It is not impossible but I
insist not upon it 2. It is very probable that when the Synods of Vercellis and Rome condemned Scotus his Book to the flames those who had the execution of the Decree especially in Normandy and England Lanfranc's Province might burn Bertram for company and occasion the present scarcity of Manuscripts But to silence all these pretences and shew that Bertram's Book is no Forgery not corrupted by Heretical mixtures nor yet written by Scotus but Ratramnus Monk of Corbey I shall close this Chapter with the iningenuous acknowledgment of the Learned and honest F. Mabillon who saith Act. Ben. Sec. IV. p. 2. Praef. p. 45. n. 83. Travelling in the Netherlands I went to the Monastery of Lobez where among the few Manuscripts now remaining I found two One Book written 800 years since containing two pieces one of the Lord's Body and Blood and the other of Predestination the former one Book the latter two The Inscription and beginnings of both were thus in the Manuscript Thus begins the Book of RATRà NVS Therefore it is not Jo. Scotus of the Body and Blood of the Lord. You commanded me Glorious Prince At the end of this Book Thus begins the Book of RATRAMNVS concerning God's Predestination To his Glorious Lord and most Excellent King Charles RATRAMNVS c. As in the Printed Book The other Book was a Catalogue of the Library of Lobez with this Title A. D. 1049. The Friars of Lobez taking an account of the Library find in it these Books Ratramnus of the Lord's Body and Blood one Book The same Author of God's Predestination two Books which gives us to understand that the Book which contains these pieces of Ratramnus is the very same set down in the Catalogue A. D. 1049. and written before that time and by the hand it appears to have been written a little before the IX Century And I doubt not but it is the very Book which Herigerus Abbot of Lobez used at the end of the X Century This is full proof that Ratramnus is the Author and that the Book is no modern Forgery being 800 years old Well but hath it not been corrupted and interpolated by Hereticks Let F. Mabillon answer again touching the sincerity of the Editions of this Book I compared saith he the Lobez Manuscript with the Printed Books Ibid. p. 64. nu 130. and the reading is true except in some faulty places which I corrected by the Excellent Lobez Manuscript There is (a) That word is existit p. which I have inserted into the Text upon F. Mabillon's Authority Let the Papists make their best of it one word of some moment omitted which yet I will not say was fraudulently left out by the Hereticks the first Publishers of it in regard as I said before there appears not any thing of unfaithfulness in other places Thus doth this Learned and Ingenuous Benedictine testifie that the Book we now publish is a genuine piece of the IX Century that Ratramnus Monk of Corbey is the true Author and that his Work is come to our hands sincere and without Heretical mixtures either of Berengarius or Wiclef's Disciples (a) Mabil Iter Germanicum praefixum Analect Tom. IV. Incipit Liber Ratramni de perceptione Corporis Sanguinis Domini ad Carolum Magnum Beside the Lobez MS. the same Father in his Germain Voyage met with another in the Monastery of Salem Weiler which he judgeth by the hand to be 700 years old This gives the Title in the end as the Lobez MS. but in the beginning styleth it The Book of Ratramne of Receiving the Lords Body and Blood. To Charles the Great CHAP. IV. Of the the true Sense of the Author in some controverted Expressions BEfore we can comprehend the Sentiments of Ratramnus in the Controversie depending between us and the Church of Rome touching Christ's Presence in the Sacrament it will be necessary to settle and clear his true meaning in some Terms which frequently occur in this Tract Because our Adversaris by abusing the ambiguity of them and expounding them according to the Prejudices wherewith Education hath possest them seem to think Bertram their own and charge us with impudence and folly in pretending to his Authority Those Terms which are in the state of the Question are the principal Keys of the whole Discourse and well understood will open our Author's mind therein That * Quod in Ecclesia ore fidelium sumitur Corpus Sanguis Christi Qu. 1. § 5. Quod ore fidelium per Sacramentorum Mysterium in Ecclesia quotidie sumitur Q. 2. sect 50. which the mouth receiveth is the Subject of both Questions Not what the Faithful receive any way but what their Teeth press their Throat swalloweth and their Bellies receive In what sense the consecrated Elements are Christ's Body and Blood and whether his natural Body or not In the first Question there are two opposite Terms †See them explain'd by Bertram himself sect 7 8. and him determining the Sacramental change to be Figuratively wrought not corporally sect 9 16. and supporting himself by the Testimony of St. Augustine de Doctr. Christ l. 3. c. 16. Figure and Truth Figure The word Figure when applied to Terms or Propositions is taken in a Rhetorical sense and implies those Expressions not to be proper but either Metaphors or Metonymies c. as when Christ is called a Vine When applied to things as the consecrated Elements Figure and Mystery are of the same signification and imply the thing spoken of to be a Sign or Representation of some other thing Verity or Truth And on the contrary Verity or Truth in this Tract when applied to Terms or Propositions signifies Propriety of Speech but when applied to things it imports * In Proprietate Substantialiter in manifestationis Luce in veritatis simplicitate in this Tract are equivalent to naturally and in Verity of Nature This the Saxon Homily very well clears and as superficie tenus considerata answers to in proprietate a little before in Bertram sect 19. so in the Saxon Homily superficie tenus considerata is rendred after bodily understanding which answers to true Nature immediately preceding Truth of Nature So then Ratramnus determines the first Question to this effect That the words of our Saviour in the Institution of the Holy Eucharist are not to be taken properly but figuratively and that the consecrated Elements orally received by the Faithful are not the True Body of Christ but the Figure or Sacrament of it though not meer empty figures or naked signs void of all Efficacy but such as through the Blessing annext to our Saviour's Institution and the powerful operation of the Spirit of Christ working in and by those Sacred Figures is the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ Besides this Another sence of Verity Verity or Truth hath yet another sence as it stands opposed to a Lye or Falshood For a Proposition
is not immediately false where the Praedicate is a Metaphor or Metonymy and doth not in its first and native signification agree to the subject for unless the Trope be too obscure it conveys the Speakers true meaning into the mind of such as hear him Now in this sence (a) Non utique mentitur c. sect 35. supra cur nemo tam ineptus est ut nos ita loquentes arguat esse mentitos c. St. Augustine cited by our Author saith he tells no Lye who giveth the Name of the thing itself to the Sign and Sacrament of it and that this manner of speaking was perfectly understood And I may add it was very familiar among the Jews and is Authorised by a multitude of Scripture Examples Now in this sence Ratramnus in some places affirms that the consecrated Elements are truly Christ's Body and Blood and this without the least contradiction to himself though in the other sence he more frequently denies it And a due regard to these two sences of Verity or Truth will clear the obscurity of which the Romanists accuse our Author in many Passages of this Work. There is another term of the same importance Manifestation viz. Manifestation but our Adversaries pretend it is a Key of the whole Work because Ratramnus defines Truth to be rei manifestae demonstratio and charge the (a) Mabilonius A.B. Sec. IV P. 2. Praef. n. 101. French Translator of falsifying the Author because he renders manifestae manifesta participatione real and really They say whatever is manifest is real but the word real doth not express the full notion of manifest which further includes evidence many things being real which are not manifest And this is true But yet Bertram's sence of the word must be judged by his own use of it which will appear by inspecting the several places of the Book where it occurs and I must needs say that I cannot make sence of him if he mean not as the French Translator hath rendred him In the state of the question where he explains Verity by that which appears manifestationis luce in a manifest light or naked and open his meaning in that Question or rather the meaning of those against whom he writes and whose error the first part of this Discourse is intended to rectifie cannot be whether the Sacrament was the Body of Christ appearing in its own shape to our bodily Eye For that Cardinal Perron or Mr. Arnaud do not pretend the Stercorarists or whoever else Bertram opposeth to have believed but that the accidents of Bread and Wine affected or were subjected in the natural Body and Blood of Christ Now as to the matter of the Manifest appearance of Christ's Body it is all one whether the accidents of Bread and Wine be subjected in the Body and Blood of Christ or subsist without a subject for the bodily Eye doth not behold the Body of Christ the more or less manifestly for that nor doth it at all manifestly behold Christ's Body unless it see him in the form of a Man. And therefore if they meant any thing it must be whether the sensible Object in the Sacrament were Christ's very Body though under the figure of the Sacramental Elements But to clear the point we need only compare the two Prayers in the close of Bertram's Discourse on the second Question and we shall find that what in one Prayer they beg of God to receive by a manifest participation in the other they pray to be made really partakers of and in the same Collect manifest participation is opposed to Receiving in a Sacramental Image Now there is nothing more naturally opposed to an Image than the very thing whose Image it is or to a Sacrament than the res Sacramenti the real Object signified and exhibited under it The Reader will find the word bears the same sence in those few other places where Ratramnus useth it which are all near the end of the Book Another controverted Term is Species Species which hath two sences in this Book It is most commonly used to signifie the kind and specifical nature of any thing and is always so taken where it is set in opposition to a Figure or Sacrament or where the Author is declaring the nature of the consecrated Elements Sometimes it signifies the appearance or likeness of a thing so it is taken when it is opposed to Truth as in the Post-Communion Prayer cited by Ratramnus and in his Inferences from it Besides these the Romanists have another acceptation of the word making it to signifie the sensible qualities of the consecrated Elements subsisting without their substance in which sence I positively affirm that Species is no where used in this Treatise And herein the Authors of the (a) Index Expurg Belg. in Bertramo tametsi non diffitear Bertramum tunc temporis nescivisse exacte accidentia ista absque omni substantia sua subsistere c. Belgick Index will bear me out who acknowledge that Bertram did not exastly know how Accidents could subsist out of their Subjects which subtil Truth latter Ages have learnt out of the Scripture As Species ordinarily signifies Nature Species Visibilis so the addition of Visibilis alters not its signification For Ratramnus doth not speak of those qualities which immediately affect the sence abstracted from their Subject And I know nothing in Reason nor yet in the Holy Scriptures which are the Rule of our Faith that can inforce us to believe that our Senses are not as true Judges of what the Mouth receiveth in the Sacrament as they are of the nature of any other Object whatsoever and may as easily discern whether it be Bread or Flesh as they can distinguish a Man from a Tree Our Author frequently mentions the Divine Word Divine Word by whose power the Sacred Elements are Spiritually changed into Christ's Body Now when he thus speaks we must not imagine that he means a natural change of the Substance of the thing consecrated by the efficacy of the words of consecration but a Spiritual change effected by the Power and Spirit of Christ who is God the Word as he explains himself The last Term that needs explaining Spiriutal Body is Christ's Spiritual Body this he affirms the Sacrament to be in many places Now by a Spiritual Body we are not to understand the natural Body of Christ but existing after the manner of a Spirit or as our Adversaries love to speak not according to its proper existence that is to say it is Christ's Natural Body but neither visible nor local nor extended this is not Bertram's sence of Christ's Spiritual Body but that the thing so called is Figuratively and Mystically Christ's Body and that it Spiritually communicates to the Faithful Christ with all the benefits of his Death I may also add that Bertram uses great variety of Phrases to express that which we call the outward sign in the Sacrament that
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
7. but advanced such a Notion of it as amounted to no more than the Illumination of the Mind by God's Spirit Whereas the Catholicks did further acknowledge its powerful Sway over our Wills and its assistance in every good Work. Now if Paschasius and his Party do in Words acknowledge a Sign or Figure but such as in effect is none Ratram might well enough charge them with denying any Vail or Figure in the Sacrament Bertram and (k) Quae ob id Sacramenta dicuntur quia sub tegumento corporalium rerum Virtus Divina Secretius Salutem eorundem Sacramentorum operatur n. 46. Isidore cited by him make Sacramental Figures to be res corporales Corporal Things not only the proper Accidents of a Body as the Figure and Tast of Bread and Wine which Paschase and Haymo both admit in the Sacrament but Corporal Substances And in the Holy Eucharist (l) Sub velamento corporei Panis corporeique Vini c. n. 16. See Numb 97.98 Ratram saith That Christ's Spiritual Body and Blood are under the Vail of Corporeal Bread and Corporeal Wine which are Bodily Substances He also saith of the Consecrated (m) Corpus Sanguis Christi quae Fidelium ore in Ecclesia percipiuntur Figurae sunt secundum visibilem Speciem Which is expounded by Visibilem Creaturam in four Lines after n. 49. Bread and Cup which is called Christ's Body and Blood that it is a Figure of Christ's proper Body That the Body and Blood of Christ received in the Church are Figures as they are Visible Creatures Whereas (n) Lib. de C. S. D. c. 4. Est autem figura vel character hoc quod exterius sentitur sed totum veritas nulla adumbratio quod intrinsecus percipitur Paschase contends that the Consecrated Elements are both a Figure and the Truth as Christ who is true God is stiled (o) Heb. 1.3 the Figure or Character of his Substance This Haymo although he teacheth a Real Presence of Christ's natural Body look'd upon as absurd saying that nothing can be a Figure or Sign of it self and upon that account denied (p) Panis ille Sacratus Calix signa dicuntur Non autem hoc quantum ad carnem Christi Sanguinem accipiendum est Jam enim Corpus Sanguis Christi non essent Nullum enim Signum est illud cujus est Signum Nec res aliqua sui ipsius dicitur Signum sed alterius Apud Mabill A. B. S. 4. p. 2. Praef. n. 93. The consecrated Elements to be Signs of Christs Body Nor will the Text cited by Paschase bring him off for in the (q) It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Original Christ is said to be the Figure of his Person not his Substance and the Vulgar Interpreter must mean Subsistence by Substantia or he was an Arian For the Son was the Image not of the Essence but the Person of the Father and consequently Christ was not truly the Father though truly God so that the same thing is not proved to be both a Figure and Truth I confess Paschase expounds the Words of Christ's Human Nature which tho' it clear him of Arianism yet it spoils his proof that a thing may be a Figure of it self Upon reading his Book with the best attention I was able I cannot say whether he deny the Substance of the Consecrated Elements to remain or not he is so inconsistent with himself and seems rather to be for Impanation than Transubstantiation But our Adversaries believing his Doctrine to be the same with that of the present Church of Rome which is that meer Accidents remain to be a Figure or Vail of Christs natural Body he and they are as justly chargeable with denying any Figure as the Fancied Predecessors of Abbaudus and Walter nay as those Authors themselves who only asserted that Christ's very Body not the Accidents only was sensible and sensibly broken but never denied that the Accidents or somewhat which made the same Impressions on Sense as did the Accidents of Bread and Wine before Consecration shrowded it from their Eyes Whether those Accidents were subjected in Christ's Body or only environed it or whether God miraculously Imprinted the Idea of them on the Organs of Sense the case is no way varied For the Natural Body of Christ is still covered from the outward Senses so that what is pretended could not be the Point in Dispute between Ratram and his Adversaries who must needs admit a Figure and Vail in the Holy Eucharist as the Roman Catholicks now do 2. A right Understanding of the Terms of the Question will clear the Truth of what I said last and overthrow M. Boileau's Fancy In the Question there are three Parts to be considered 1. (r) Subjectum Quod in Ecclesia ore fidelium sumitur Suppositum Quod Corpus Sanguis Christi fiat Quaesitum An hoc fiat in Mysterio an in Veritate The Subject of it which is comprized in these words That which the Faithful do in the Church receive with the Mouth which import somewhat more than the bare Accidents or Superficies of Bread and Wine viz. the Substance which they environ and which passeth into the Mouth with them 2ly A thing admitted by both Parties touching this Subject viz. That by Consecration it is made Christ's Body and Blood. 3ly The point remaining in debate which is in what manner and by what sort of change it is made Christ's Body and Blood whether by a true and natural change or only by a Mystical and Sacramental change There is a great Emphasis in the Word Fiat which is more than a bare Verb Substantive in the Question and imports a change made (s) At quia confitentur Corpus Sanguinem Dei esse nec hoc esse potuisse nisi facta in melius commutatione neque ista commutatio Corporaliter sed Spiritaliter facta sit necesse est jam ut figurate facta esse dicatur Ratr. n. 16. Ratram proves against his Adversaries that it was a Figurative and Mystical not a Substantial and Corporal change and Haymo (t) Idem Panis in Carnem Domini mutatur idem Vinum in Sanguinem Domini transfertur non per figuram neque per umbram sed per Veritatem Haymo Hom. in Evang. die S. Palmarum Item in 1 Cor. 11. eadem habet prope ad verbum who was of the contrary Opinion makes the Elements to be converted into Christs Body and Blood not Figuratively or Mystically but in Verity so that if Haymo were as F. Mabillon (u) A. B. S. 4. p. 2. n. 93. supposes the Adversary whom our Author disputes against on the first Question Ratram as expresly denies the Real Presence of Christ's Natural Body in the Holy Eucharist as Paschase or Haymo can assert it I confess he explains Verity by Manifestation and makes them to say that the Object of their Faith was also perceived by the bodily Eye
but their meaning must only be that what they saw upon the Altar was truly certainly and without any Trope the Lord's Body Manifestation doth not necessarily import the Sensible Evidence of a thing but rather its certain Truth And accordingly it is used in this Sense by our Author in another Work (w) Ratramn de Praed lib. 2. p. 77. Apud Mauguin Qui vero ad illum quive atâ— istum pertineant finem in hac mortalitatis caligine nulla veritatis manifestatione comprehenditur Verba Isidori sunt supra Incertum tamen est ad quem sint Finem Praedestinati where expounding Isidores words Who are predestinated to Life and who to Death is uncertain expresseth it thus It is not comprehended by any manifestation of the Truth But more of this when I come to consider how M. Boileau expounds the Controverted Terms of our Author 3. Let us for once admit though it be false that the Writers whom he names did in the Twelfth Century hold the Opinion which he pretends our Author to have confuted How doth this infer that any body held it in Bertram's daies neer 300 Years before This sort of Reasoning is a little of kin to the Logick of that Oxford Alderman who said That if they could prove that King Henry the Eighth Reigned before King Henry the Sixth the City would carry their cause It is true he adds That this was a common Opinion in the middle of the Eleventh Century when Berengarius made his first Recantation and that Opinions do not grow common all on a sudden I hope he doth not think it was the Opinion of Pope Nicolas II. and the Council who ordered Berengarius to recant in that Form if he does it 's a shrewd Reflection on the Pope's Infallibility But suppose it were then commonly believed cannot an Opinion grow common under 200 Years Did not Gnosticism and the Millenary Opinions grow common in a much shorter time Did not Arianism overspread the World in less than 40 Years Nay are not the Doctrines of Molino grown common in 7 Years space There is nothing in that Chapter of Paschase like the Sentiments which he would fix upon Ratram's Adversaries and one of the Passages to which he refers viz. That the Sacrament is digested and passeth into the Draught is precisely Ratram's own Doctrine and he argues thence That what is Orally received is not Christ's Natural Body The Truth is the Opinions of Abbaudus and Walter plainly point out their Original The Dispute about the breaking of Christ's Body sprung from that beastly form of Recantation imposed upon Berengarius by Pope Nicolas the II. of which the Romanists themselves were afterwards ashamed and neither Nubes Testium nor Consensus Veterum think it convenient to be cited among their Testimonies for Transubstantiation The Pope and Cardinal Humbert (x) Ore corde profiteor de Sacramentis Dominicae Mensae eam fidem tenere quam Dominus venerabilis Papa Nicolaus haec Sancta Synodus tenendam tradidit scilicet Panem Vinum quae in Altari ponuntur post consecrationem non solum Sacramentum sed etiam verum Corpus Sanguinem Domini Nostri J. C. esse sensualiter non solum Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri Apud Gratianum de Consecr Dist 2. c. 42. Ego Berengarius resolving to make it full enough quite over-did the Business for they made him profess it as the Faith of the Pope and Council That Christ's Body is Sensibly and Truly and not only Sacramentally handled and broke by the Priest's hands and ground by the Teeth of the Faithful When the Council was over and the Recantation came to be scanned some who were too much (y) Abaelardus and others Vide Sequentiam in Festo Corp. Christi in Missali Rom. Fracto demum Sacramento Ne vacilles sed memento Tantum esse sub Fragmento Quantum toto tegitur Nulla rei fit scissura Signi tantum fit Fractura Qua nec status nec statura Signati minuitur Divines to believe the natural Body of Christ capable of Fraction or Division said it was broken and chew'd in Sacramento non in Re in the Signs only viz. the Accidents and outward Forms of Bread Others as (z) See their Words cited by M. Boileau in his Preface p. 36. And in the Remarks p. 210. 211 212 213 215. Abbaudus and Walter were for adhering to the Letter of the Council and were too much Philosophers to believe Accidents could subsist without a subject and they contended that our Saviours Body under those Accidents was broken truly and said that if it were not really broken it was not really his Body So that to say that the breaking affected only the Species or abstracted Qualities was to revive the Heresie of Berengarius This is the true Pedigree of the Disputes about the breaking of Christ's Body which cannot be deriv'd from any greater Antiquity than the Roman Synod A. D. 1059. This is more than enough to confute all that M. Boileau offers to prove that Ratram's Adversaries believed no Figure in the Holy Sacrament Let us next see how he proves that the Opinion encountred by him in the Second part of this Tract was not the Opinion of Paschase but of some body he knows not who that held the Sensible part of the Holy Eucharist or the Accidents of Bread and Wine to be the same Body which was Born of the Virgin c. Truly for the Proof hereof he misrepresents the Subject of the Question as though it were only concerning the Sensible Qualities of what is received in the Holy Sacrament whereas it is touching the Thing orally received Then he refers us to his Translation and Remarks which we shall consider in their proper place And in the beginning of his Preface he sets aside the Testimony of Cellot's Anonymus who tells us That Ratram and Rabanus both opposed Paschase in this Point tho' the Truth of what he asserts be notorious from the express Words of both those Writers And the Words of Rabanus are so Emphatical that although I have already (a) Dissert c. 6. produced them I cannot but repeat them here and add some few remarks to shew how fully and directly they contradict the Popish Notion of the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Holy Eucharist His words are these (b) Quidam nuper de ipso Sacramento Corporis Sanguinis Domini non rite sentientes dixerunt hoc ipsum Corpus Sanguinem Domini quod de Maria Virgine natum est in quo ipse Dominus passus est in cruce resurrexit de Sepulchro idem esse quod sumitur de Altari cui errori c. Rhabani Ep. ad Heribald ad calcem Reginonis c. 33. Some of late entertaining false Sentiments touching this Sacrament of the Lord's Body and Blood have said That this very Body and Blood of our Lord which was
of the Ninth Century the Age immediately before him and of the true Importance of the controverted Terms and Phrases of this Book from Aelfric than from Mr. Boileau or any interessed Writer of these times How large a part of the Saxon Homily for Easter day was taken out of this Piece (t) Dissert ch 3. I have shewn before And as Mr. Wheelock (u) In notis ad Bedae l. v. c. 22. p. 462. Liber Catholicorum Sermonum Anglice in Ecclesia per annum recitandus well observeth from the general Title of the Manuscript from which he hath Printed it this Sermon must not be looked upon as the Private Judgment of a single Doctor but the publick Doctrine of the English Church in that Age. Now Bertram's expressions are so Translated into the Saxon as renders them incapable of that Paraphrase which Mr. Dean of Sens hath given us This I hope to make appear from sundry Passages of the Homily which now and then upon occasion I shall crave leave to Translate for my Self where the Version Printed with the Text is too literal and therefore somewhat obscure 1. Here is acknowledged what some of our Adversaries are loth to own though it is impossible to deny it that there were Controversies about the Presence of Christ's Body in the Holy Eucharist in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries (w) Nu smeadon ge hÆ¿ilc men oft and git gelome smeagaþ Nonnulli saepe disputaâ—unt etiamnum frequenter disputant Male in praesenti disputat per C l. Wheelock redditur smeadon Men oft have Disputed and still do frequently Dispute c. And the Question was not as M. Boileau bears us in hand whether there be any Figure in the Sacrament But what is the effect of Consecration By what sort of change it makes Bread and Wine become Christ's Body and Blood Whether by a Physical or a Mystical change And consequently whether the Holy Sacrament be called the Body and Blood of Christ in Propriety of Speech that is in a Literal or Figurative Sense The Words are these How Bread made of Corn and Baked with Fire can be turned into Christ's Body And how Wine is by Consecration turned into Christ's Blood That Ratram's first Question and that here discussed by our Homilist is one and the same is apparent from the Answers given by both Authors and the Instances whereby they explain the Terms Figure and Truth And as in the Saxon the Emphasis lies unquestionably on the Word (x) Hu se hlaf mage be on aÆ¿end to cristes lichaman oððe ê§ Æ¿in þeor þe aÆ¿end c. Fol. 30. Turned so doubtless in Ratram the Word Fiat is of the like force and imports the Question to be By what kind of change the Consecrated Elements are made Christ's Body and Blood Whether it be by a Substantial or only by a Sacramental change 2. As Ratram to clear his Discourse gives us such definitions of a Figure and Truth as best agree to Figurative and True that is proper Forms of Speech So Aelfric premiseth (y) ðurh getacnunge ðurh geÆ¿issum ðinge Fol. 30. a distinction of things attributed to Christ some Figuratively and some Truly and Properly And to express the latter he useth a Word which answers to manifestatio and res manifesta in Ratram and fully expresseth its Sense in the Explication of the first Question and the Terms above-mentioned The Saxon (z) Ãurh geÆ¿issum ðinge geÆ¿is Certus planus manifestus Somneri Lex The opposition of this term to getacnunge directs us in this place which acceptation to chuse as Bread Lamb Lion c are affirmed of Christ in an improper or Figurative Sense so that he was born of the Virgin Crucified and rose again are affirmed of him in the plain manifest and proper Sense of the words Word signifies certain plain or manifest and is opposed to Figurative and therefore cannot import the sensible Evidence of Things as Mr. Boileau pretends but the plain manifest and natural Signification of Words The Instances both in the Homily and Bertram are an undeniable Proof hereof and withal give us Light into their Sense of our Saviours Words This is my Body which they understood not literally but figuratively which is what Aelfric himself meant by not corporally but spiritually and no doubt in that Sense he understood Bertram and that he was not mistaken is evident from num 74. where the Words corporally and spiritually can be no other Sense (a) Sicut non Corporaliter sed Spiritualiter Panis ille credentium Corpus DICITUR sic quoque Christi Corpus non Corporaliter sed Spiritualiter necesse est INTELLIGATUR n. 74. Aelfric saith Fol. 23. that Christians must not keep the Old Law lichamlice corporally i. e. literally But learn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what it Spiritually signifieth that is of what Christian Duties it was the Figure And in this Sense the Letter and Spirit and the Flesh and Spirit are opposed each to other by Saint Paul. As the Bread is not corporally but spiritually that is not literally and properly but figuratively said to be the body of the Faithful so is there a necessity of understanding it in the same Sense to be the Body of Christ Not corporally SAID to be c. not corporally UNDERSTOOD c. can signifie nothing else but not literally and properly affirmed to be the Body of Christ or of the Faithful In this Sense the word Corporally is taken when it is applied to Terms and Propositions but when applied to things as the Baptismal Water the Consecrated Elements in the Eucharist or the Types of the Old Testament it signifies the natural Substance by positive Institution made a Figure in opposition to its Sacramental Signification and Virtue and our Homilist calls the spiritual Mystery the spiritual Virtue or spiritual Vnderstanding thereof 3. Aelfric so expounds Ratram as to make him expresly deny that the Holy Eucharist is Christ's Body in Truth of Nature and affirm it to be Bread and Wine after Consecration When the Objection is made Why is the Holy Sacrament called Christs Body and Blood if it be not Truly what it is called He admits that the Consecrated Elements are not in Verity of Nature the Body and Blood of Christ Whereas if Aelfric had been a Transubstantiatour he would have denied the Supposition and with M. Boileau have said The sensible part of the Holy Sacrament i. e. the Accidents of Bread and Wine are not Christ's Body they are only the Vails and Figures that cover it but his very natural Body and Blood are environed by and contained really under those Vails He would roundly have answered That by Consecration the Substance of Bread and Wine was substantially converted into Christ's Body and Blood so that nothing of their Substances but only the sensible Qualities and outward Figure of them remained Whereas he saith that we sensibly discern them in Figure and Tast to be Bread and Wine
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
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
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
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.
exegeticè usurpatur that TRULY and REALLY are Terms equivalent and here the former is expounded by the latter I have been the more prolix on this Term because M. Boileau layeth the stress of the whole Controversie upon its true Sense in which I persuade my self that any impartial Reader must needs perceive him to have been grosly misled by Prejudice I shall now proceed to shew how gross an Errour he is guilty of in expounding another Term of no less moment in this Controversie which is the word SPECIES which he makes to signifie the (b) I l signifie apparence non pas la Substance la Nature des choses comme les Philosophes le prennent ordinairement Praef. p. 41. Remarq p. 220 p. 250. I l n'entend pas la Verite de la Nature mais seulement ce que l'on appellè les Accidents qui tombent sous le sens p. 253 254. Appearance and not the Substance and Nature of things in which Exposition if I prove him deceived he must for ever renounce his confident claim of Ratram for a Patron of Transubstantiation Let us then before we offer any thing to evince the contrary see what Proof M. Boileau brings to make out his Assertion that by Species in this Tract must be understood the Sensible Apearance or Accidents and not the Nature or Substance of things Now for Proof hereof he sends the Reader to his Remarks and upon a careful perusal of the places to which he refers I protest I cannot observe the least Shew or Appearance either of Reason or Authority to countenance the sense which he imposeth on the Term and the Truth is I have always had more trouble to find out his Arguments than to Answer them The former of the two places to which he refers is a Remark on these words (c) Rem p. 220. on n. xii Quoniam secundum veritatem Species creaturae quae fuerat ante permansisse cognoscitur It is well known that the Species of the Creature remains in Truth what it was before This Passage I confess deserved a Remark and unless our Translator make out his sense of Species very clearly it will stand in direct Opposition to the Trent Doctrine That the Substance of Bread and Wine remain not after Consecration To clear this Passage he therefore cites another by which it may be expounded in which Ratram saith (d) Non enim secundum quod videtur vel carnis Species in illo pane cognoscitur vel in illo vino Cruoris unda monstratur num x. That we see not the Form or Appearance of Flesh and Blood in this Mystery How honestly that Passage is thus rendred by him hath been already shewn but how he proves Species in that place to signifie Appearance I am still to learn for as I noted before unda cruoris imports the Liquid Substance of Blood and gives us fair ground to conclude that Species Carnis signifieth the Substance and not the meer Accidents of Flesh He further addeth (e) Rem p. 220. That Ratram learnt this use of the word from the Books of the Sacraments ascribed to St. Ambrose whence he cites this Passage following for an Example of it (f) Spiritus enim Sanctus in Specie Columbae non in Veritate columbae descendit de Coelo lib. 1. cap. 3. The Holy Ghost descended from Heaven in the Species or likeness of a Dove not in the Verity or Real Substance of a Dove I freely grant the word in this place imports the Likeness or Appearance in opposition to Truth of Nature but then withal I deny that it signifieth any thing like what they make Species of Bread and Wine in the Holy Eucharist to be It doth not import all the Sensible Qualities of a True Dove which was miraculously converted into the Holy Ghost nor yet doth it imply the Sensible Accidents of a Dove existing without a Subject For though the generality of the Fathers are express in denying the Holy Spirit to have assumed the Nature or Real Body of a Dove yet some of them (g) Surgenti manifesta Dei praesentia claret Scinditur auricolor coeli septemplicis aethra Corporeamque gerens Speciem descendit ab alto Spiritus aeream simulans in nube columbam Jnvencus Evang. Hist l. 1. inter Poet. Vet. Eccles Basil 1564. in Quarto Non tamen de avibus sumpsisse columbam sed ex aere minime dubitatur l. 3. de mirabil Script c 5. apud August Tom. 3. make him to have assumed a Body like a Dove formed of Air condensed of which matter it is ordinarily believed the Bodies assumed by Angels do consist And if so the Accidents which affect the Senses have a Real and Corporeal as the Colours and Features of a well-made Effigies subsist in a Real Subject though not in the Very Person whom it resembles So that this Citation is no Authority for the sense he imposeth on the Term and upon examination of these Books whence he makes Bertram to have learn'd this use of the word Species many undeniable Examples of its being used for the Substance and Specifick Nature will appear This is all the Proof he offers unless the ipse dixit of a Sorbon Doctor must pass for a Demonstration (h) Ad num 54. the other Remark to which he sends us contains neither Argument nor Authority to bear out his Exposition of that Term. I shall therefore now take leave to enquire into the true sense thereof and in a short Digression give a probable Account how it came into use with Ecclesiastick Authors And had M. Boileau taken the same method to search out the true meaning of Species which he took to justifie his forced Interpretation of Veritas that is had been pleased to consult the Learned M. du Cange I might have spared my pains From him he might have learn'd that it is (i) Species Vox J. C. notissima quibus idem sonat quod veteribus fruges c. Glossar Tom. 3. col 918. a Term wherewith the Lawyers are well acquainted and signifieth all that the Ancient Latin Writers include in the Notion of Fruges Wine Oyl Corn Pulse c. And the Glossary at the end of the Theodosian Code published by Gothofred extende its Signification (k) Species sunt res seu corpora quaecunque quorum usus est aliquis in humana conversatione quidem quae tributi annonarumque nomine Fisco penduntur Glossar Nomic tit Species to all Necessaries of Life Tributes Publick Stores of Provisions and not only for the Belly but the Back also Rich Cloaths and Houshold-stuff Jewels as also Materials for Building Timber and Iron passing by that Name in both the Theodosian and Justinian Codes in the Writers of the Imperial History Vegetius Cassiodorus c. In the Theodosian Code there are many Laws concerning the publick Species (l) Tributa in ipsis Speciebus inferri Non sunt pretia
distinguish between the Substance of Bread and Wine and their Appearance determining the former to be Changed upon Consecration and the latter to remain unaltered but there is nothing like it in the whole Book Lastly in (o) De Praedest lib. 1. p. 42. ibidem Vniversa quae sive secundum corpus sive secundum animam aguntur c. another work our Author saith that God appoints all things quae secundum corpus homines patiuntur which affect men in their Bodies now I suppose none will be so ridiculous as to interpret the words of the Appearance of their Bodies which plainly import the Natural Substance And even in this place he had just before said that as to the (p) N. 14. Secundum Speciem namque Creaturae panis vinum nihil habent in se permutatum Species of the Creature neither the Bread or Wine have any thing changed Which hath been fully proved to imply the Nature or Kind of those Creatures Likewise in the following context these Phrases in Truth or Reality and in their Proper Essence are used in the same sense with Corporally And doubtless whatever any thing is according to its proper Essence that it is (q) In Proprietate humor corruptibilis n. 18. in Propriety of Nature or (r) Nam Substantialiter nec Panis Christus c. Substantially both which Terms are used by this Author In another place (s) n. 65. 66. where he saith we must not consider any thing Corporally in that Meat and Drink viz. the Consecrated Elements he gives this Reason Because the soul cannot feed on Corporal Meat and Drink Now I would fain be informed whether the Substance of Bread and Wine be not as unsuitable Food for the soul as the sensible Appearances thereof as also whether the Soul can feed on the Natural Flesh of Christ any more than on Bread and Wine The words are easie to be understood by any man who hath no interest to make the plainest things obscure and their meaning is that the Soul which is a Spirit cannot receive Nourishment from any material Food which is it self a Corporeal Substance and the proper Sustenance of the Body Lastly He saith elsewhere (t) n. 75. Si Vinum illud Sanctificatum in Christi Sanguinem Corporaliter convertitur aqua quoque quae pariter admixta est in Sanguinem Populi credentis necesse est Corporaliter convertatur At videmus in aqua Secundum Corpus nihil esse conversum consequenter ergo et in Vino nihil Corporaliter ostensum If the Wine be CORPORALLY changed into Christ's Blood then must the Water mixed with it in the Chalice be CORPORALLY turned into the Blood of the Faithful Now we see that the Water hath nothing in it CORPORALLY changed therefore neither hath the Wine c. Will M. Boileau say that Ratram beleived the Water to be Really and Substantially tho not Sensibly and in outward Appearance turned into the Blood of the People If Corporally doth not signifie Sensibly but in Bodily Substance when he denieth the Water to be Corporally changed then neither doth it signifie Sensibly but Substantially when he denieth the Wine to be so changed into the Blood of Christ But M. Boileau (u) Remarq p. 246. 247. 248. tells us that Substantia likewise is improperly taken in this Book for the Appearance and to make this out tho he saith the Calvinists confess it to be sometimes used Improperly he hath Muster'd a great many Examples out of the Fathers whence we may conclude reasonably that he would not have failed to back his new Expositions of other Terms with the like colourable Authorities if he could any where have met with them But all this shew of Authority is meer empty Appearance for in those few of his Citations where Substantiae is used for the Qualities of any Substance it implyeth them Subsisting in their Subject and not of themselves their Subject being destroyed Besides what tho the word be sometimes improperly used must it therefore never be taken in ' its natural sense To which add that as in those Instances which he cites it is apparent that the place will not bear the word in its natural sense so on the contrary those places of this Book in which M. Boileau would expound it in an Improper sense will bear none but the Natural and Primitive sense of the Word N. 54. Where he renders secundum creaturarum Substantiam The Visible Creatures as they appear the place necessarily determins any unbiassed Judgment to understand the Word properly and in the sense of Aristotle for which M. Boileau frequently declares his Aversion Had Bertram designed only to say that the same sensible Qualities remain Quale and Tale would more aptly have expressed his sense (w) Nam Secundum creaturarum Substantiam Quod fuerunt ante Consecrationem Hoc et postea CONSISTVNT PANIS VINVM prius EXTITERE in qua etiam SPECIE jam Consecrata permanere videntur than Quod and Hoc which he useth And he would rather have said they had the Appearance of Bread and Wine before Consecration which they retain after not Peremptorily that they were Bread and Wine before and continue after in the same Specifick Nature Mr. Boileau would not be well pleased if we should refuse to take the word Substance in its proper sense in some places of this Book where it is very apparent that it is improperly used For example N. 30. Where Ratram Paraphaseth on our Saviours Words to his Disciples (x) John vi 62 63. Doth this offend you What and if ye shall see the Son of Man Ascend up where he was before In this manner When after my Resurrection ye shall see me Ascend into Heaven carrying with me my intire Body and every drop of my Blood (y) Sed Verè PER MYSTERIVM PANEM ET VINVM in Corporis Sanguinis mei conversa SVBSTANTIAM a Credentibus Sumenda n. 30. Then you will understand that my Flesh is not to be Eaten by the Faithful in the way that these Infidels imagine but that they must receive Bread and Wine being in Truth Mystically turned into the Substance of my Body Blood. Now there are two things which will not permit us to take the Word Substance properly 1. The Author saith that the things to be Received by the Faithful are (z) Panem vinum sumenda non uti in pridem editis Sumendam BREAD and WINE which appears manifestly to any impartial Reader who observeth the Syntax according to M. Boileau's Edition from the MS. For the Participle is of the Plural Number and Neuter Gender which plainly refers to Bread and Wine and not as in the former Editions Sumendam referring to our Saviours Flesh This I did not observe when I Corrected the Latin Text according to the Lobez MS. and therefore have not altered the Translation 2. He saith it is (a) Vere per Mysterium
Mystically turned into the Substance of his Body and Blood whence we may learn that it is not properly changed it is a Mystical not a Natural and Substantial change and therefore doth not change the H. Elements from their own Natural Substance into the Proper Substance of our Saviours Flesh and Blood. There may appear some Emphasis in the Adverb Vere in Truth but the Addition of Per Mysterium mystically clears the Authors meaning who useth the Word to import the Sacramental Verity not the Natural For Sacraments give a true Representation and the Real Benefits and Virtue of the thing signified tho they do not Exhibit the very thing it self And this sense of the word True in Opposition to False or Imaginary also to the Natural Sustance is clearly expressed by the Author of the Books (b) De Sacram. l. 6. c. 1. In Similitudine quidem accipis Sacramentum Sed verè Naturae GRATIAM VIRTVTEMQVE consequeris Suspicor legendum verae sed nil ex conjectura statuo de Sacramentis who to an Objection which I have mentioned before I see the Similitude not the Truth of Blood Answers Tho thou receivest the Sacrament in a Similitude yet thou truly obtainest the Grace and Virtue of the Natural Substance which may improperly be stiled the Substance of his Blood. And good Authority I find for this improper use of the word Substance in Sacramental changes in the Old Gallican Missal published first at Rome by Thomasius and after at Paris by F. Mabillon in which we have this Collect. (c) Confirma Domine famulos tuos quos ex Aqua Spiritu sancto propitius redemisti ut veterem hominem cum suis actionibus deponentes in ipsius conversatione vivamus ad cujus SVBSTANTIAM per haec Pasc halia Mysteria TRANSTVLISTI Per. Miss Gallic Miss Paschal Fer vi Confirm O Lord us thy Servants whom thou hast graciously redeemed with water and the Holy Ghost that putting off the Old Man with his works we may live after the Conversation of him into whose SUBSTANCE thou hast by these Paschal Mysteries TRANSLATED us c. This Prayer was made in the name of the New Baptized Persons on the Friday in Easter week And you may observe that it speaks of those Neophytes as turned into the Substance of Christ by the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper received immediately upon it Which cannot be understood of the Natural Substance of his Flesh but of his Mystical Body into which they were Incorporated by the Sacrament of Baptism and made true Members of Christ not in Verity of Nature but in Veritate Mysterii vel Sacramenti deriving true Grace and Spiritual strength from Christ their Head. I shall but in a word shew how vainly he baulks the Adverb Figurement Figuratively in Translating Figurate and constantly renders it in a Figure which I should not have noted but that there is a manifest design to Insinuate that the Accidents are the outward Sign and Figure under which not Bread and Wine but the Natural Substance of Christs Body and Blood do exist And F. Mabillon (d) A.B. Sec. iv p. 2. n. 116. Vno in versu duo sunt facinora Primum quod Sub Figura vertit Figurement uti etiam pag. 2. non enim ait Auctor haec Mysteria in Figura celebrari sed Sub Figura quae Corpus Christi velet non excludat imputes it a great Crime to the Hugonot Translatour that he hath rendred Sub Figura Figuratively whereas to any Man who will consult this Author throughout it will soon appear that the good Father departed from his usual Candour in passing that severe Censure on his Country-man For Ratram doth indifferently use the following Phrases viz. (e) Mysteria Corporis Sanguinis Sub Figura dicit celebrari n. 34. Verba autem St. Augustini ita se habent Figura ergo est n. 33. quibus contraria esse affirmat Ratramnus placita eorum qui docent non in Figura n. 32. Aliud exterius per Figuram ostentans n. 92. Figurate Christi Corpus Sanguis existunt n. 10. Secundum quendam modum Corpus Christi esse cognoscitur modus iste in Figura est n. 84. Vnder a Figure in a Figure by a Figure Figuratively and it is a Figure affirming in all these various ways of Expression that the Holy Eucharist is Christs Body as may be seen by the Instances in the Margin and indeed the words in a Figure do not imply the Holy Eucharist to consist of the Person of our Saviour under the Accidents of Bread and Wine which our Adversaries call the Figure or Vail For St. Austin (f) Petra Christus in Signo Verus Christus in Verbo in Carne n. 78. i. e. Signum Christi non Verus Christus cited by Ratram saith That the Rock was Christ in Signo which imports not that it was Christ personally present under the Appearance of a Rock but that the Rock was a Sign or Type of Christ So in his Exposition of the LIV (g) David in Figura Christus est Tom. 8. in Ps 54. Psalm he saith David was Christ in a Figure that is a Figure of Christ or Figurately stiled the Christ or Anointed of God. 2. He likewise amuseth us as though there were some special Mystery in those Verbs which according to the Tumid Stile of the Middle Ages Ratram useth instead of the Verb Substantive Est And therefore he renders (h) N. 12. Et alibi passim Cognoscitur is sensibly known Cernitur and Videtur appears to our Bodily sense in the like manner Ostenditur and Monstratur Now if there were any Emphasis intended in the use of these words as perhaps sometimes there was though not generally yet the Emphasis is directly contrary to what M. Boileau makes it for the Author doth not use those Terms by way of Reserve and Caution or to express an uncertainty as this Translator very ridiculously makes him rendring Videntur it seems N. 54. For where there is an Emphasis they do vehemently affirm or deny and imply the highest assurance of the Truth of what is said the Evidence of Sense and certain Knowledge being the best grounds upon which we can conclude a thing either to be or not to be So that in the place newly mentioned Ratram doth expresly say That we see the Consecrated Bread and Wine remain in the former Species or Kind and not as our (i) Et depuis il semble qu'elles demeurent dans la meme espece c'est a dire apparences Remarque p. 250. Translator hath it it seems they remain after Consecration in the same Appearance And he useth promiscuously Videtur Ostenditur and Cernitur which last is not capable of that doubtful sense which the first may sometimes bear However I say commonly these Verbs are not Emphatical but used for the Verb Substantive as in the following Instances (k) Non parva
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
in the difference between the Being the Essence the Substance and the Signification to which they stand opposed This I shall make very plain from two or three Authorities of St. Austin (x) Quoniam signa sunt rerum aliud EXISTENTIA aliud SIGNIFICANTIA Aug. contra Maximin l. 3. c. 22. speaking of Sacraments he saith That they are signs of Things which signs ARE one thing and signifie another There Existence or Being and signifying are opposed Again (y) Hinc est quod dictum est Petra erat Christus non enim dixit Petra significat Christum sed tanquam hoc esset quod utique per SVBSTANTIAM hoc non erat sed per SIGNIFICATIONEM Aug. Quaest super Levit. 57. Therefore it is said that Rock WAS Christ he did not say it SIGNIFIED Christ as though it had been what indeed it was not in SUBSTANCE but in SIGNIFICATION what Ratram called Species St. Augustin calleth Substance And if any doubt it I hope to satisfie him by a third Authority where affirming that the Fathers and We had the same Spiritual Meat and Drink he explains himself in what sense he called it the same (z) Idem itaque in Mysterio cibus potus illorum qui noster sed SIGNIFICATIONE idem non SPECIE Aug. in Ps 77. Aliud illi aliud nos sed Specie visibili quod tamen hoc idem significaret virtute Spirituali n. 78. ex Tract 26. in Joan. viz. The same in SIGNIFICATION not in SPECIE or Substance And to these I might add the Testimony cited by Ratram N. 78. where he states the difference in the same Terms Now by this we may understand what he means when above N. 54. (a) Panis Vinum prius extitere in qua etiam Specie jam consecrata permanere videntur n. 54. he saith That Bread and Wine continue in the same Species that is Specifick Nature after Consecration which they had before though that place is clear enough without borrowing Light hence for what is here called Species is in the sentence immediately preceding called (b) Nam secundum creaturarum substantiam quod fuerunt ante Consecrationem hoc postea consistunt c. the Substance of the Creatures so that Species here is what Ratram in a place before cited out of another Work of his (c) In substantiae suae specie Ratr. de Praed lib. 2. calleth the Species of its Substance And as in this Tract by the (d) Corpus in quo semel passus est Christus non aliam Speciem praeferebat quam in qua consistebat n. 69. id est quam eam Speciem in qua consistebat quae est natura specifica Species in which Christ's Natural Body consisted he meant a REAL Humane Body so in this place N. 54. where he saith the Consecrated Elements were Bread and Wine before and consist or remain in the same Species after Consecration he must necessarily mean that they continue REAL Bread and Wine There are other Passages where the (e) Intelliges quod non in SPECIE sed in VIRTVTE Corpus Sanguis Christi existunt quae cernuntur n. 56. Species and Virtue and the Corporeal (f) N. 93 94. Speciem corporalem Fructum spiritualem Species and Spiritual Fruit stand opposed which would illustrate this Matter which I pass over that I be not tedious to the Reader And shall only add That if in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries Species had born M. Boileau's sense and our Saxon Ancestors had believed nothing but the Appearances of Bread and Wine to remain it had been of great moment carefully to have expressed it in those very Terms in Translating the 72 Paragraph of Bertram where he saith the Spiritual Body of Christ as to the Species it outwardly bears is made of several Grains of Wheat by the Bakers hand c. Whereas Aelfric in rendring that place omits the words (g) See the Saxon Hom. Fol. 35 36. Secundum speciem quam gerit exterius and saith without any such restriction or limiting Exposition That Christ's Spiritual Body which we call the Housel is gathered of many Corns (h) Buton blode without Blood c. Where by the way also observe that our Saxon Ancestors held not the Doctrin of that Concomitance which was devised since to justifie the Sacrilegious Practice of depriving the People of the Cup. I shall now consider in what sense the word Species is used by other Ecclesiastical Writers I will begin with Tertullian the most Antient of the Latin Fathers who expounds the word Species by Res and Veritas For Instance (i) Per fidem incedentes non per Speciem id est spe non Re Tertul. Deâ—Res Carn c. 43. Walking by Faith and not by Species that is saith he in Hope and not in Fruition of the thing And elsewhere having occasion to quote Numb 12.8 in which place God expresseth his extraordinary favour to Moses and promiseth to admit him to more familiar Conversation with himself than he would other Prophets he thus glosseth upon the words (k) Os ad os loquar illi in Specie id est in Veritate non in aenigmate id est non in imagine Adv. Praxeam c. 14. vide etiam Contra Marcion l. 4. c. 22. in Specie utique hominis quam gesturus erat To him will I speak Mouth to Mouth in Specie that is in Truth and not Aenigmatically that is in an Image Likewise Origen or some (l) Hoc liquet ex Hom. 18. ubi haec leguntur In Libro qui apud NOS quidem inter Salomonis volumina haberi solet Ecclesiasticus dici apud GRAECOS vero sapientia Jesu filii Sirach appellatur Latin Writer whose Homilies on the Book of Numbers are found among Origens Works expounding the same place doth at least ten times over make Species to import Truth and Aenigma the Type or Figure Hereof take these Instances (m) Lex Dei jam non in figuris in imaginibus sicut prius sed in ipsa Specie veritatis agnoscitur Et quae prius in aenigmate designabant nunc in Specie Veritate complentur Origen Hom. VII in Numeros Those things which were formerly designed in the way of an Image are now fulfilled in Reality and Truth And again (n) Vides quomodo aenigmata legis Paulus absolvit Species aenigmatum docet Ibid. You see how Paul cleareth the Figures of the Law and teacheth the Things signified by those Figures (o) Antea in aenigmate fuit baptismus in nube in mari nunc autem in Specie regeneratio est in aqua in Spiritu Sancto Ibid. Antiently there was a Figurative Baptism in the Cloud and in the Sea now there is True Regeneration in Water and the Holy Ghost In all the forementioned Instances the word Species doth import the very Thing the Reality the Truth and not the
Appearance In other Authors it implieth the Creature also the kind or sort of Creatures in conformity to the use of the word in the Roman Laws or the Natural Substance Gaudentius (p) Recte etiam Vini Specie tum sanguis ejus exprimitur quia cum ipse in Evangelio dicit Ego sum Vitis Vera satis declarat sanguinem suum esse omne Vinum quod in Figura Passionis ejus offertur Gaudent Brix ad Neophyl Serm. 2. Bibl. Pat. tom 2. Edit Par. 1610. saith Likewise is our Saviour's Blood fitly set forth by the Species or Creature of Wine because that he himself in his Gospel by saying I am the true Vine doth sufficiently declare that all the Wine which is offered in the Figure or Sacrament of his Passion is his Blood. Here Species Vini and Vinum are the same and signifie the Natural substance of Wine and not the meer Appearances and sensible Qualities thereof Salvian (q) Speciem servantes naturam relinquentes lib. 1. de Gub. useth the word Species for the Natural Substance of Water in the place already produced upon another occasion Isidore of Sevil saith (r) Post Speciem Maris Terrae formata duo Luminaria magna legis Isid Hisp de Ordine Creat c. 5. After the Species of Sea and Earth you read that two great Luminaries were Created Species there signifieth the Creatures of Sea and Earth What St. Austin (Å¿) Aug. Serm. ad Infantes apud Fulgent de Bapt. Aethiopis meant by the Visible Species in the Sacrament which he opposeth to the Spiritual Fruit in a Passage cited and expounded by Bertram who addeth that the Visible Species feedeth the Body may be best learn'd from himself in the same Sermon where he hath these words (t) Sicut enim ut sit Species Visibilis panis multa grana in unum consperguntur tanquam illud fiat quod de Fidelibus ait Scriptura Sancta Erat illis anima Cor unum in Deum Sic de vino fratres recolite unde sit unum Grana multa pendent ad botrum sed liquor granorum in unitate confunditur Ita Dominus Jesus Christus NOS significavit NOS ad SE pertinere voluit Mysterium Pacis Vnitatis nostrae in sua mensa consecravit As to the making the Visible Species of Bread many Grains of Corn are moulded into one Mass as it is said of the Faithful in the Holy Scripture that they had one Soul and one Heart so my Brethren consider how the Wine is made one Body Many Grapes hang on the Bunch but the Juice of those Grapes is pressed together into one Body of Liquor Thus our Lord Jesus Christ hath signified US viz. the Body of Believers and would that we should belong to him that is as Members of the Mystical Body whereof he is Head and hath consecrated the Mystery of our Peace and Unity on his own Table There are several things to be Remarked from this Passage 1. That he saith the visible species of Bread is made up of many Corns moulded together and made up into one Lump Now this cannot be said of the Accidents but of the Substance of Bread made up into one Loaf before Consecration For in another place (u) Quod cum per manus hominum ad illam Visibilem Speciem perducitur non Sanctificatur ut sit tam magnum Sacramentum c. de Trin. l. 3. c. 4. he useth the same Expression with relation to Vnconsecrated Bread Which saith he after it is by the hands of Men brought to that Visible Species is not Sanctified and made so great a Sacrament but by the Invisible Operation of God's Spirit 2. When he comes to speak of the Sacramental Wine he doth not call it the Visible Species of Wine but simply Wine which is an Argument that by the visible Species of Bread he meant real Bread. 3. St. Austin makes the visible Species of Bread to be a Figure of the Unity of the Faithful among themselves as also of their Union with Christ their Head. Now the meer Appearances of Bread and Wine have no resemblance of many Members compacted into one Body the Figure Colour or Taste of the Consecrated Elements suggest not the least hint of the Union of the several Members of Christ's Mystical Body whereas their Natural Substances are very apt and lively Representations thereof 4. Bertram (w) N. 94. Exterius quod videtur speciem habet corpoream quae pascit corpus expounding St. Austin ascribeth an effect to the Corporeal Species which cannot be wrought by the Sensible Appearances severed from their Subject he saith They feed the Body which is Nourished only by substantial Food digested and turned into its own Substance Now how meer Accidents can be converted into Chyle and Blood and become substantial Flesh is inconceivable whereas how this may be effected by true Bread and Wine it is very easie to apprehend Caesarius (x) Etiam in hoc ipso quod innumerosis tritici granis confici novimus unitatem constat assignari populorum Sic enim frumentum solita purgantis solicitudine praeparatum in candidam Speciem molarum labore perficitur ac per aquam ignem in unius panis Substantiam congregatur Sic variae gentes diversaeque nationes in unam fidem convenientes unum de se Christi Corpus efficiunt Caesar Arel Hom. 7. de Pasch in Bibl. Patr. Tom. 2. Par. 1610. Bishop of Arles hath a Passage very like this of St. Austin Also in that the Bread is made of innumerable Grains of Wheat its certain that it signifieth the Unity of the People For thus Wheat carefully made clean and prepared is by the Mill brought to a white Species and by Water and Fire united into the substance of one Loaf Thus also various People and divers Nations agreeing in one Faith make up of themselves one Body of Christ Doubtless the Species spoken of by this Father is not the bare Appearance but the Substance of Meal And before where he speaks of the (y) In eadem Homilia Species of Manna he must be understood of the thing it self It is evident that Walafridus Strabo had this place of St. Austin in his eye when having said (z) Post Paschae Veteris solemnia Corporis Sanguinis sui SACRAMENTA in Panis Vini SVBSTANTIA eisdem Discipulis Tradidit Nihil ergo Congruentius his SPECIEBVS ad significandam Capitis atque Membrorum unitatem potuit inveniri Quia videlicet sicut Panis de multis Granis aquae coagulo in unum corpus redigitur Vinum ex multis acinis exprimitur Sic Corpus Christi ex multitudine sanctorum coadunata completur de â—eb Eccles cap. 16. That after the Solemnity of the Old Passeover our Saviour delivered to the same Disciples the SACRAMENT of his Body and Blood in the SVBSTANCE of Bread and Wine and taught them to Celebrate it in remembrance of