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
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
the New Testament in my Blood which shall be shed for you You see Christ had not yet Suffered and yet nevertheless he celebrated the Mystery of his own Body and Blood. XXVIII For I am confident no Christian doubts but that Bread was made the Body of Christ which he gave to his Disciples saying This is my Body which is given for you or but the Cup contains the Blood of Christ of which he also saith This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which shall be shed for you Wherefore as a little before his Passion he could change the Substance of Bread and the Creature of Wine into his own Body which was to Suffer and his own Blood which was to be shed so also could he in the Wilderness change Manna and Water out of the Rock into his Body and Blood though it were a long time after ere that Body was to be Crucified for us or that Blood to be shed to wash us XXIX Here also we ought to consider how those Words of our Saviour are to be understood He expounds Joh. 6.53 wherein he saith * John 6.53 Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you have not Life in you For he doth not say that his Flesh which hung on the Cross should be cut in pieces and eaten by his Disciples or that his Blood which he was to shed for the Redemption of the World should be given his Disciples to drink For it had been a Crime for his Disciples to have eaten his Flesh and drunk his Blood in the sense that the unbelieving Jews then understood him XXX Wherefore in the following words he saith to his Disciples who did not disbelieve that Saying of Christ though they did not yet penetrate the true Meaning of it * John 6.53 Doth this offend you What if ye shall see the Son of Man ascending up where he was before As though he should say Think not that you must eat my Flesh and drink my Blood corporally divided into small pieces for when after my Resurrection you shall see me ascend into the Heavens with my Body entire and all my Blood Then you shall understand that the Faithful must eat †John 6.69 my Flesh not in the manner which these Unbelievers imagine but that indeed Believers must receive it Bread and Wine being mystically turned into the substance of my Body and Blood. XXXI And after * John. 6.66 It 's the Spirit saith he that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing He saith The Flesh profiteth nothing taken as those Infidels understood him but otherwise it giveth Life as it is taken mystically by the Faithful And why so He himself shews when he saith It is the Spirit that quickneth Therefore in this Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ there is a spiritual Operation which giveth Life without which Operation the Mysteries profit nothing because they may indeed feed the Body but cannot feed the Soul. XXXII Now there ariseth a Question moved by many who say that these things are done not in a Figure but in Truth but in so saying they plainly contradict the Writings of the Fathers XXXIII St. Augustine St. Augustine quoted an eminent Doctor of the Church in his Third Book De Doctrina Christiana writes thus Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man saith our Saviour and drink his Blood you shall not have Life in you He seems to command a flagitious Crime Therefore the Words are a FIGURE requiring us to communicate in our Lord's Passion and faithfully * In the printed Edition of St. Augustine and Bertram we read sweetly and profitably to lay up to lay up this in our Memory that his Flesh was Crucified and Wounded for us XXXIV We see this Doctor saith that the Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood is celebrated by the Faithful under a FIGURE For he saith To receive his Flesh and Blood carnally is not an Act of Religion but of Villany For which Cause they in the Gospel who took our Saviour's Words not Spiritually but Carnally departed from him and followed him no more XXXV Likewise in his Epistle to Boniface a Bishop among other things he saith thus We often speak in this manner when Easter is near we say to Morrow or the next day is the Lord's Passion although he Suffered many Years since and Suffered but once Likewise we say on the Lord's Day This day our Lord rose again when yet so many years are passed since he rose again Why is no Man so foolish as to charge us with Lying when we speak thus But because we call these Days after the likeness of those Days in which these things were really done So that the Day is called such a Day which in truth is not that very Day but only like it in Revolution of Time and by reason of the Celebration of the Sacrament that is said to be done this Day which was not done this very Day but in Old Times Was not Christ offered up once only in his own Person and yet in the Sacrament he is offered for the People not only every Easter but every Day Nor doth that Man tell a Lye who being asked shall answer that he is offered For if Sacraments had not some Resemblance of those things of which they are the Sacraments they would not be Sacraments at all And from that Resemblance they commonly take the Names of the Things themselves Whereas the Sacrament of Christ's Body is in some sort the Body of Christ and the Sacrament of Christ's Blood is in some sort the Blood of Christ so the (a) The Sacrament of the Faith i. e. Baptism as appears by the following words in St. Austin in his 23. Epistle which is here cited Sacrament of the Faith is the Faith. XXXVI We see St. Augustine saith that Sacraments are one thing and the things of which they are the Sacraments are another thing Now the Body in which Christ suffered and the Blood which issued out of his Side are Things but the Mysteries of these things he saith are Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ which are celebrated in Remembrance of our Lord's Passion not only every Year at the great Solemnity of Easter but every day of the Year XXXVII And whereas there was but one Body of the Lord in which he suffered once and one Blood which was shed for the Salvation of the World yet the Sacraments of these have assumed the Names of the very things so that they are called the Body and Blood of Christ And yet are so called by reason of the Resemblance they bear to the things which they signifie As they stile these respective Days which are annually celebrated the Passion and Resurrection of our Lord whereas in truth he suffered and rose again but once in his own Person nor can the very Days return any more being long since past Nevertheless the Days in which the Memory of
they did eat the same spiritual Meat with us He adds And they drank the same spiritual Drink They drank one thing and we another but (a) In its visible Nature only as to what outwardly appeared which by a spiritual vertue signified and same thing How was it the same Drink They drank faith he of that spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ. Thence had they Bread whence they had Drink The Rock was Christ in a Type but the true Christ was the Word incarnate LXXIX Again (b) John 6.63 This is the Bread which came down from Heaven whosoever eats thereof shall never die which must be understood of him who eats the Vertue of the Sacrament not the meer visible Sacrament him who eats inwardly not outwardly who feeds on it in his Heart not who presseth it with his Teeth LXXX Again in what follows quoting our Saviour's Words he saith Doth this offend you that I said I give you my Flesh to eat and my Blood to drink What if you shall see the Son of Man ascending where he was before What means this Here he resolves that which troubled them here he expounds the Difficulty at which they were offended For they thought he would have given them his Body but he tells them that he should ascend in his Body entire into Heaven When you shall see the Son of Man ascend where he was before certainly then you will see that he did not give his Body in the way which you imagine then you will understand that the Grace of God is not eaten by Morsels He saith It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing LXXXI And after many other Passages he adds Whosoever saith the same Apostle hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of his Therefore it is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing (a) John 6.63 The words which I have spoken unto you are Spirit and life What means he by saying they are Spirit and Life That they must be Spiritually understood If thou understandest them Spiritually they are Spirit and Life if thou understandest them Carnally even so also they are Spirit and Life but not to thee LXXXII By the Authority of this Doctor treating on the Words of our Lord touching the Sacrament of his own Body and Blood we are plainly taught That those words of our Lord are to be spiritually and not carnally understood as he himself saith The words which I speak unto you are Spirit and Life That is his Words concerning eating his Flesh drinking his Blood. He had spoken those things at which his Disciples were offended Therefore that they might not be offended their Divine Master calleth them back from the Flesh to the Spirit from Objects of the outward Sense (a) That is to spiritual Objects to the understanding of things invisible LXXXIII So then we see that food of the Lord's Body that drink of his blood are in some respect truly his Body and his Blood that is in the same respect in which they are Spirit and Life LXXXIV Again those things which are one and the same are comprehended under the same Definition We say of the true Body of Christ that he is very God and very Man God begotten of God the Father before the World began and Man born of the Virgin Mary in the end of the World. But since these things cannot be said of the Body of Christ which is mystically celebrated in the Church we know that it is only in some particular manner the Body of Christ which manner is Figurative and in the way of an Image so that the Verity is the Thing it self LXXXV He argues from a Prayer in his time used after the H. Communion In the Prayer used after the Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood to which the People say Amen the Priest speaks thus (a) This Prayer is not found in the present Roman Mass-book We who have now received the Pledge of eternal Life most humbly beseech thee to grant that we may be (a) Or Really manifestly made partakers of that which here we receive under an Image or Sacrament LXXXVI A Pledge and Image are the Pledge and Image of somewhat else that is they do not respect themselves but another thing It is the Pledge of that thing for which it is given the Image of the thing it represents They signifie the thing of which they are the Pledge or Image but are not the very thing it self whence it appears that this Body and Blood of Christ are the Pledge and Image of something to come which is now only represented but shall hereafter be (b) Or Really plainly exhibited Now if it only signifie at present what shall be hereafter really exhibited then it is one thing which is now celebrated and another which shall hereafter be manifested LXXXVII Wherefore it is indeed the Body and Blood of Christ which the Church celebrates but in the way of a Pledge or an Image The truth we shall then have when the Pledge or Image shall cease and the very thing it self shall appear LXXXVIII And in another Prayer He argues from another Collect. (a) This is extant in the ordinary Mass-Book Let thy Sacrament work in us O Lord we beseech thee those things which they contain that we may really be made partakers of those things which now we celebrate in a figure He saith that these things are celebrated in a Figure not in Truth that is by way of Representation and not the (b) Or Real Presence Manifestation of the Thing it self Now the Figure and the Truth are very different things Therefore that Body and Blood of Christ which is celebrated in the Church differs from the Body and Blood of Christ which is glorified That Body is the Pledge or Figure but this the very Truth it self the former we celebrate till we come to the latter and when we come to the latter the former shall be done way LXXXIX It is apparent therefore that they differ vastly as much as the Pledge and that whereof it is the Pledge as much as the Image and the Thing whose Image it is as much as the Figure and Truth We see then how vast a difference there is between the Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood which the Faithful now receive in the Church and that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary which suffered was buried rose again ascended into Heaven and sitteth at the Right-hand of God. For that Body which is celebrated here in our way must be spiritually received for Faith believes somewhat that it seeth not and it spiritually feeds the Soul makes glad the Heart and confers Eternal Life and Incorruption if we attend not to that which feeds the Body which is chewed with our Teeth and ground to pieces but to that which is spiritually received by Faith. Now that Body in which Christ suffered and rose again was his own
(u) Denique quaedam quae videntur nâ—n obscure ab Haereticis inserta assuta sub libri finem Ibidem p. 5. iterum p. 6. Non male aut inconsulte omittantur igitur omnia hâ—c a fine pag. Considerandum quoque c. to expunge all from the beginning of the 73 number to near the end of n. 77. And again from the beginning of n. 84. to the middle of n. 89. which they say are Interpolations and yet they are as conformable to the Manuscript as any thing else in the Book But because they cannot be so expounded as to reconcile them with the Real Presence therefore forsooth they are Interpolations foisted in by some Heretick What M. De Sainte Boeuve said in the Defence of this Tract I know not nor what Reputation he might get by maintaining a Paradox but it 's plain he made few Proselytes to his Opinion when the great (w) In Epistola praefixa Tomo Secundo Spicileg L. Dacherij de Marca Two Years after father'd it upon Joannes Scotus and said it is the same Book which was condemned in all the Synods against Berengarius and (x) At the end of M. Arnaud's Defence in Quarto Paris 1669. M. Paris wrote a Dissertation to support de Marca's Conjecture That he tells us (y) Pref. p. 10. Since the Manuscripts of it are found it is that Roman Catholick Divines have judged Bertram no Adversary to Paschasius or the Church is an excellent hint and we are much obliged to him for it for it lets us into the Secret if there be any in the matter The naked Truth is this Ratram had alwaies maintained the Character of an (z) Pref. p. 4. Vn Escrivain tres-Catholique Orthodox Writer and is not now to be kicked off as an Heretick The Manuscripts now brought to Light baffle the pretences of Forgery and Corruption as also M. de Marca's Conjecture and therefore to expound him in a Popish Sense is the only Game left them to play As long as there was any colour for saying so Bertram was an Heretick or the Book Spurious or at least grievously Corrupted by the Protestants But now all these Shifts fail them upon appearance of the Manuscripts he is grown on a sudden a very Catholick Writer I profess that it is beyond my reach to comprehend the Reasons Why the sight of the Manuscripts should alter any man's Judgment touching the Orthodoxy of Bertram The Printed Copies differ very little from that which Doctor Boileau now gives us from the Lobez Manuscript which is not without some Faults not committed in the old Editions and they differ not at all in those places which the Belgick Censors and Espenceus suspect to have been inserted by the Hereticks So that it is pure Necessity and not any new Light which they have received from the Manuscripts which makes the French Doctors now contend for an Author whom their Predecessors rejected If the Roman Catholick Divines had formerly entertained that good Opinion of Bertram in M. S. the World had not waited till F. Mabillon obliged us therewith for a Transcript of the Lobez MS. (a) Ant. Sanderi Biblioth Belgica M S S. par 1. p. 303. Quarto Insulis 1641. Antonius Sanderus in his account of the M S S. in the Belgick Libraries mentions this very Book (b) Juxta exemplar Duaci 1629. in Octa. licet suppresso loci Typographi nomine p. 304. from a Printed Catalogue taken near 50 Years before F. Mabillon found it And the President (c) Vide Praef. ad vet Auctores IX Saeculi Libri Ratramni ex M. S. Codice Coenobij Lobbiensis cujus Authenticum exemplar cura Doctoris Lovaniensis R. P. Lucae Dacherij consecuti sumus Vide etiam Testimonium Notarij pub ad calcem utriusque libri Mauguin in the Year 1648. procured a Copy of his two Books of Predestination which immediately follow this Tract in the same Volume by the favour of a Lovain Doctor and M. d' Achery who cannot be presumed ignorant of its being there I say nothing of the Manuscript seen by (d) Le Cardinal du Perron qui a ètè persuade que ces Manuscrits ètoient veritablement conformes a l'imprimè n'a pas laisse de l'abandonner comme un Auteur Hèrètique qui cache ses pensees sous des termes des expressions Catholiques Preface p. 10. 11. Cardinal Perron without operating any change in his Judgment of the Author whom he abandons as an Heretick and a crafty one too that conceals his Heterodox Opinions under Catholick Terms and Expressions So that if the Sorbonists at present have better thoughts of this Tract its Author owes them very little thanks for that Favour Let us now consider what is offered to make good the Affirmative viz. That Ratram's Adversaries held 1. That there is no Figure in the Holy Eucharist but that the Body of our Saviour was exposed naked to our Corporal Senses 2. That what our Senses perceive therein that is the Accidents of Bread and Wine are the self same Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin Crucified c. For proof of the former he cites our (e) Preface p. 22. Author in the Preface to the King n. 2. and in the state of the first Question n. 5. making them to deny that the Body of Christ and his Blood (f) Remarks p. 207. 215. upon n. 2. 5. 9. are under any Figure or Vail and to say that the Sacrament is pure and simple manifestation of the Truth which was not the Sentiment of Paschase or the Church of Rome who teach as expresly as Ratram himself that there is Figure in the Sacrament If you demand who these Divines were He tells you (g) Preface p. 34. Remarks on n. 2. of one Abbaudus and Walter Prior of Saint Victors in the Twelfth Century adding (h) Remarks p. 213. 214. That this Opinion seems to have been common in the Year 1059. when Berengarius made his Recantation And in regard Opinions do not grow common on a sudden it may be reasonably thought that these were the Sentiments of some in the times of Ratram and that as much is intimated by Paschase in his Book of the Lord's Body and Blood in the Twentieth Chapter This is all that I can find either in his Preface or Remarks that looks like a Proof how little it concludes shall presently be shewn 1. Those Passages which are cited do not necessarily infer an absolute denial of any kind of Vail or Figure in the Holy Sacrament but that his Adversaries denied such a Figure or Vail as Ratram and the Ancient alwaies acknowledged therein viz. such a Figure as was a Corporeal Substance as the Water in Baptism is The Pelagians are charged by the Orthodox Fathers as Adversaries of the Doctrine of Grace though they did not utterly deny Grace (i) Vide Pelagium citante August de Gratia Christi lib. 1. c.
7. but advanced such a Notion of it as amounted to no more than the Illumination of the Mind by God's Spirit Whereas the Catholicks did further acknowledge its powerful Sway over our Wills and its assistance in every good Work. Now if Paschasius and his Party do in Words acknowledge a Sign or Figure but such as in effect is none Ratram might well enough charge them with denying any Vail or Figure in the Sacrament Bertram and (k) Quae ob id Sacramenta dicuntur quia sub tegumento corporalium rerum Virtus Divina Secretius Salutem eorundem Sacramentorum operatur n. 46. Isidore cited by him make Sacramental Figures to be res corporales Corporal Things not only the proper Accidents of a Body as the Figure and Tast of Bread and Wine which Paschase and Haymo both admit in the Sacrament but Corporal Substances And in the Holy Eucharist (l) Sub velamento corporei Panis corporeique Vini c. n. 16. See Numb 97.98 Ratram saith That Christ's Spiritual Body and Blood are under the Vail of Corporeal Bread and Corporeal Wine which are Bodily Substances He also saith of the Consecrated (m) Corpus Sanguis Christi quae Fidelium ore in Ecclesia percipiuntur Figurae sunt secundum visibilem Speciem Which is expounded by Visibilem Creaturam in four Lines after n. 49. Bread and Cup which is called Christ's Body and Blood that it is a Figure of Christ's proper Body That the Body and Blood of Christ received in the Church are Figures as they are Visible Creatures Whereas (n) Lib. de C. S. D. c. 4. Est autem figura vel character hoc quod exterius sentitur sed totum veritas nulla adumbratio quod intrinsecus percipitur Paschase contends that the Consecrated Elements are both a Figure and the Truth as Christ who is true God is stiled (o) Heb. 1.3 the Figure or Character of his Substance This Haymo although he teacheth a Real Presence of Christ's natural Body look'd upon as absurd saying that nothing can be a Figure or Sign of it self and upon that account denied (p) Panis ille Sacratus Calix signa dicuntur Non autem hoc quantum ad carnem Christi Sanguinem accipiendum est Jam enim Corpus Sanguis Christi non essent Nullum enim Signum est illud cujus est Signum Nec res aliqua sui ipsius dicitur Signum sed alterius Apud Mabill A. B. S. 4. p. 2. Praef. n. 93. The consecrated Elements to be Signs of Christs Body Nor will the Text cited by Paschase bring him off for in the (q) It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Original Christ is said to be the Figure of his Person not his Substance and the Vulgar Interpreter must mean Subsistence by Substantia or he was an Arian For the Son was the Image not of the Essence but the Person of the Father and consequently Christ was not truly the Father though truly God so that the same thing is not proved to be both a Figure and Truth I confess Paschase expounds the Words of Christ's Human Nature which tho' it clear him of Arianism yet it spoils his proof that a thing may be a Figure of it self Upon reading his Book with the best attention I was able I cannot say whether he deny the Substance of the Consecrated Elements to remain or not he is so inconsistent with himself and seems rather to be for Impanation than Transubstantiation But our Adversaries believing his Doctrine to be the same with that of the present Church of Rome which is that meer Accidents remain to be a Figure or Vail of Christs natural Body he and they are as justly chargeable with denying any Figure as the Fancied Predecessors of Abbaudus and Walter nay as those Authors themselves who only asserted that Christ's very Body not the Accidents only was sensible and sensibly broken but never denied that the Accidents or somewhat which made the same Impressions on Sense as did the Accidents of Bread and Wine before Consecration shrowded it from their Eyes Whether those Accidents were subjected in Christ's Body or only environed it or whether God miraculously Imprinted the Idea of them on the Organs of Sense the case is no way varied For the Natural Body of Christ is still covered from the outward Senses so that what is pretended could not be the Point in Dispute between Ratram and his Adversaries who must needs admit a Figure and Vail in the Holy Eucharist as the Roman Catholicks now do 2. A right Understanding of the Terms of the Question will clear the Truth of what I said last and overthrow M. Boileau's Fancy In the Question there are three Parts to be considered 1. (r) Subjectum Quod in Ecclesia ore fidelium sumitur Suppositum Quod Corpus Sanguis Christi fiat Quaesitum An hoc fiat in Mysterio an in Veritate The Subject of it which is comprized in these words That which the Faithful do in the Church receive with the Mouth which import somewhat more than the bare Accidents or Superficies of Bread and Wine viz. the Substance which they environ and which passeth into the Mouth with them 2ly A thing admitted by both Parties touching this Subject viz. That by Consecration it is made Christ's Body and Blood. 3ly The point remaining in debate which is in what manner and by what sort of change it is made Christ's Body and Blood whether by a true and natural change or only by a Mystical and Sacramental change There is a great Emphasis in the Word Fiat which is more than a bare Verb Substantive in the Question and imports a change made (s) At quia confitentur Corpus Sanguinem Dei esse nec hoc esse potuisse nisi facta in melius commutatione neque ista commutatio Corporaliter sed Spiritaliter facta sit necesse est jam ut figurate facta esse dicatur Ratr. n. 16. Ratram proves against his Adversaries that it was a Figurative and Mystical not a Substantial and Corporal change and Haymo (t) Idem Panis in Carnem Domini mutatur idem Vinum in Sanguinem Domini transfertur non per figuram neque per umbram sed per Veritatem Haymo Hom. in Evang. die S. Palmarum Item in 1 Cor. 11. eadem habet prope ad verbum who was of the contrary Opinion makes the Elements to be converted into Christs Body and Blood not Figuratively or Mystically but in Verity so that if Haymo were as F. Mabillon (u) A. B. S. 4. p. 2. n. 93. supposes the Adversary whom our Author disputes against on the first Question Ratram as expresly denies the Real Presence of Christ's Natural Body in the Holy Eucharist as Paschase or Haymo can assert it I confess he explains Verity by Manifestation and makes them to say that the Object of their Faith was also perceived by the bodily Eye
of 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
frequently and by great variety of Expressions equivalent to the Reality or very Truth as will appear in the following Instances N. XV. Verity is expounded by Proper Essence (n) Fatebuntur ergo necesse est aut mutata esse secundum aliud quam secundum Corpus ac per hoc non esse hoc quod in Veritate videntur sed aliud quod non esse secundum propriam Essentiam cernuntur N. 15. They must needs confess either that they are changed in some other respect than that of their Bodies and that in this respect they are not what we see they are in Truth but somewhat else which we discern them not to be in their Proper Essence c. what he styles Verity or Truth in one Member of the Antithesis is called the Proper Essence in the other which I take to be equivalent to the Reality In this Passage the Lobe MS. varies from the Printed Copies which read Existence instead of Essence and I think the Variation of some moment and that it is advantageous to the Protestant Cause Again In discussing the Second Question he often describes the Real and Natural Body of our Saviour in Terms as clear and express as Human Wit can devise viz. His Body born of the Virgin which suffered was buried and rose again This he calleth our Lord's True or Very Body and denieth the Holy Eucharist to be that Body For Instance he saith that Christ's Natural Body (o) Non sit Mysterium sed Veritas Naturae N. 57 is no Mystery but Truth of Nature which he denieth the Sacrament to be Again N. LXII The Body which he took of the Virgin Mary which Suffered was Buried and Rose again was a True Body that is such as remained Visible and palpable But the Body which is called the Mystery of God is not Corporeal but Spiritual and if Spiritual then it can neither be seen nor felt From which words we may learn what Ratram's Notion of a True Body is viz. such as our Senses judge to be a Body discernible by the sight and touch A Real Body and not a Spirit or Phantasm So N. LXXII He describeth Christ's to be an Organical Body animated with a Reasonable Soul to be the True or Real Flesh of a True or Real Man (p) Vera Caro veri hominis existebat Corpus utique Verum in Veri Corporis specie consistens N. 72. A True Body in the shape of a True Body which cannot be affirmed of his Spiritual Flesh or the Holy Sacrament which expressions most evidently import the Reality and not the Sensible Appearance And therefore in denying the Holy Eucharist to be such a True Body he denieth the Real Presence Again He sometimes expounds Verity by ipsa Res the thing it self which is the Reality N. 77. (q) Exterius igitur quod apparet non est IPSA RES sed Imago REI mente vero quod sentitur intelligitur Veritas REI n. 77. Wherefore that which outwardly appears is not the thing it self but the Image of it but that which the Mind perceives and understands is the Verity of the thing or the very thing it self Here ipsa res and veritas Rei are manifestly the same Thus also speaking of Christs Body in the Sacrament in opposition to his True Body he saith that the former (r) Secundum quendam modum Corpus Christi esse cognoscitur modus iste in Figura est imagine ut Veritas RES IPSA sentiatur n. 84 is only in some particular manner or respect the Body of Christ which manner is Figurative and in the way of an Image so that the Verity is the THING IT SELF And again (Å¿) Veritas vero erit cum jam nec Pignus nec Imago sed IPSIVS REI veritas apparebit n. 87. The Truth we shall then have when the VERY THING it self shall appear And elsewhere comparing the Natural Flesh of our Lord with the Holy Eucharist which is commonly called his Body he saith (t) Et hoc Corpus Pignus est Species illud vero IPSA Veritas n. 88. This Body is a Pledge and Figure but that is the TRUTH IT SELF where we owe the Emphatical Pronoun ipsa to the Lobez MS. He saith (u) Sed IPSA REI manifestatio cognoscitur n. 97. of Christ's Natural Body That it is the very Manifestation of the THING whereas he denied the Holy Eucharist to be the (w) Non per IPSIVS REI manifestationem n. 88. Manifestation of the THING IT SELF N. 88. Which two latter Phrases are perfectly equivalent to the (x) Ipsius Veritatis nuda manifestatione n. 3. Manifestation of the TRUTH IT SELF in the Preface of this Tract and all these Expressions plainly import the REALITY Moreover He calls our Saviour's Body born of the Virgin (y) Illud namque proprium Verum nihil habens in se vel Mysticum vel Figuratum hoc vero Mysticum his Proper and True Body having nothing Mystical or Figurative in it So many several ways is the Term Verity explained and in all the Holy Eucharist denied to be the True that is REAL Body of our Saviour Again The Sense of the word Verity may be learned from the Terms to which it stands opposed through the whole Discourse which manifestly declare the subject of which they are affirmed not to be Christs Real Body Sometimes it is opposed to a Figure now nothing is a Sign or Figure of it self sometime to a Pledge sometime to an Image to a Similitude a Remembrance and the like and by affirming the Consecrated Elements to be Christ's Body in any of the forementioned respects he virtually denieth them to be his Natural and Real Body and by consequence when he saith they are Christ's Flesh and Blood in Figure and not in Truth he must mean thereby not in Reality Lastly If this be not the Sense of that Term Ratram's Reasoning N. 77. is false and absurd (z) Si enim hoc vere dicitur quia Corpus Christi est 1 In Veritate Corpus Christi est si in Veritate Corpus Christi est ' 2 Incorruptibile est impassibile c. n. 77. He argues thus If the Holy Eucharist be Christs Body and be truly and properly said to be the Body of Christ then it is such in Verity and if so then it is Incorruptible impassible and by consequence Eternal c. Now as M. Boileau expounds that Term the former 1 consequence is false and Ratram must contradict himself as our Adversaries understand him It followeth not that if the Eucharist be properly and truly said to be Christs Body that therefore it is so in the sensible appearance on the Principles of the Church of Rome Nor is the latter 2 Inference valid viz. That if it be Christs Body in sensible Verity then it is incorruptible and impassible For the Incorruptibility of Christs Body depends not upon the Sensible Qualities but upon
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.
is not immediately false where the Praedicate is a Metaphor or Metonymy and doth not in its first and native signification agree to the subject for unless the Trope be too obscure it conveys the Speakers true meaning into the mind of such as hear him Now in this sence (a) Non utique mentitur c. sect 35. supra cur nemo tam ineptus est ut nos ita loquentes arguat esse mentitos c. St. Augustine cited by our Author saith he tells no Lye who giveth the Name of the thing itself to the Sign and Sacrament of it and that this manner of speaking was perfectly understood And I may add it was very familiar among the Jews and is Authorised by a multitude of Scripture Examples Now in this sence Ratramnus in some places affirms that the consecrated Elements are truly Christ's Body and Blood and this without the least contradiction to himself though in the other sence he more frequently denies it And a due regard to these two sences of Verity or Truth will clear the obscurity of which the Romanists accuse our Author in many Passages of this Work. There is another term of the same importance Manifestation viz. Manifestation but our Adversaries pretend it is a Key of the whole Work because Ratramnus defines Truth to be rei manifestae demonstratio and charge the (a) Mabilonius A.B. Sec. IV P. 2. Praef. n. 101. French Translator of falsifying the Author because he renders manifestae manifesta participatione real and really They say whatever is manifest is real but the word real doth not express the full notion of manifest which further includes evidence many things being real which are not manifest And this is true But yet Bertram's sence of the word must be judged by his own use of it which will appear by inspecting the several places of the Book where it occurs and I must needs say that I cannot make sence of him if he mean not as the French Translator hath rendred him In the state of the question where he explains Verity by that which appears manifestationis luce in a manifest light or naked and open his meaning in that Question or rather the meaning of those against whom he writes and whose error the first part of this Discourse is intended to rectifie cannot be whether the Sacrament was the Body of Christ appearing in its own shape to our bodily Eye For that Cardinal Perron or Mr. Arnaud do not pretend the Stercorarists or whoever else Bertram opposeth to have believed but that the accidents of Bread and Wine affected or were subjected in the natural Body and Blood of Christ Now as to the matter of the Manifest appearance of Christ's Body it is all one whether the accidents of Bread and Wine be subjected in the Body and Blood of Christ or subsist without a subject for the bodily Eye doth not behold the Body of Christ the more or less manifestly for that nor doth it at all manifestly behold Christ's Body unless it see him in the form of a Man. And therefore if they meant any thing it must be whether the sensible Object in the Sacrament were Christ's very Body though under the figure of the Sacramental Elements But to clear the point we need only compare the two Prayers in the close of Bertram's Discourse on the second Question and we shall find that what in one Prayer they beg of God to receive by a manifest participation in the other they pray to be made really partakers of and in the same Collect manifest participation is opposed to Receiving in a Sacramental Image Now there is nothing more naturally opposed to an Image than the very thing whose Image it is or to a Sacrament than the res Sacramenti the real Object signified and exhibited under it The Reader will find the word bears the same sence in those few other places where Ratramnus useth it which are all near the end of the Book Another controverted Term is Species Species which hath two sences in this Book It is most commonly used to signifie the kind and specifical nature of any thing and is always so taken where it is set in opposition to a Figure or Sacrament or where the Author is declaring the nature of the consecrated Elements Sometimes it signifies the appearance or likeness of a thing so it is taken when it is opposed to Truth as in the Post-Communion Prayer cited by Ratramnus and in his Inferences from it Besides these the Romanists have another acceptation of the word making it to signifie the sensible qualities of the consecrated Elements subsisting without their substance in which sence I positively affirm that Species is no where used in this Treatise And herein the Authors of the (a) Index Expurg Belg. in Bertramo tametsi non diffitear Bertramum tunc temporis nescivisse exacte accidentia ista absque omni substantia sua subsistere c. Belgick Index will bear me out who acknowledge that Bertram did not exastly know how Accidents could subsist out of their Subjects which subtil Truth latter Ages have learnt out of the Scripture As Species ordinarily signifies Nature Species Visibilis so the addition of Visibilis alters not its signification For Ratramnus doth not speak of those qualities which immediately affect the sence abstracted from their Subject And I know nothing in Reason nor yet in the Holy Scriptures which are the Rule of our Faith that can inforce us to believe that our Senses are not as true Judges of what the Mouth receiveth in the Sacrament as they are of the nature of any other Object whatsoever and may as easily discern whether it be Bread or Flesh as they can distinguish a Man from a Tree Our Author frequently mentions the Divine Word Divine Word by whose power the Sacred Elements are Spiritually changed into Christ's Body Now when he thus speaks we must not imagine that he means a natural change of the Substance of the thing consecrated by the efficacy of the words of consecration but a Spiritual change effected by the Power and Spirit of Christ who is God the Word as he explains himself The last Term that needs explaining Spiriutal Body is Christ's Spiritual Body this he affirms the Sacrament to be in many places Now by a Spiritual Body we are not to understand the natural Body of Christ but existing after the manner of a Spirit or as our Adversaries love to speak not according to its proper existence that is to say it is Christ's Natural Body but neither visible nor local nor extended this is not Bertram's sence of Christ's Spiritual Body but that the thing so called is Figuratively and Mystically Christ's Body and that it Spiritually communicates to the Faithful Christ with all the benefits of his Death I may also add that Bertram uses great variety of Phrases to express that which we call the outward sign in the Sacrament that
Sacrament made him weary of his Abby is F. Mabillon's conjecture and not mine And if so we have reason to believe that the Doctrine of Ratramnus had rather the Princes countenance and the stronger party in the Convent And it will yet seem more probable when we consider that Odo afterwards Bishop of Beauvais a great Friend of Ratramnus was made Abbot in the room of Paschasius What the Doctrine of Paschasius was I shall now briefly shew He saith * Pasch Radb de Corp. Sang. Dom. c. 1. Licet Figura Panis Vini hic sit omnino nihil aliud quam Caro Christi Sanguis post consecrationem credenda sunt Et ut miâ—abilius loquar non alia plane quam quae nata est de Maria passa in Cruce resurrexit de Sepulchro That although in the Sacrament there be the Figure of Bread and Wine yet we must believe it after consecration to be nothing else but the Body and Blood of Christ. And that you may know in what sence he understands it to be Christ's Body and Blood he adds And to say somewhat yet more wonderful It is no other Flesh than that which was born of Mary suffered on the Cross and rose again from the Grave He illustrates this Mystery further by intimating that whosoever will not believe Christs natural Body in the Sacrament under the shape of Bread that man would not have believed Christ himself to have been God if he had seen him hanging upon the Cross in the form of a Servant And shelters himself against all the Absurdities that could be objected against this Opinion as the Papists still do under God's Omnipotence laying down this Principle as the foundation of all his Discourse That the nature of all Creatures is obedient to the Will of God who can change them into what he pleaseth He renders these two Reasons why the miraculous change is not manifest to sense by any alteration of the visible form or tast of what is received viz. * Sic debuit hoc mysterium temperari ut arcana Secretorum celarentur infidis meritum cresceret de virtute Fidei c. 13. ubi plura ejusmodi cceurrunt That there may be some exercise for Faith and that Pagans might not have subject to blaspheme the Mysteries of our Religion Yet notwithstanding this no man who believes the Word of God saith he can doubt but by Consecration it is made Christ's Body and Blood in Verity or Truth of Nature And he alledgeth stories of the miraculous appearance of Christ's Flesh in its proper form for the cure of doubting as a further confirmation of his carnal Doctrine These are the sentiments of Paschasius Radbertus and differ little from those of the Roman Church at present which I shall deduce from the Authentick Acts of that Church especially the Council of Trent 1. In the Year 1059. there was a Council assembled at Rome by Pope Nicolaus the II in which a form of Recantation was drawn up for Berengarius wherein he was required to declare * Apud Gratianum de Consecratione Dist 2. c. 42. Ego Berengarius c. That Bread and Wine after Consecration are not only the Sacrament Sign and Figure but the very Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which is not only Sacramentally but Sensibly and Truly handled and broken by the Priests hands and ground by the Teeth of the Faithful And this being the form of a Recantation ought to be esteemed an accurate account of the Doctrine of the Church yet they are somewhat ashamed of it as may appear by the Gloss upon Gratian who hath put it into the body of the Canon Law. But the Council of Trents difinitions are more Authentick which hath determined I. If any one shall deny that in the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is contained really and substantially the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently whole Christ But shall say that it is therein contained only as in a Sign or Figure or Virtually let him be accursed II. If any one shall say that in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of Bread and Wine together with the Body or Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and shall deny that singular or wonderful conversion of the whole substance of Bread into his Body and of the whole substance of 1. Concil Trid. sess 13. can 1. 2. Conc. Trid. Ibid. c. 2. Wine into his Blood there remaining only the species i. e. Accidents of Bread and Wine which conversion the Catholick Church very aptly calls Transubstantiation let him be accursed i. e. By faith and not orally III. If any man shall say that in the Eucharist Christ is exhibited and eaten only Spiritually and not Sacramentally and Really let him be accursed These are the definitions of the Church of Rome in this matter and now let us see whether the Doctrine of Ratramnus in this Book be agreeable to these Canons I might make short work of it by alledging all those Authors who either represent him as a Heretick or his Book as forged or Heretical and in so doing I should muster an Army of the most Eminent Doctors of the Roman Church with two or three Popes in the Head of them viz. Pius the IV. by whose Authority was compiled the Expurgatory Index in which this Book was first forbid Sixtus V. who inlarged the Roman Index and Clement the VIII by whose order it was Revised and published They are all competent 3. Conc. Trid. Ibid. can 8. cap. 8. Witnesses that his Doctrine is not agreeable to the present Faith of the Roman Church And our Authors * Vide Indic Belgic in Bertramo Excogitato commento kind Doway Friends are forced to Exercise their Wits for some handsome invention to make him a Roman-Catholick and at last they cannot bring him fairly off but are forced to change his words directly to a contrary sense and instead of visibly write invisibly and according to the substance of the Creatures must be interpreted according to the outward species or accidents of the Sacrament c. Which is not to explain an Author but to corrupt him and instead of interpreting his words to put their own words into his Mouth And after all they acknowledge that there are some other things which it were not either amiss or imprudent wholly to expunge in regard the loss of those passages will not spoil the sense nor will they be easily missed But I shall not build altogether upon their confessions in regard others who have the ingenuity to acknowledge the Author Orthodox and the work Catholick have also the confidence to deny our claim to Bertram's Authority who is as they pretend though obscure yet their own Therefore I shall shew in his own words that his sentiments in this matter are directly contrary to Paschasius
Radbertus and to the Council of Trent in three particulars 1. He asserts that what is orally received is not the true and natural Body of Christ 2. He asserts that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration 3. That what is orally received feeds the body and that Christ is eaten Spiritually and not Orally 1. It is very plain from the determination of the second Question that Bertram expresly contradicts Paschasius for the words of the Question are taken out of his book and Bertram denies flatly what Paschasius affirms viz. That in the Sacrament we receive the same Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin Crucified and rose again He urges a multitude of Authorities out of the Fathers to confirm his own judgment herein and in short but pithy expositions sheweth how they are pertinent to the business In obviating an objection from the Testimony of St. Ambrose he tells us That the sensible object is Christs body and blood not in nature or kind but virtually He observes that St. Ambrose distinguisheth between the Sacrament of Christs Flesh and the Verity of Christs Flesh affirming the latter to be that Flesh which was born of the Virgin and the Holy Eucharist to be the Sacrament of that true Flesh in which he was Crucified mystically representing the former Again upon an objection that St. Ambrose calls it the body of Christ he answers That it is the body and blood of Christ not corporally but Spiritually He shews that what is orally received in the Sacrament is not Christ's Natural body because Christs natural body is incorruptible whereas that which we receive in the Holy Eucharist is corruptible visible and to be felt He farther proves a great difference between Christs Natural and Sacramental Body and Blood in this that his Natural Body really was what it appeared to our senses whereas the Eucharist is one thing in nature and appearance and another thing in signification Likewise expounding St. Hieroms Testimony he saith Christs natural body had all the organical parts of an humane body and was quickened with a reasonable soul whereas his body in the Sacrament hath neither He makes the body of Christ in the Sacrament to be only an Image or Pledge but the Natural body of Christ to be the Truth signified And in the first part he proves that the words of Christ Instituting this Sacrament are Figurative and that the thing orally received or the Symbols had the name of the things signified thereby it being usual to give Signs or Sacraments the name of the very thing represented under them And this he proves from St. Augustine It must be acknowledged that Bertram sometimes saith that it is truly Christs body and blood but mark how he explains himself he saith they are not so as to their visible nature but by the power of the Divine Word i. e. not corporally but spiritually And he adds the visible creature feeds the body but the virtue and efficacy of the Divine Word feeds and sanctifies the soul of the Faithful So that when he affirms the Sacrament to be truly Christs body he means truly in opposition to falshood not truly as that word is opposed to Figuratively But F. Mabillon and F. Alexander make Bertram and Paschasius to say the same thing and tell us that the former doth not deny the Truth of Christs natural body in the Sacrament which he as well as Paschasius holds but only that it is there propria specie i. e. in its proper shape and visible form or in its natural existence I must now requite the candour of F. Mabillon to Archbishop Vsher and impute this Opinion of his to the prejudice of Education For it s very evident that what Ratramnus labours to prove is an essential difference between the Sacrament received by the Faithful and Christs body as great a difference as between a body and a spirit between a corruptible and an incorruptible thing between the Image and the Original Truth between Figure and Verity And it is as plain that he admits these sensible qualities to be clear proofs of an essential difference and also allows our outward senses to be proper Judges in the case appealing to our eyes our taste and smell * Sect. 99. He shews that our Saviours body after its Resurrection was visible and palpable and cites Luke 24.39 Compare this with what he saith Sect. 72. where he sheweth the difference between Christs Natural and Spiritual Body as our Saviour did to the outward senses to prove the Verity of his body after his Resurrection Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self Handle me and see for a Spirit hath not FLESH and BONES as you SEE me to have So that in his Opinion we have the same evidence that the Sacramental Elements after Consecration are not Christs natural body in which he suffered which the Disciples had that the body in which he appeared to them after his Resurrection was the same body in which he was Crucified and buried 2. Ratramnus contradicts the Council of Trent in affirming the substance of Bread and Wine to remain after Consecration which those Fathers deny with an Anathema to all that affirm it He tells us expounding a citation out of St. Ambrose As to the substance of the Creatures what they were before Consecration they remain after it Bread and Wine they were before and after Consecration we see they continue beings of the same kind or nature F. Mabillon conceives Ratramnus to assert Transubstantiation in using the words turn conversion and that it is made Christs Body invisibly by the powerful operation of the Holy Ghost That the Bread and Wine after Consecration are not what they were before That they are truly by the Mystery turned into the substance of his body and blood c. which last is the most plausible sentence he quotes But I would fain know whether when he denies it to be a natural change and affirms it to be a Spiritual and which is all one an invisible change also that the substance of Wine is seen after Consecration and that by Consecration the Wine is made the Sacrament of Christs blood that it is made Christs Blood divini significatione Mysterii by the signification of the Divine Mystery That there was in the Manna and Water a spiritual power of the Word viz. Christ which fed the Souls of the believing Israelites That the Psalmist teacheth us both what the Father 's received in the Heavenly Manna and what the Faithful ought to believe in the Mystery of Christs body in both certainly Christ is signified And in express terms that as he could before his Passion turn the Bread and Wine into his body which was to suffer c. So before his Incarnation in the Wilderness he turned the Manna and Water into his body and blood And that as the Bread is Christs body so is it the body of the Faithful People and that if the
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
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
rectius omnino Cl. Junius in Glossario a Gothico HUNSL deducit Saxonicum Husel litera N euphoniae gratia uti in nonnullis aliis origine Gothicis e medi◠Sublata ex gr Tunth Gothice Saxonice Toð Anglice Tooth Munth Gothice Saxonice Muð Anglice Mouth c. Housel which is frequently used in this Homily to signifie the Holy Eucharist is of Gothick Extraction and derived from Hunsl a Sacrifice in Saxon Husel the letter N. being here as in some other Instances left out to soften the Pronunciation Our Saxon Ancestors stiled the Holy Eucharist a Sacrifice as the Fathers both Greek and Latin antiently did in a large and improper Sense viz. Either as it is a Commemoration of that proper Sacrifice once offered on the Cross or as Alms Prayers and Thanksgiving are sometimes called a Sacrifice Ratramnus As Bertram defines what a Figure is and what the Truth § 6 7 8. § 8. VEritas utpote cum Christus dicitur natus de Virgine Passus Crucifixus mortuus sepultus One of his Instances of a Figure is when Christ calleth himself Bread whereas substantialiter nec Panis Christus c. § 9. At ille panis qui per Sacerdotis ministerium Christi corpus efficitur aliud exterius humanis sensibus ostendit aliud interius Fidelium mentibus clamat Exterius quidem panis quod ante fuerat formae praetenditur color ostenditur sapor accipitur § 10. Cum tamen post Mysticam consecrationem nec panis jam dicitur nec vinum sed Christi corpus sanguis § 17. Consideremus fontem Sacri Baptismatis qui fons vitae non immerito nuncupatur in eo tamen fonte si consideretur solummodo quod corporeus aspicit sensus elementum fluidum conspicitur corruptioni subjectum nec nisi corpora lavandi potentiam obtinere sed accessit Sancti Spiritus per Sacerdotis consecrationem virtus efficax facta est non solum corpora verum etiam animas diluere spirituales Sordes spirituali potentia dimovere § 18. Ecce in uno eodemque elemento duo videmus in esse sibi resistentia in proprietate est humor corruptibilis in Mysterio vero virtus sanabilis § 19. Sic itaque Christi corpus sanguis superficie tenus considerata creatura est mutabilitati corruptelaeque obnoxia si Mysterii vero perpendis virtutem vita est participantibus se tribuens immortalitatem § 69. Multa differentia separantur corpus in quo passus est Christus hoc corpus quod in mysterio Passionis Christi quotidie a fidelibus celebratur § 72. Illa namque Caro quae Crucifixa est de Virginis carne facta est ossibus nervis compacta humanorum membrorum lineamentis distincta rationalis animae spiritu vivificata in propriam vitam At vero caro spiritualis quae populum credentem pascit secundum speciem quam gerit exterius frumenti granis manu artificis consistit nullis nervis obsibusque compacta nulla membrorum varietate distincta nulla rationali substantia vegetata Quicquid enim in ea vita praebet substantiam spiritualis est potentiae invisibilis efficientiae divinaeque virtutis Atque aliud longe consistit secundum quod exterius conspicitur illud secundum quod in Mysterio creditur § 76. Corpus Christi quod mortuum est resurrexit immortale factum est jam non moritur mors illi ultra non dominabitur Aeternum est jam non passibile Hoc autem quod in Ecclesia celebratur temporale est non aeternum corruptibile est non incorruptum sed § 77. negari non potest corrumpi quod per partes comminutum dispartitur ad sumendum dentibus commolitum in corpus trajicitur § 88. Hoc Corpus sc quod in Mysterio celebratur pignus est species illud veritas Hoc enim geritur donec ad illud perveniatur ubi vero ad illud perventum fuerit hoc removebitur § 60. Corpus Christi est sed non corporaliter sanguis Christ est sed non corporaliter § 25. Nec istic ratio qua fieri potuit est disquirenda sed fides quod factum sit adhibenda § 25. Ipse namque qui nunc in Ecclesia omnipotenti virtute Panem Vinum in sui corporis carnem proprii cruoris undam spiritualiter canvertit ipse tunc quoque Manna de Coelo datum Corpus suum Aquam de Petra profusam preprium sanguinem invisibiliter operatus est § 27. Dominus Jesus Christus priusquam pateretur accepto pane gratias egit dedit discipulis suis dicens Hoc est Corpus meum c. Videmus nondum passum esse Christum jam tamen sui corporis sanguinis Mysterium operatum fuisse § 28. Sicut ergo paulo antequam pateretur panis substantiam vini creaturam convertere potuit in proprium corpus quod Passurum erat in suum sanguinem qui post fundendus extabat sic etiam in deserto Manna Aquam de Petra in suam carnem sanguinem convertere praevaluit quamvis longe post caro illius in Cruce pro nobis pendenda sanguis ejus fundendus superabat § 78. Manducavit Moses Manna manducavit Aaron manducavit Phinees manducaverunt multi qui Deo placuerunt mortui non sunt Quare quia visibilem cibum spiritualiter intellexerunt spiritualiter esurierunt spiritualiter gustaverunt ut spiritualiter satiarentur § 39. Quod fecit semel nunc quotidie frequentat semel enim pro peccatis populi se obtulit celebratur tamen haec eadem oblatio singulis per fideles diebus sed in mysterio ut quod Dominus Jesus Christus semel sese offerens adimplevit hoc in ejus Passionis memoriam quotidie geritur per mysteriorum celebrationem § 73. Considerandum quoque quod in illo pane non solum corpus Christi verum corpus etiam in eum credentis populi figuretur § 95. Et sic dicit in consequentibus Corpus ergo Christi vultis Intelligere Apostolum audite dicentem vos estis corpus Christi Membra Mysterium vestrum in mensa Domini positum est Mysterium Domini accipitis ad id quod estis Amen respondetis respondendo subscribitis Audis ergo Corpus Christi respondes Amen esto membrum Christi ut verum sit Amen ipsum Paulum dicentem audiamus unus Panis unum Corpus multi sumus § 75 Sic in vino qui Sanguis Christi dicitur aqua misceri jubetur nec unum sine altero permittitur offerri quia nec populus sine Christo nec Christus sine populo sicut nec caput sine corpore nec corpus sine capite valet existere Aqua denique in illo Sacramento populi gestat imaginem The Saxon Homily SO Aelfric saith some things are spoken of Christ by
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