is not immediately false where the Praedicate is a Metaphor or Metonymy and doth not in its first and native signification agree to the subject for unless the Trope be too obscure it conveys the Speakers true meaning into the mind of such as hear him Now in this sence (a) Non utique mentitur c. sect 35. supra cur nemo tam ineptus est ut nos ita loquentes arguat esse mentitos c. St. Augustine cited by our Author saith he tells no Lye who giveth the Name of the thing itself to the Sign and Sacrament of it and that this manner of speaking was perfectly understood And I may add it was very familiar among the Jews and is Authorised by a multitude of Scripture Examples Now in this sence Ratramnus in some places affirms that the consecrated Elements are truly Christ's Body and Blood and this without the least contradiction to himself though in the other sence he more frequently denies it And a due regard to these two sences of Verity or Truth will clear the obscurity of which the Romanists accuse our Author in many Passages of this Work. There is another term of the same importance Manifestation viz. Manifestation but our Adversaries pretend it is a Key of the whole Work because Ratramnus defines Truth to be rei manifestae demonstratio and charge the (a) Mabilonius A.B. Sec. IV P. 2. Praef. n. 101. French Translator of falsifying the Author because he renders manifestae manifesta participatione real and really They say whatever is manifest is real but the word real doth not express the full notion of manifest which further includes evidence many things being real which are not manifest And this is true But yet Bertram's sence of the word must be judged by his own use of it which will appear by inspecting the several places of the Book where it occurs and I must needs say that I cannot make sence of him if he mean not as the French Translator hath rendred him In the state of the question where he explains Verity by that which appears manifestationis luce in a manifest light or naked and open his meaning in that Question or rather the meaning of those against whom he writes and whose error the first part of this Discourse is intended to rectifie cannot be whether the Sacrament was the Body of Christ appearing in its own shape to our bodily Eye For that Cardinal Perron or Mr. Arnaud do not pretend the Stercorarists or whoever else Bertram opposeth to have believed but that the accidents of Bread and Wine affected or were subjected in the natural Body and Blood of Christ Now as to the matter of the Manifest appearance of Christ's Body it is all one whether the accidents of Bread and Wine be subjected in the Body and Blood of Christ or subsist without a subject for the bodily Eye doth not behold the Body of Christ the more or less manifestly for that nor doth it at all manifestly behold Christ's Body unless it see him in the form of a Man. And therefore if they meant any thing it must be whether the sensible Object in the Sacrament were Christ's very Body though under the figure of the Sacramental Elements But to clear the point we need only compare the two Prayers in the close of Bertram's Discourse on the second Question and we shall find that what in one Prayer they beg of God to receive by a manifest participation in the other they pray to be made really partakers of and in the same Collect manifest participation is opposed to Receiving in a Sacramental Image Now there is nothing more naturally opposed to an Image than the very thing whose Image it is or to a Sacrament than the res Sacramenti the real Object signified and exhibited under it The Reader will find the word bears the same sence in those few other places where Ratramnus useth it which are all near the end of the Book Another controverted Term is Species Species which hath two sences in this Book It is most commonly used to signifie the kind and specifical nature of any thing and is always so taken where it is set in opposition to a Figure or Sacrament or where the Author is declaring the nature of the consecrated Elements Sometimes it signifies the appearance or likeness of a thing so it is taken when it is opposed to Truth as in the Post-Communion Prayer cited by Ratramnus and in his Inferences from it Besides these the Romanists have another acceptation of the word making it to signifie the sensible qualities of the consecrated Elements subsisting without their substance in which sence I positively affirm that Species is no where used in this Treatise And herein the Authors of the (a) Index Expurg Belg. in Bertramo tametsi non diffitear Bertramum tunc temporis nescivisse exacte accidentia ista absque omni substantia sua subsistere c. Belgick Index will bear me out who acknowledge that Bertram did not exastly know how Accidents could subsist out of their Subjects which subtil Truth latter Ages have learnt out of the Scripture As Species ordinarily signifies Nature Species Visibilis so the addition of Visibilis alters not its signification For Ratramnus doth not speak of those qualities which immediately affect the sence abstracted from their Subject And I know nothing in Reason nor yet in the Holy Scriptures which are the Rule of our Faith that can inforce us to believe that our Senses are not as true Judges of what the Mouth receiveth in the Sacrament as they are of the nature of any other Object whatsoever and may as easily discern whether it be Bread or Flesh as they can distinguish a Man from a Tree Our Author frequently mentions the Divine Word Divine Word by whose power the Sacred Elements are Spiritually changed into Christ's Body Now when he thus speaks we must not imagine that he means a natural change of the Substance of the thing consecrated by the efficacy of the words of consecration but a Spiritual change effected by the Power and Spirit of Christ who is God the Word as he explains himself The last Term that needs explaining Spiriutal Body is Christ's Spiritual Body this he affirms the Sacrament to be in many places Now by a Spiritual Body we are not to understand the natural Body of Christ but existing after the manner of a Spirit or as our Adversaries love to speak not according to its proper existence that is to say it is Christ's Natural Body but neither visible nor local nor extended this is not Bertram's sence of Christ's Spiritual Body but that the thing so called is Figuratively and Mystically Christ's Body and that it Spiritually communicates to the Faithful Christ with all the benefits of his Death I may also add that Bertram uses great variety of Phrases to express that which we call the outward sign in the Sacrament that
Radbertus and to the Council of Trent in three particulars 1. He asserts that what is orally received is not the true and natural Body of Christ 2. He asserts that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration 3. That what is orally received feeds the body and that Christ is eaten Spiritually and not Orally 1. It is very plain from the determination of the second Question that Bertram expresly contradicts Paschasius for the words of the Question are taken out of his book and Bertram denies flatly what Paschasius affirms viz. That in the Sacrament we receive the same Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin Crucified and rose again He urges a multitude of Authorities out of the Fathers to confirm his own judgment herein and in short but pithy expositions sheweth how they are pertinent to the business In obviating an objection from the Testimony of St. Ambrose he tells us That the sensible object is Christs body and blood not in nature or kind but virtually He observes that St. Ambrose distinguisheth between the Sacrament of Christs Flesh and the Verity of Christs Flesh affirming the latter to be that Flesh which was born of the Virgin and the Holy Eucharist to be the Sacrament of that true Flesh in which he was Crucified mystically representing the former Again upon an objection that St. Ambrose calls it the body of Christ he answers That it is the body and blood of Christ not corporally but Spiritually He shews that what is orally received in the Sacrament is not Christ's Natural body because Christs natural body is incorruptible whereas that which we receive in the Holy Eucharist is corruptible visible and to be felt He farther proves a great difference between Christs Natural and Sacramental Body and Blood in this that his Natural Body really was what it appeared to our senses whereas the Eucharist is one thing in nature and appearance and another thing in signification Likewise expounding St. Hieroms Testimony he saith Christs natural body had all the organical parts of an humane body and was quickened with a reasonable soul whereas his body in the Sacrament hath neither He makes the body of Christ in the Sacrament to be only an Image or Pledge but the Natural body of Christ to be the Truth signified And in the first part he proves that the words of Christ Instituting this Sacrament are Figurative and that the thing orally received or the Symbols had the name of the things signified thereby it being usual to give Signs or Sacraments the name of the very thing represented under them And this he proves from St. Augustine It must be acknowledged that Bertram sometimes saith that it is truly Christs body and blood but mark how he explains himself he saith they are not so as to their visible nature but by the power of the Divine Word i. e. not corporally but spiritually And he adds the visible creature feeds the body but the virtue and efficacy of the Divine Word feeds and sanctifies the soul of the Faithful So that when he affirms the Sacrament to be truly Christs body he means truly in opposition to falshood not truly as that word is opposed to Figuratively But F. Mabillon and F. Alexander make Bertram and Paschasius to say the same thing and tell us that the former doth not deny the Truth of Christs natural body in the Sacrament which he as well as Paschasius holds but only that it is there propria specie i. e. in its proper shape and visible form or in its natural existence I must now requite the candour of F. Mabillon to Archbishop Vsher and impute this Opinion of his to the prejudice of Education For it s very evident that what Ratramnus labours to prove is an essential difference between the Sacrament received by the Faithful and Christs body as great a difference as between a body and a spirit between a corruptible and an incorruptible thing between the Image and the Original Truth between Figure and Verity And it is as plain that he admits these sensible qualities to be clear proofs of an essential difference and also allows our outward senses to be proper Judges in the case appealing to our eyes our taste and smell * Sect. 99. He shews that our Saviours body after its Resurrection was visible and palpable and cites Luke 24.39 Compare this with what he saith Sect. 72. where he sheweth the difference between Christs Natural and Spiritual Body as our Saviour did to the outward senses to prove the Verity of his body after his Resurrection Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self Handle me and see for a Spirit hath not FLESH and BONES as you SEE me to have So that in his Opinion we have the same evidence that the Sacramental Elements after Consecration are not Christs natural body in which he suffered which the Disciples had that the body in which he appeared to them after his Resurrection was the same body in which he was Crucified and buried 2. Ratramnus contradicts the Council of Trent in affirming the substance of Bread and Wine to remain after Consecration which those Fathers deny with an Anathema to all that affirm it He tells us expounding a citation out of St. Ambrose As to the substance of the Creatures what they were before Consecration they remain after it Bread and Wine they were before and after Consecration we see they continue beings of the same kind or nature F. Mabillon conceives Ratramnus to assert Transubstantiation in using the words turn conversion and that it is made Christs Body invisibly by the powerful operation of the Holy Ghost That the Bread and Wine after Consecration are not what they were before That they are truly by the Mystery turned into the substance of his body and blood c. which last is the most plausible sentence he quotes But I would fain know whether when he denies it to be a natural change and affirms it to be a Spiritual and which is all one an invisible change also that the substance of Wine is seen after Consecration and that by Consecration the Wine is made the Sacrament of Christs blood that it is made Christs Blood divini significatione Mysterii by the signification of the Divine Mystery That there was in the Manna and Water a spiritual power of the Word viz. Christ which fed the Souls of the believing Israelites That the Psalmist teacheth us both what the Father 's received in the Heavenly Manna and what the Faithful ought to believe in the Mystery of Christs body in both certainly Christ is signified And in express terms that as he could before his Passion turn the Bread and Wine into his body which was to suffer c. So before his Incarnation in the Wilderness he turned the Manna and Water into his body and blood And that as the Bread is Christs body so is it the body of the Faithful People and that if the
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
able to resolve us I shall only add That had our Saxon Ancestors believed the Housel to be Christ's Natural and true Flesh it is incredible that their Canons should enjoyn fresh Consecrations every Week or Fortnight at longest to prevent such Accidents and that if (c) Canones sub Edgaro apud Spelman Concil Tom. I. vide Canon 38. p. gif hit forheaden sy þat his man brucan ne maege þonne sorbaern hit man on claenum fire I know the Roman Missal in some cases injoyns Burning but not till the Species be wholly corrupted when in the Judgment of the Schoolmen Christ's Body and Blood are retired the Housel grew stale and nauseous it should be burnt in a clear Fire and the Ashes buried under the Altar I say it is incredible that they should order it to be burnt if they believed it the very Body of our Saviour I shall trouble the Reader with nothing further till I come to shew how absurdly Mr. Boileau in his Remarks senseth some terms of Ratram whose true meaning the Saxon words used as equivalent in this Homily will very much illustrate III. My third Reason to shew that Mr. Boileau hath not given us a true account of the Sentiments and Design of Ratram is because his Arguments prove a great deal more than that there is a Figure in the Sacrament or that the Accidents are not the Sensible Truth of Christ's Body The very first Inference he makes is this (d) Claret quia Panis ille Vinumque FIGURATE Christi Corpus Sanguis EXISTIT n. 10. Hence it is evident that this Bread and Wine are Figuratively Christ's Body and Blood which is a great deal more than that there is a Figure in the Sacrament 1. He saith positively that this Bread and this Wine not the Sensible Qualities of them are Christ's Body and Blood. 2. He saith they are Figuratively not simply and in propriety of Nature Christ's Body and Blood. These words Mr. Boileau hath fraudulently Translated IN A FIGURE Again When he hath proved that there is no Physical change upon Consecration neither Generation nor Corruption nor Alteration he thence infers (e) Necesse est jam ut FIGURATE facta esse dicatur scil commutatio n. 16. that of necessity it must be Figuratively changed which is somewhat more than Mr. Boileau will acknowledge to have been in dispute between him and his Adversaries For it determines the Nature of the change to be Figurative and if so the Elements are not Substantially turned into Christ's Body and Blood as the Church of Rome hath defined That a Figurative change infers no Substantial change in Ratram's Judgment we may observe in his Explication of the words Figure and Verity where having said that Christ was by a Figure called Bread and a Vine he tells us however (f) Nam SUBSTANTIALITER nec Panis Christus nec Vitis Christus nec Palmites Apostoli Quapropter hic FIGURA n. 8. that Christ is not Substantially either Bread or a Vine c. And this is in express Terms the Heresie which Chifflet's Anonymous Writer chargeth Berengarius with advancing contrary to the Catholick Faith. He tells us (g) Asserens Panem Vinum in Sacrificio Domini non VERE ESSENTIALITER sed FIGURATE tantum CONVERTI in Corpus Sanguinem Dominicum Concil To. IX col 1050. Edit Labbei that Berengarius taught that the Consecrated Bread and Wine was not Truly and Essentially but only in a Figurative manner turned into Christ's Body and Blood. This Author is said to have written A. D. 1088. in which year Berengarius died and if he misrepresent not his Sentiments and understood what was then esteemed the Catholick Faith we have great reason to believe that had Bertram stood a Trial before the same Judges with Berengarius he would have fallen under the same Condemnation Mr. Boileau hopes to excuse him from asserting in the forementioned Expression that which he takes to be the Doctrine of Berengarius and the Reformed Churches by this shift Saith he (h) Remarks p. 219. II ne dit pas qu'ils sont seulement en Figure le Corpus de J. C. Ratram doth not teach that the Holy Eucharist is ONLY IN A FIGURE Christ's Body But this will not serve the turn For 1. If he intend by adding the word ONLY to make the Asserters of a Figurative change to exclude any Spiritual Efficacy or Grace annexed to this Sacrament and to own no more than empty Signs he grossly abuseth the Reformed Religion as may be seen by our Confessions No sober Protestant ever affirmed it nor did Berengarius who with Ratram owned a Divine Virtue therein conferring Grace (i) Sacramentum quidem transitorium est Virtus vero quae per ipsum operatur Gratia quae insinuatur aeterna Bereng in Ep. ad Ricardum Conc. Tom. XI col 1062. Which words with those that follow are ascribed to Paschase in the Bibl. Patrum Edit Par. 1610. Tom. VI. col 296. the order of the Sentences differs but the words are the same The Sacrament saith he is Transitory but the Virtue that worketh thereby and the Grace conferred is eternal Yet this Declaration did not satisfie the Councils of the XI Century nor did it please Paschase as hath been shewn and the Council of (k) Sed dixerit tantummodo esse in eo ut in Signo vel Figura aut Virtute Anathema sit Conc. Trid. Sess XIII Can. I. Trent hath Anathematized all such as acknowledge not Christ personally present in the Sacrament but only in Sign in Figure or Virtue 2. Ratram doth in effect say That the Consecrated Elements are ONLY in Figure and Virtue Christ's Body and Blood because he denies them to be Corporally or in Nature changed or to be Christ's Body born of the Virgin c. and affirms them to be the Figures Pledges Images Sacraments of Christs true and natural Flesh and Blood which are indeed more express Exclusives than the Conjunction ONLY I shall not here call Mr. Boileau to an account for his sly and fraudulent Translation of the word (l) En Figure instead of en maniere Figurative or par une Figure n. Figurate in a Figure in stead of by a Figure to insinuate that Ratram held Christ's natural Body to be invisibly under the Forms or remaining Accidents of Bread and Wine but remember him of it in another place Again The Parallel which Ratram makes between the Holy Eucharist and Baptism manifestly shews his intention to prove somewhat more than barely that there is a Figure in the Sacrament For the Analogy between the two Sacraments lieth in this as Material Water in Baptism without any Physical change hath through the Blessing annexed to that Institution by our Saviour a Spiritual Efficacy and Sanctifying Virtue which worketh a real effect on the Soul which resembleth the cleansing effect of common Water So in the Holy Eucharist Material Bread and Wine do by the same means obtain
should he rise from the Dead he would find his Sense and Doctrine as much changed as the French Tongue is since his days For Mr. Boileau doth not content himself to refer the Reader to the Margin or to his Remarks for the Exposition of a controverted Term which he might have done without impeaching his own Sincerity but he mixeth his gloss by way of Paraphrase with the Text and doth not by any difference of Character or by enclosing them in Hooks distinguish his own words from the Authors so that the Reader who understands not Latin cannot tell when he reads Bertram and when Mr. Boileau I shall not tire my self or the Reader with a compleat List of his unfair Dealings but give him some remarkable instances by which he may take an estimate of Mr. Boileau's exactness and fidelity I shall begin with his Fraudulent Omissions which are but few and of these I shall give you two Instances both near the beginning of the Book Mr. Boileau For it is not the Appearance of Flesh that is seen in that Bread or of Blood in the Wine Ratram N. 10. (h) Car ce n'est pas l'apparence de la chair que l'on voit dans ce pain ny du sang dans le vin Non enim secundum quod videtur vel carnis Species in illo Pane cognoscitur vel in illo vino cruoris unda monstratur Having rendred Species Carnis the appearance of Flesh he gently slides over the word unda and leaves it Untranslated by which means he tacitly insinuates to the unwary Reader that Ratram doth not deny the Substance of Flesh and Blood to be in the Sacrament But only saith that the Appearance of Flesh and Blood is not discerned therein Whereas the word unda Liquor imports the Liquid Substance of Blood and therefore by parity of Reason Species must signifie somewhat more than the meer visible accidents of Flesh So that if he deny the Substance of Blood to be in the Wine he could not believe the Substance of Flesh to be in the Bread. If it be alledged that Ratram only saith that they are not known or discerned or shewn therein he doth not say they are not there invisibly The answer is obvious Ratram esteemed our Senses competent Judges of what we orally receive in the Sacrament and able to distinguish Flesh from Bread. And withal as I shall shortly prove the words cognoscitur and monstratur and ostenditur are frequently used as the Copula of a Proposition and signifie no more than Est and have nothing of Emphasis in them Another crafty omission is of the word Sacrament which he leaves out in Translating the last words of Number XII Ratram Hic vero Panis Vinum prius fuere (i) Avant qu'ils passassent au Corps au sang de J. C. quam transitum in Sacramentum Corporis Sanguinis Christi fecerunt M. Boileau But here the Bread and Wine did exist before they passed into or were changed into the Body and Blood of Christ How wide difference there is between being turned into Christs Body and Blood and into the SACRAMENT of his Body and Blood any one knows who is not blind because he will not see I wonder why Mr. Boileau did not omit the same word in other like Passages as where our Author saith That Wine is made the Sacrament of Christs Blood by the Priests Consecration thereof And again That the Elements are Spiritually made Mysteries or Sacraments of Christs Body and Blood c. For these Expressions teach us how to understand him in other places where he saith That Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Christ viz. that they are made the Memorials Symbols or Sacraments thereof For we have no reason to doubt that Ratram who from St. Augustine observeth that it is familiar to give the name of the thing signified to the Sign or Sacrament by reason of its Analogy thereunto I say we have no reason to doubt but that he frequently doth so himself in this Book I shall next give you a taste of his bold Paraphrases and Additions to the Author's Text so that it is very difficult for a Common Reader to distinguish Ratram's own words from Mr. Boileau's Exposition of them And passing by many of his less Material though large Interpolations I shall instance in some foisted in to serve the Cause of Transubstantiation against the Author's true Sense What is not in the Latin I have enclosed thus in Hooks for the Readers ease Ratram N. XI (k) Et que tout ce que l'on y voit soit la Pure Veritè Sed totum in Veritate conspiciatur Mr. Boileau But the whole that is seen there is the Pure verity So N. XXXII And in several other places he renders Veritas the Pure Verity If he believe that really to be the Author's meaning he might have advertised his Reader in a Marginal Note but the inserting that Explication into the Text is more than well consists with that great exactness in Translating to which he pretends It were easie to guess though he had not acquainted us in a Remark for what end he foisted in the word Pure it was to insinuate that Ratram disputes not against Paschase but against some unknown Adversaries who held there was no Vail or Figure in the Sacrament and that Christ's Body presented it self Naked to our View Now that these Extravagant Opinionists never had any being save in Mr. Boileau's Imagination hath been already shewn And as he is pleased to make them express their Sentiments viz. That the whole which is seen is the pure Verity it were more reasonable to think that they believed nothing but a Figure in the Sacrament nothing but Bread and Wine since nothing else is discerned by the Eye And he makes them elsewhere to say (l) Mais que tout y est tel qu'il paroist aux yeux n. 54. That the whole is just what it appears to the Eye If the Notion were that the Accidents of Bread and Wine whose first Subject was destroyed were translated into Christ's Natural Body it was very improper for him to make them say that the Sensible Object was the Pure Verity for it must needs be a Prodigious Compound of one Substance divested of its natural Qualities and the proper Accidents of another Substance Again This Translator in many places doth greatly corrupt the Author's Sense by inserting the Particle there which though it be the addition of a single Letter y in the French yet it makes almost as great a change in Ratram's Doctrine as the Arrians made in the Christian Faith by the addition of an Iota to the word Homoousios For hereby he insinuates the Presence of Christ's Natural Body in an invisible manner where the Author had no intention to say any thing of Christ's Presence at all but only to shew that the Consecrated Elements are Christ's Body and Blood which in Ratram's sense
the force of the word Nature it self do any way oblige him to it For 1. St. Ambrose parallels the change made by Consecration in the Holy Eucharist with several others which are not Substantial changes as the dividing the Waters of the (h) Nonne claret Naturam vel maritimorum fluctuum vel fluvialis cursus esse mutatam Ambros Ibid. Red Sea and Jordan The sweetning of the Waters of Marah the causing of Iron to swim which are only changes of the Natural Qualities not of the Substances of things 2. Neither doth Bertram expounding St. Ambrose any way Authorize that Gloss but on the contrary directs us to take the word Nature in another Sense by an express denial of any change in the Substance of Bread and Wine As to (i) Nam secundum Creaturarum Substantiam quod fuerunt ante Consecrationem hoc postea consistunt Panis Vinum prius extitere c. N. LIV. the Substance of the Creatures they continue after Consecration what they were before viz. Bread and Wine 3. Neither will he say that the word Natures can bear no other Sense who contends that the word Substance may signifie no more than the Sensible Qualities of a thing And it were gross Trifling for me to labour in the proof of the contrary by Examples Nevertheless I shall give him one out of Salvian speaking of some of those changes which St. Ambrose parallels with that in the Sacrament Having proved Gods Providence by miraculous methods in which he brought the Israelites out of Egypt protected and fed them in the Wilderness he goes on thus (k) Adde huc fontes repentè natos adde medicatas aquas vel datas vel immutatas SPECIEM servantes NATURAM relinquentes Salv. de Gub. l. 1. p. 21. Edit Baluz Par. 1669. To this add new Fountains instantly springing out of the Earth also Medicated Waters the one given Miraculously the others changed and made wholesome keeping their Species or Natural Substance and forsaking their Nature i. e. Natural Qualities viz. Bitterness and Unwholesomeness Here Species signifies the Substance and Natura the Sensible Quality of Bitterness Another corrupting Interpolation may be observed in the words which immediately follow N. LIV. (l) St. Ambroise dit due le changement qui se fait d'une chose en une autre est admirable c. Dicit Sanctus Ambrosius in illo Mysterio Sanguinis Corporis Christi commutationem esse factam mirabiliter c. St. Ambrose saith That in this Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood the change of one thing into another is admirable Not to insist on his licentious alteration of the Syntax I appeal to any Man that understands Latin whether Ratram make St. Ambrose to say (l) St. Ambroise dit due le changement qui se fait d'une chose en une autre est admirable c. that in the Sacrament one thing is changed into another that is as Mr. Boileau would have it (m) Remarquer p. 246. one Substance into another Ratram infers no more than this That there is a change made which no Body denies But that this change is of one thing or substance into another is Mr. Boileau's Fiction who basely imposeth on his Reader both in his Preface and Remarks citing this place so Translated to prove that this Author's Sentiments could not possibly be different from those of the Church of Rome Whereas in the words immediately following as I observed just before he denieth expresly any substantial change I might add many more Instances of his foul Glosses inserted into the Text such as Translating Veritas the Visible and Sensible Truth or with all its Dimensions Proprium Corpus Christi the Proper Body of Christ together with its Natural Properties c. But I am weary of tracing him in these By-ways and should I follow him further my trouble would be endless almost every Paragraph to the end of the Book being thus corrupted I shall therefore give but an Example or two of his bold Variations from the Author's Words as well as Sense N. XIV Quaerendum ergo est ab eis qui nihil hic Figurate volunt accipere sed totum in veritatis simplicitate consistere (n) Il faut donc demander comment ce Changement soit fait de sorte que les choses qui etoient auparavant ne soient plus c'est a dire que le pain le vin qui etoient auparavant ne soient plus mais c. secundum quod demutatio facta sit ut jam non sint quod ante fuerunt videlicet Panis atque Vinum sed sint Corpus atque Sanguis Christi It must be demanded of those who pretend that there is no Figure and who maintain that all is there spoken in the pure and simple Verity how this Change is made so that the things which were before are no longer that is the Bread and Wine which were or did exist before are or do exist no longer but are become the Body and Blood of J. Christ All that the Author intended to say was no more than this That after Consecration the Elements are not what they were before it but somewhat more excellent than common Bread and Wine viz. The Body and Blood of Christ He never intended to deny the Existence of the Elements as this Version makes him to do The words are plain and intelligible but Mr. Boileau by some unknown Rules of Construction inverts their natural Order and joyns a Nominative Singular to a Verb Plural and then by a sort of Logick as peculiar to himself making the Predicate the Subject of his Proposition so renders the Passage as by a (o) A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter vel ab est tertii adjecti ad est secundi adjecti in propositione Negativa quales consequentiae non necessario valent non raro falsissimae sunt Notorious Fallacy to make the Author deny the Existence of Bread and Wine immediately after he had been proving it and against the Scope of his Discourse in this place For Ratram thus argues against his Adversaries Either Consecration makes a Figurative Change of the Elements or else it makes no change The absurdity of saying the latter is this that then the Consecrated Elements are not the Body and Blood of Christ which to say is Impious And to make good his Consequence he reminds them of what he had largely proved just before that the Elements as to their Species or Nature had undergone no change there being no Substance produced a-new none corrupted nor yet so much as altered in its Natural Qualities by Consecration and therefore no Physical Change made thereby But Mr. Boileau is resolved in defiance both of Priscian and Aristotle to make poor Ratram say what he pleaseth I hope it may be denied of the Water in Baptism or the Chrism or a Church after Consecration that they are what they were before that is common
his most Holy Passion He adds That nothing could be found out more proper to signifie the Vnity between the Head and Members than those SPECIES For as the Bread consisting of many Grains is by Water reduced into one Body and as the Wine is pressed out of many Grapes Thus also is the Body of Christ made up of the Vnited Multitude of Saints Observe that in the words immediately preceding our Author stiles these Species the Substance of Bread and Wine and in the following words describing the way in which they are made and thereby adapted to signifie the Union between Christ and his Members he calls them simply Bread and Wine The same Author (a) Vnde Eutychianus XXVIII Sedis Pomanae Praesul constituit fruges super altare tantum Fabae Vvae benedici Alias autem diversarum SPECIES rerum statutum est ubilibet benedici a sacerdotibus c. Ibid. cap. 18. Fruges Species pro Synonymis habuit Walafridus useth the word Species for the Fruits of the Earth and cites for it a forged Decretal Epistle under the name of Pope Eutychian which orders all other Species that is Fruits of the Earth except what by the Apostles constitutions may be offered on the Altar to be brought home to the Priest to receive Benediction and the Species allowed to be Blessed on the Altar are Beans and Grapes And Regino citing that Canon of the Apostles to which Walafridus or rather the pretended Eutychian referreth gives it this Title (b) Quae Species ad altare non ad Sacrificium sed ad Benedictionem simplicem debent offerri Regino de Discip Eccles l. 1. c. 64. ex Can. 4. Apost What Species ought to be offered at the Altar not for Sacrifice but for simple Benediction and the Canon mentions (c) Praeter novas Spicas Vvas Oleum Thymiama id est incensum Can. 5. Reliqua poma omnia ad domum Episcopi vel Presbyteri dirigantur c. Ears of new Corn Grapes Oyl and Incense Now in these Instances none can doubt but by Species the Specifick Nature the Substance is to be understood and not the Sensible Qualities of the Particulars mentioned In the very same sense Arnobius Junior (d) Non solum Speciem frumenti sed Vini Olei administrans Arnob. in Ps 104. useth the Term speaking of God's bounty to the Israelites Whom he furnished not only with the Species of Corn but also with those of Wine and Oyl And it appears that the Unconsecrated Elements were stiled Species from a Prayer in the Gothick Missal to be used after the Sanctus which is before Consecration (e) Vt Dominus Deus Noster SPECIEM istam suo ministerio CONSECRANDAM coelestis gratiae inspiratione sanctificet Missale Gothicum p. 375. Collectio post Sanctus in Codd Sacramentorum editis per Thomasium Quarto Romae 1680. Most dear Brethren let us pray that our Lord and God would Sanctifie by the Inspiration of his Heavenly Grace this SPECIES which is TO BE Consecrated c. Now here Species must necessarily import the Substance for our Adversaries themselves do not pretend that the substance of Bread and Wine cease before Consecration But in regard M. Boileau will have it that Ratram learn'd this use of the word from St. Ambrose and particularly from his Books De Sacramentis I shall crave leave a little more largely to expose the falshood and indecent confidence of that Assertion That the Instance produced by M. Boileau is Impertinent and Mistaken I have already shewn and shall now make some Instances to disprove his pretence intirely In the Book De Initiandis which more plausibly pretends to the Authority of St. Ambrose than the six Books of the Sacraments which follow it we have manifest Examples of the use of the word Species for the Specifick Nature or Substance (f) SPECIEM autem pro VERITATE legimus de Christo Specie inventus ut Homo dâ— Patre Deo Neque Speciem ejus vidistis Ambr. de iis qui Myst initiantur c. 4. He tells us That the word Species is sometimes used to signifie the truth and not the bare resemblance as when it is said of Christ that he was found in Specie in fashion as a Man and of God the Father neither have ye at any time seen his Species it 's plain that this Author understands by Species in the first place Christ's true Humane Nature and in the latter the Divine Substance or Essence (g) Gravior est enim ferri Species quam aquarum liquor cap. 9. For the Species of Iron is heavier than the Liquor of Water Here Species ferri implieth the substance of Iron And the Author who some Ages after St. Ambrose enlarged this Tract into six Sermons (h) The fourth of these is among St. Austins Sermons de Verbis Dom. Serm. 28. which have long passed for so many Books of that Father on the Sacraments but plainly appear both by the beginnings and conclusions to be Homilies I say that Author expounds Species by Matter or Substance saying of Iron (i) Est enim Materies gravior quam aquarum est Elementum de Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. For it is a more weighty Substance than the Element of Water Again (k) Ante Benedictionem Verborum coelestium species nominatur post Consecrationem Corpus Christi significatur De initiandis c. 9. Before Consecration the Species is named after Consecration the Body of Christ (l) De Consecr dist 3. c. 69. Gratian cites the words thus Before Consecration another Species is named and the Gloss (m) Alia Species i. e. alterius rei Species id est substantia fuit Glossa expounds the word Species by Substance as the Homilist (n) Panis iste PANIS est ante verba Sacramentorum c. l. 4. c. 4. Dixi vobis quod ante verba Christi quod offertur PANIS dicatur c. Ibid. l. 5. c. 4. doth by Bread twice Also our Ambrosiaster in his comparison between the Supernatural Effect of Baptism and the Miracle wrought by the Prophet Elisha when he made Iron to swim saith That (o) Vbi Baptizatus fuerit non tanquam ferrum sed tanquam jam levior fructuosi ligni Species levatur de Sacram. l. 2. c. 4. before Baptism every Man sinks like Iron but when Baptised he riseth like the lighter Species of fruitful Wood. In this place who doubts but he intended the Substance and not the appearance of Wood In the third Book he saith The (p) Hesterno die de fonte Baptismatis disputavimus cujus Species veluti quaedam Sepulchri forma est de Sacra l. 3. c. 1. Species of the Font is of the form of a Grave where doubtless he meaneth the very Font-stone or if not then its Figure united with the Stone Again He starts an Objection (q) Forte dicis Speciem Sanguinis non video Sed habet
diversitas inter eos esse dinoscitur n. 2. In quo nulla permutatio facta esse cognoscitur n. 12. Non iste transitus factus esse cognoscitur ibid. There is no small difference known to be among them Again How can that be called Christ's Body in which no change is known to be made And the same Occurs at least four times over in the same and the next Paragraph and is expounded by the Author himself saying expresly (l) Si ergo nihil hic EST permutatum c. n. 13. Nihil HABENT in se permutatum n. 14. that there IS nothing changed and that the Bread and Wine HAVE NOTHING changed in them Again (m) Num mare secundum quod Elementum VIDEBATVR i. e. fuit Baptismi potuit habere virtutem Vel Nubes juxta quod densioris crassitudinem aeris OSTENDEBAT i. e. aer crassus condensatus fuit n. 20. could either the Sea as it was seen to be an Element have a Baptismal vertue or the Cloud as it did shew condensed Air sanctifie the People Did the Sea only seem to be Water or had the Cloud only an Appearance of condensed Air or were they in substance the one Water and the other thick Air I must needs say M. Boileau plays at small Games when he lays so much stress on nothing and hath the confidence because Ratram saith That the Body and Blood of Christ celebrated in the Church are different from that Body and Blood which now is known to be Glorified to aver that (n) Toute la difference qu'il y etablit entre le Corps de J. C. dans la gloire est que ce dernier per resurrectionem jam glorificatum cognoscitur ae lieu qu'il n'avoit qu' a dire jam glorificatum existit qui est un mot en usage c. Pref. p. 40. all the Difference that Ratram makes between Christ's Body in Heaven and on the Altar is that both being his Glorified Body the former Glorificatum Cognoscitur is known to be Glorified whereas he might as easily have said simply IS Glorified Now if by Cognoscitur M. Boileau means is sensibly Glorified as I presume he doth Christ's Body in Heaven to us appeareth not Glorious being received up out of our sight He likewise mightily vapours with the word (o) P. 40. Pref. p. 224. Rem c. Iste Panis Calix qui Corpus Sanguis Christi nominatur EXISTIT n. 99. Existit as though it imported the Existence of Christ's Natural Body in the Sacrament and ten times over twits us with these words The Bread and Cup is called the Body and Blood of Christ and IS SO. Now all this Flourish hath nothing in it For first Our Author (p) N. 21. Baptismum tamen extitisse pro fuisse n. 26. Angelorum cibus existit n. 40. Mortis Passionis cujus existunt repraesentationes useth the word Existit for Est in forty places of this Book of which see two or three Examples in the Margin 2. Where he useth the word Existit he generally addeth something that is Inconsistent with their Notion of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament (q) Spirituale Corpus Spiritualisque Sanguis existit n. 16. Existum repraesentationes ejus sumunt appellationem cujus existunt Sacramentum n. 40. Secundum quid n. 83. id est Secundum quendam modum nimirum Figurate quemadmodum clarius rem exponit Ratramnus n. 84. Item de Corpore ex Virgine Proprium salvatoris Corpus existit de Mystico Corpus quod per Mysterium existit n. 97. 96. Claret quia Panis ille Vinumque Figurate Christi Corpus Sanguis existunt Telling us either that the Bread and Cup are his Spiritual Body and Blood or they are the SACRAMENT of his Body and Blood. That in some respect not simply they are truly his Body and Blood and elsewhere intimates that they are not his proper Body but only a Figure or Mystery thereof and expresly saith near the beginning of this Tract that it is clear that the Holy Bread and Wine are FIGURATIVELY the Body and Blood of Christ by which Exposition of the Author himself we are satisfied how we must understand that Passage M. Boileau so much Triumphs in But what most amazeth me is to find that in his Remarks on N. 16. and these words whence it necessarily followeth that the change is made Figuratively he makes a Flourish with Authorities and makes a Parallel between Ratram Paschase and the second Nicene Council (r) Rem p. 225. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making them all teach the same Doctrin whereas our Author saith That the Holy Elements are Figuratively the Body and Blood of Christ or the Spiritual Body and Blood which is all one and the Nicene Doctors say that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly his Body and Blood. I would gladly be informed in what Greek Lexicon Mr. Boileau finds that word expounded by Figurate But thirdly Those words of Ratram overthrow the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and by very firm (ſ) Ab est vel existit adjecti tertii ad est adjecti secundi valet consequentia Panis Corpus Christi existit ergo Panis existit consequence infer that the Bread and Wine do remain after Consecration For by the Rules of Logick this Argument is good M. Boileau is Dean of Sens therefore M. Boileau IS in being and in like manner after Consecration Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ Therefore after Consecration Bread and Wine do exist Thus at length I have done with his Exposition of our Author 's controverted Terms which if true Mr. Dean would do well to Publish a Glossary on purpose to assist the Reader who by the help of all the Dictionaries yet extant will never be able to comprehend this Author's sense But I must needs say the difficulties are all Fictions of the Translator who delights to perplex the most plain Expressions and by new and bold Figures and forced Significations invented to serve his design hath offered manifest violence to our Author's words in an hundred Passages of this small Piece I confess he useth so great License and indulgeth his Fancy at so extravagant a Rate that I was almost tempted to think that M. Boileau the Poet had commenced Doctor in the Sorbon and began unluckily to play the Divine as Poets commonly do when they begin their Theological Studies in their Old Age. If it had really been so I could have pitied and forgiven him many Extravagancies which are venial Faults in a Poet but unpardonable in a Professor of Divinity Here I once thought to dismiss him but upon second Thoughts I resolved to attend him a little further and consider the Reflections wherewith he concludeth his Preface I shall say nothing in defence of Protestant Translators three Reflections which stand firm after all his weak assaults upon them His first Reflection is That supposing though
BERTRAM OR RATRAM Concerning the BODY and BLOOD OF THE LORD In LATIN With a New English Translation To which is Prefix'd An Historical Dissertation touching the Author and this Work. The Second Edition Corrected and Enlarged with an APPENDIX WHEREIN Monsieur Boileau's French Version and Notes upon BERTRAM are Considered and his Unfair Dealings in both Detected LONDON Printed by H. Clark for Thomas Boomer at the Chirurgeons-Arms in Fleetstreet near Temple-Bar 1688. Imprimatur Liber Ratramni de Corpore Sanguine Domini cum Versione Anglica Praefatione secundum hoc Exemplar ab Interprete recognitum cum Appendice Oct. 6. 1687. H. Maurice Rmo. in Christa P. D. Willielmo Archiepiscopo Cant. a Sacris Amplissimo Viro Generis Eruditions Virtutis Omnigenae Ornamentis Praenobili HENRICO COVENTRY Armigero Serenissimo Regi JACOBO II. uti pridem Fratri Charissimo CAROLO II. A Privatis Consiliis Cui etiam Optimo Principi Ob Fidem Patri Sibi nec non S. Matri Ecclesiae Anglicanae In adversis fortiter servatam Ob munera in S. Palatio honorifica Egregie defuncta Ob res arduas variis apud exteros Legationibus Summa Fidelitate Singulari Prudentia Parique felicitate Gestas Apprime Charus extitit Secretariusque Primicerius Hoc Opusculum Ratramni Corbeiensis De S. Eucharistia Fidei Veteris Ecclesiae Gallicanae Testis luculenti Nec non Nostrae vere Catholicae Anglicanae Vindicis Eximii Vna cum Versione Vernacula Dissertatione praemissa In Testimonium Obsequii Gratitudinis LMQDDDCQ VVHSAEPR Editor THE PREFACE IT is now seven Years and more since I first read over this little Piece of Bertram in Latin and the Satisfaction I had to see so Learned a Writer expresly confute the Error of Transubstantiation at its first rise in the Western Church invited me to a second and third Reading and the Book not being very common I entertained thoughts of Reprinting it both in Latin and English for remembring where I had seen an English Bertram Published by Sir Humphrey Lynd A. D. 1623. I promised my self that Publishing it in English would add but little to my trouble not suspecting that a Translation published by that Learned Gentleman could have been other than accurate I therefore got together as many various Editions of the Book as I could and sent for the English Version upon sight of which I saw my self disappointed For there are some Mistakes in rendring the Latin words two of which may be seen in the Preface For Instance Catholice Sapere is Translated to be universally Wise which should have been rendred to be Orthodox or Catholick in his Judgment and again Non aequanimiter ista perpendens is rendred though perhaps not quietly and indifferently considering of these things instead of sadly laying to heart these things viz. the Schism on occasion of the new Doctrin of Transubstantiation And several other slips of that kind I observed which made me guess the Translation could not be the work of the worthy Knight who recommended it to the Publick But had this been all a little time and pains might have rectified those Mistakes That which rendred the Translation unserviceable to me was the perplexity of the style through unnecessary Parentheses and the multiplying of Synonimous words and in some places by rendring the Author too much word for word so that it doth not give the Reader a clear apprehension of the Author's sense And to justifie this charge I need only refer the Reader to the ninth and tenth Pages of the new Impression of Bertram where he proves that Consecration makes no Physical change in the Bread and Wine but as he is there Translated his reasoning is hardly intelligible Yet I accuse not the Translator of unfaithfulness but freely acknowledge that had his skill been equal to his Fidelity I would have used his Version and saved my self the trouble of a new one which I made and transcribed in Septem 1681. Having finished my Translation I proceeded to collect materials for the Dissertation I intended which I cast into loose Papers and desiring a Learned Friend to assist me with what he knew on that Subject he put into my hands an Edition I had not before met with in French and Latine with a Learned Advertisement prefixed in which I found the Work designed by me was already very well performed so that my Labour might be spared Thus I laid aside my Papers and all thoughts of making them publick till about two Months since and then resumed them upon the request of some worthy Friends who judged it necessary since the Reprinting of the former Translation Besides the faults of the Translator in the new Impression there are great ones committed by the Printer in the Technical words of the Discourse particularly in the beginning of the Eleventh Page he hath printed Verity instead of Variety At the desire of those Gentlemen I resolved to Review and Print my Translation with the Authors Text that the Reader might have it in his Power to judge of my Fidelity therein And though I see no reason to be proud of my performance yet I persuade my self this Book will be somewhat more useful than that which now goes abroad In the Dissertation prefixed I have Collected all the little Historical Passages I have met with any where touching our Author and his Works and perhaps the Reader may think I insist too long upon some matters of no great moment But in regard Ratramnus was an extraordinary Man and no Body that I know hath in our Language given any considerable account of him and his Writings I thought it would not be altogether unacceptable to the Reader Though the French Advertisement be exceedingly well done yet I have had great helps for the clearing the Antiquity and Authority of that Tract which the Author of that Advertisement wanted To mention no other the most Learned and Ingenuous Father Mabillon to whom I acknowledge my self obliged for my best Informations had not then published the Acts of the Benedictines of the IX Century in which our Author lived What I design in my Dissertation the Contents of each Chapter will inform the Reader I shall only add that my design is not to engage in the Controversie of Transubstantiation which is so compleatly handled and clearly discussed by the Learned and Reverend Author of a small Discourse against it that it is wholly needless for me or any one else to write further on that Argument All I intend is with Fidelity to relate what I have upon diligent search been able to Collect touching the Author and Work which I Publish and I hope I have said what may prevail with all Impartial Judges to admit our Author for a competent Witness of the belief of the Church in his Age touching Christs Presence in the Holy Sacrament THE CONTENTS Chap. I. AN Historical Account of the Author and his Writings Chap. II. Of his Treatise concerning Christ's Body and Blood and the Author
consecrated Wine were corporally converted into Christs blood the Water mixt with it must be corporally converted in the blood of the Faithful People I say after all this I would fain know whether it be possible to impose this sense upon Ratramnus I must more than half Transcribe the Book should I collect all Passages which confute F. Mabillion's Notion of the change which Ratramnus owns His sense is very clear to any man who shuts not his Eyes where he enumerates the three several kinds of Physical or Natural Changes and proves that the Sacramental Change which Consecration makes is none of these * Sect. 12. 13 14 15. Not Generation for no new being is produced Not corruption for the Bread and Wine are not destroyed but remain after Consecration in truth of Nature what they were before Not alteration for the same sensible qualities still appear Wherefore since Consecration makes a change and it is not a Natural but a Spiritual change he concludes it is wrought †Sect. 16. Figuratively or Mystically and that there are not together in the Sacrament two different things a Body and a Spirit but that it is one and the same thing which in one respect viz. Naturally is Bread and Wine and in another respect viz. of its signification and efficacy is Christs Body and Blood. Or as he saith presently they are in their nature corporeal Creatures but according to their virtue or efficacy they are Spiritually made Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ And this Spiritual virtue feeding the Soul and ministring to it the sustenance of Eternal Life is that which Bertram means when he saith that it is mystically changed into the substance of his Body and Blood for he calls this virtue Substantiam vitae Aeternae and as he calls our spiritual nourishment the Bread of Eternal Life and the substance of Eternal Life so in the place cited by F. Mabillon he useth the word substance in the same sense viz. for food or sustenance and he elsewhere calls it the Bread of Christs Body and presently after explaining himself calls it the Bread of Eternal Life * Manifestum est de quo pane loquitur de pane videlicet Corporis Christi qui non ex eo quod vadit in corpus sed ex eo quod panis sit vitae aeternae c. Sect. 68. He means by the substance of Christs Body in that place what he here calls the Bread of Christs Body and Sect. 83. Esca illa Corporis Domini Potus ille Sanguinis ejus are terms equivalent to Substantia in the place cited by F. Mabillon If F. Mabillon had observed those two excellent Rules for understanding the sense of Old Authors which he quotes out of Facundus viz. not to interpret them by the chink of words but their intention and scope and to explain dubious and obscure passages by plain ones He could not have concluded him to hold a carnal Presence and Transubstantiation But we are not to wonder that the Romanists attempt to reconcile Bertram with Transubstantiation though he wrote expresly against it when we remember that †Ad calcem libri cui Titulus Deus Natura Gratia. Quarto Ludg. 1634. Franc a sancta Clara about 50 years since had the confidence to attempt the expounding the 39 Articles of our Church so as to make them bear what he calls a Catholick sense though they are many of them levelled by the Compilers point blank against the Errors of the Roman Church 3 To these I may add what by consequence destroyeth Transubstantiation and Christs carnal Presence in the Sacrament I mean he frequently affirms That what the mouth receiveth feeds and nourisheth the body and that it is what Faith only receiveth that nourisheth the Soul and affords the sustenance of Eternal Life I know our Adversaries tell us those Accidents have as much nourishing virtue as other substances So the Authors of the Belgick Index * Index Expurg Belg. in Bertramo answer the Berengarian experiment of some who have lived only upon the Holy Sacrament Sure they must be very gross Accidents if they fill the belly But what if the Trent Faith that the Accidents of Bread and Wine remain without their substances be built upon a mistaken Hypothesis in Philosophy What if there be no such thing in Nature as pure Accidents What if Colours Tasts and Scents are nothing else but matter in different positions lights or motions and little parts of the substance it self sallying out of the body and making impressions apon the Organs of Sense Which Hypothesis is embraced by the most curious Philosophers of our Age who have exploded the former what then becomes of the Species or Accidents imagined to subsist in the Air To close this Digression I shall add * Bell. explic Doct. Christ De Sanctissima Eucharist Quicunque hanc statuam videbat ille speciem figuramque uxoris Loth videbat quae tamen uxor Loth amplius non fuit sed Sal sub specie mulieris delitescens Bellarmines Illustration of a body under species not properly its own He tells his Catechumen Lots Wife was turned into a Pillar of Salt and yet the species and likeness of a Woman remained She was no longer Lots Wife but Salt hid under the Species or outward form of a Woman Thus do Errours and Absurdities multiply without end I have said enough to shew that Bertram expresly contradicts the Doctrine of Transubstantiation but I must add a word or two in Answer to the Evasions of the Romanists Cardinal Perron tells us that the Adversaries whom Ratramnus encounters were the Stercoranists a sort of Hereticks that rose up in the IX Century and (a) Vterque Stercoranistarum Haeresin quae illo tempore orta est confutavit uterque Catholicam veritatem asseruit sed Radbertus Transubstantiationis veritatem clarius expressit Maug Tom. 2. Diss c. 17. p. 134. Mauguin followeth him with divers others They are said to Believe that Christ's Body is corruptible passible and subject to Digestion and the Draught and that the Accidents were Hypostatically united to Christ's Body But we read of no such Errours censured by any Council in that Age we do not find any Person of that Time branding any Body with that infamous hard Name The Persons whom some late Writers have aaccused as Authors of that Heresie viz. Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz and Heribaldus Bishop of Auxerre lived and died with the repute of Learned Orthodox and Holy Men and are not accused by any of their own Time of those foul Doctrines The first I can learn of the Name is that Humbertus Bishop of Sylva Candida calls Nicetas Stercoranist And Algerus likewise calls the Greeks so for holding that the Sacrament broke an Ecclesiastical Fast which is nothing to the Gallicane Church and the IX Century If (a) Vide Labbeum de script Eccles Tom. 1. p. 484. Cardinal Humbert drew up Berengarius his
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
our Lord's Passion or Resurrection is celebrated are called by the name of those Days because they have some Resemblance of those very Days in which our Saviour once suffered and rose again XXXVIII Hence we say to Day or to Morrow or next Day is the Passion or Resurrection of our Lord whereas the very Days in which those things were done are long past So we say the Lord is offered when the Sacraments of his Passion are celebrated Whereas he was but once offered in his own Person for the Salvation of the World as the Apostle saith (a) 1 Pet. 2.21 Christ hath suffered for us leaving you an Example that you should follow his steps Not that Christ suffers every day in his own Person This he did but once but he hath left us an Example which is every day presented to the Faithful in the Mystery of the Lord's Body and Blood So that whosoever cometh thereunto must understand that he ought to have a fellowship with him in his Sufferings the Image whereof he expects to receive in the Holy Mysteries according to that of the Wise-man (a) Prov. 23.1 2. If thou comest to the Table of a Great man consider diligently what is set before thee knowing that thou thy self must prepare the like To come to this Great-man's Table is to be made a Partaker of the Divine Sacrifice To consider what is set before thee is to understand the Lord's Body and Blood of which whosoever is partaker ought to prepare the like that is to imitate him by dying with him whose Death he commemorates not only in believing but also in eating XXXIX So St. Paul to the Hebrews (a) Heb. 7.26 27. Such an High Priest became us who is holy harmless undefiled separate from sinners and made higher than the Heavens who needeth not as those daily to offer up Sacrifice first for his own Sins and then for the Peoples For this the Lord Jesus Christ did once when he offered himself What he did once he now every day repeats For he once offered himself for the Sins of the People yet the same Oblation is every day celebrated by the Faithful but in a Mystery So that what the Lord Jesus Christ once offering himself really did the same is every day done in Remembrance of his Passion by the Celebration of the Mysteries or Sacraments XL. Nor yet is it falsly said That in those Mysteries the Lord is offered or suffereth because they have a Resemblance of his Death and Passion whereof they are Representations whereupon they are called The Lord's Body and the Lord's Blood because they take the Names of those things whereof they are the Sacrament For this reason St. Isidore in his Book of Etymologies saith thus Sacrificium the Sacrifice is so called from Sacrum Factum a sacred Action because it is consecrated by mystical Prayer in Memory of the Lord's Passion for us Whence by his Command we call it the Body and Blood of Christ which though made of the Fruits of the Earth is sanctified and made a Sacrament by the invisible Operation of the Spirit of God. Which Sacrament of the Bread and Cup the Greeks call the Eucharist that is in Latine bona Gratia good Grace And what is better than the Body and Blood of Christ * These words which lie between two little Stars are not in the Printed Editions of St. Isidore I wish they were not purposely omitted by the Publishers of his Works or rather expunged anciently by the Enemies of Berengarius Now Bread and Wine are therefore compared to the Body and Blood of Christ because as the Substance of this visible Bread and Wine feed and inebriate the outward man so the Word of God which is the living Bread doth refresh the Souls of the Faithful by the receiving thereof * These words which lie between two little Stars are not in the Printed Editions of St. Isidore I wish they were not purposely omitted by the Publishers of his Works or rather expunged anciently by the Enemies of Berengarius XLI Likewise this Catholick Doctor teaches That the holy Mystery of the Lord's Passion should be celebrated in Remembrance of the Lord 's Suffering for us In saying whereof he shews that the Lord suffered but once but the Memory of it is represented in sacred and solemn Rites XLII So that the Bread which is offered though made of the Fruits of the Earth when Consecrated is changed into Christ's Body as also the Wine which flowed from the Vine is by Sacramental Consecration made the Blood of Christ not visibly indeed but as this Doctor speaks by the invisible Operation of the Spirit of God. XLIII And they are called the Blood and Body of Christ because they are understood to be not what they outwardly appear but what they are inwardly made by the invisible Operation of the Holy Ghost And that this invisible Operation renders them much a different thing from what they appear to our Eyes he St. Isidore observes when he saith That the Bread and Wine are therefore compared to the Lord's Body and Blood because as the Substance of material Bread and Wine doth nourish the outward Man so the Word of God which is the Bread of Life doth refresh the Souls of the Faithful in partaking thereof XLIV In saying this we most plainly confess That in the Sacrament of the Lord's Body and Blood whatsoever is outwardly received serves only for the Refreshment of the Body But the Word of God who is the invisible Bread being invisibly in the Sacrament doth in an invisible manner nourish and quicken the Souls of the Faithful by their partaking thereof XLV Wherefore again the same Doctor saith There is a Sacrament in any divine Office when the thing is so managed that there is somewhat understood which must be spiritually taken In saying thus he shews that every Sacrament or Mystery of Religion contains in it some secret thing And that there is one thing that visibly appears and another thing to be Spiritually understood XLVI And soon after shewing what are the Sacraments which the Faithful should celebrate he saith And these Sacraments are Baptism Chrism or Confirmation and the Body and Blood of Christ Which are called Sacraments because under the Coverture of bodily things the Power of God doth in a secret way work the Salvation or Grace conferred by them And from these secret and sacred Vertues they are called Sacraments And in the following words he saith It is called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Mystery because it contains a secret or hidden Dispensation XLVII What do we learn hence but that the Body and Blood of Christ are therefore called Mysteries because they contain a secret and hidden Dispensation That is it is one thing which they outwardly make Shew of and another thing which they operate inwardly and invisibly XLVIII And for this Reason they are called Sacraments because under the Covert of bodily Things a
divine Power doth secretly dispense Salvation or Grace to them that faithfully receive them XLIX By all that hath been hitherto said it appears that the Body and Blood of Christ which are received by the Mouths of the Faithful in the Church are Figures in respect of their visible Nature but in respect of the invisible Substance that is the Power of the Word of God they are truly Christ's Body and Blood. Wherefore as they are visible Creatures they feed the Body but as they have the vertue of a more powerful Substance they do both feed and sanctifie the Souls of the Faithful L. We must now consider the Second Question The Second Question and see (a) Which Paschasius Radbertus affirms and Ratramnus denies as also did Rabanus Maurus c. whether that very Body which was born of Mary which Suffered was Dead and Buried and which sits at the Right Hand of the Father be the same which is daily received in the Church by the Mouths of the Faithful in the Sacramental Mysteries LI. Let us enquire what is the Judgment of St. Ambrose in this point He argues from a testimony of St. Ambrose For he saith in his First Book of the Sacraments Truly it is wonderful that God rained down Manna to the Fathers and they were fed every day with Heavenly Food whereupon 't is said that Man did eat Angels Bread and yet they who did eat that Bread all died in the Wilderness But that Food which thou receivest that living Bread which came down from Heaven ministers the Substance of Eternal Life and whosoever eats thereof shall never die and this is the Body of Christ LII See in what sense this Doctor saith That the Body of Christ is that Food which the Faithful receive in the Church For he saith That Living Bread which comes down from Heaven ministers the Substance of Eternal Life Doth it as it is seen as it is corporally received chewed with the Teeth as it is swallowed down the Throat and received into the Belly minister the Substance of Eternal Life In this respect it only feeds the Mortal Flesh it doth not minister Incorruption nor can it be truly said That whosoever eats thereof shall never die For what the Body receives is corruptible nor can it preserve the Body so that it shall never die for what is it self subject to corruption cannot give Immortality Therefore there is in that Bread a certain Principle of Life which doth not appear to our bodily Eyes but is seen by those of Faith which also is that Living Bread which came down from Heaven and concerning which it is truly said that whosoever eats thereof shall never die and which is Christ's Body LIII And afterwards speaking of the Almighty Power of Christ he saith thus Therefore the Word of Christ which could produce things that were not out of nothing cannot it change the things that actually exist into that which they were not Is it not a greater Work to create things at first than to alter their Natures LIV. St. Ambrose saith That in this Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ there is a Change made and wonderfully because it is Divine Ineffable and indeed Incomprehensible I desire to know of them who will by no means admit any thing of an inward secret Virtue but will Judge of the whole matter as it appears to outward Sense in what respect this Change is made As for the substance of the Creatures what they were before Consecration the same they remain after it Bread and Wine they were before and after Consecration we see they continue Beings of the same Nature and Kind So that it is changed Internally by the mighty Power of the Holy Ghost and this is the mighty Object which Faith beholds which feâ—ds the Soul and ministers the substance of Eternal Life LV. And again it follows Why dost thou here require the Order of Nature in the mystery of Christ's Body when our Lord God himself was contrary to the Order of Nature born of a Virgin LVI Now perhaps An Objection obviated some one at the hearing of this may start up and say That it is the Body of Christ which we behold and his Blood that we drink yet we must not enquire how it becomes so but only believe stedfastly that it is so Thou seemest to think aright but yet if thou didst carefully observe the Importance of thy Words when thou sayest That thou faithfully believest it to be the Body and Blood of Christ thou would'st understand that what thou believest thou dost not see For if thou sawest it thou would'st say I see and not I believe that it is the Body and Blood of Christ Whereas now because Faith discerns the whole matter whatever it is and the Bodily Eye perceives nothing of it thou must understand that those things which are seen are the Body and Blood of Christ not in Kind or Nature but Virtually For which Reason he saith That the Order of Nature is not to be considered but the Power of Christ must be adored which changes what he will how he will into what he will creating what had no Being and changing the Creature into what it was not before And the same Author adds Doubtless it was the true Flesh of Christ which was Crucified and Buried (a) Or it may be rendred The Sacrament of that true Flesh therefore this is really the Sacrament of that Flesh The Lord Jesus himself saith This is my Body LVII How warily Another Argument from St. Ambrose and wisely doth he distinguish Speaking of the Flesh of Christ which was Crucified and Buried or in which Christ was Crucified and Buried he saith It is the true Flesh of Christ But of that which is taken in the Sacrament he saith It 's therefore truly the Sacrament of that Flesh distinguishing between the Sacrament of his Flesh and the Verity of his Flesh or his true Flesh in as much as he saith in that true Flesh which he took of the Virgin he was Crucified and Buried whereas he saith the Mystery now celebrated in the Church is the Sacrament of that true Flesh in which he was Crucified expresly teaching the Faithful that that Flesh in which Christ was Crucified and Buried is not a Mystery but true and natural whereas that Flesh which mystically represents the former is not Flesh in kind or Naturally but Sacramentally For in its Kind or Nature it is Bread but Sacramentally it is the true Body of Christ as the Lord Jesus saith This is my Body LVIII And in the following words The Holy Ghost hath in another place by the Prophet declared to thee what it is that we eat and drink saying * Psal 34.8 Taste and see that the Lord is good blessed is the man that trusteth in him Doth the Bread and Wine eaten and drunk corporally shew how sweet the Lord is Whatsoever is an Object of Tasting is corporeal and
on St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians writes thus St. Hierom on the Ephes c. 1. The Flesh and Blood of Christ is taken in two Senses in the one it 's that Spiritual and Divine of which he saith My Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed In the other it is that Flesh which was Crucified and that Blood which was let out by the Soldier 's Spear LXXI This Doctor distinguishes and makes no small difference between the two acceptations of Christs Body and Blood. Christ ' s Body is taken in two Senses For whilst he stiles that Body and Blood of Christ Spiritual which is daily received by the Faithful and that Flesh which was Crucified and that Blood which was let out by the Soldier 's Spear is not said to be either Spiritual or Divine he manifestly insinuates that these differ from each other as much as Corporeal and Spiritual Visible and Invisible Humane and Divine Now things that differ are not the same And in the Opinion of this Author viz. St. Hierom That Spiritual Flesh which the Faithful receive with their Mouths and that Spiritual Blood which is daily given to Believers to drink differ from that Flesh which was Crucified and that Blood which was let out by the Souldier's Spear Therefore they are not the same LXXII For that Flesh which was crucified He sheweth the Difference of his Natural and Spiritual Body was made of the Virgin 's Flesh consisting of Bones and Nerves distinguish'd by its Lineaments into several Members of a humane Body animated with a reasonable Soul having proper Life and agreeable Motions But that Spiritual Body which spiritually feeds the faithful People as to its external Nature is made of several Grains of Wheat by the Baker's hand hath neither Sinews nor Bones nor distinction of Members nor is it animated by any reasonable Substance nor can it exercise any vital Motion But that whatever it is which gives the Substance of Life is the Efficacy of a spiritual Power of an invisible and divine Virtue And that which appears outwardly is quite another thing than that which is believed in the Mystery Moreover the Flesh of Christ which was crucified did not outwardly appear any other thing than what inwardly it was For it was the true Flesh of a true Man a true Body in the shape of a true Body LXXIII It is further to be considered The Sacramental Bread a figure of the People as well as of Christ's Body That in that Bread not only the Body of Christ but also the Body of the People believing in him is figured and therefore it is made of many grains of Wheat as the Body of faithful People is made up of many Believers by the Word of Christ LXXIV For which reason as in the Sacrament that Bread is understood to be Christ's Body so in the same Sacrament his Members the People that believe in Christ are also signified And as that Bread is said to be the Body of the Faithful not corporally but spiritually so must it necessarily be understood to be the Body of Christ not corporally but spiritually As is also the Water mixt with the Wine LXXV So with the Wine which is called Christ's Blood (a) Both the Greek and Latine Church used to mix Water with Wine in the Eucharist but held it not essential to the Sacrament Water is commanded to be mixt nor is one allowed to be offered without the other because neither is the People without Christ nor Christ without the People As the Head cannot be without the Body nor the Body without the Head. Lastly Water in that Sacrament represents the People Now if the Wine consecrated by the Minister's Office were corporally changed into Christ's Blood the Water also which is mixed therewith must necessarily be corporally changed into the Blood of the faithful People For where there is but one Consecration there is consequently but one Operation and where there is the like Reason there is the like Mystery But we see no corporeal Change in the Water neither is there any corporeal Change in the Wine The Representation of the Body of the People in the Water is altogether spiritual therefore the Representation of the Blood of Christ in the Wine must also of necessity be altogether spiritual LXXVI Again The Sacrament not incorruptible therefore not Christ's natural Body Things that differ from each other are not the same The Body of Christ that died and rose again and being made immortal * Rom. 6.6 dieth no more nor hath Death any more Dominion over it is eternal now and no longer passible But that which is celebrated in the Church is temporal not eternal corruptible not exempt from Corruption in our Way not in our heavenly Country Therefore they differ and are not the same And if they are not the same how are they said to be the true Body and true Blood of Christ LXXVII For if it be Christ's Body if it be truly said that it is Christ's Body then it is Christ's Body in verity of Nature and if so then it is incorruptible impassible and by consequence eternal And therefore this Body of Christ which is celebrated in the Church must necessarily be incorruptible and eternal Now it cannot be denied but that thing is corrupted which is broken into pieces and distributed piece-meal to be received and being ground by the Teeth passeth into the Body But it is one thing that is outwardly done and another that is received by Faith. That which our bodily Sense perceives is corruptible that which Faith believes is incorruptible Wherefore that which outwardly appears is not the thing it self but the Image of it but that which the Mind perceives and understands is the very thing it self LXXVIII Whereupon St. A large Citation out of St. Augustine Augustine in his Exposition of St. John's Gospel speaking of the Body and Blood of Christ saith thus Moses did eat Manna and both Aaron and Phineas did eat and many others who pleased God and died did eat thereof How so Because they did spiritually understand their visible Food they did hunger spiritually and taste spiritually and were spiritually filled And we at this day receive visible Food but the Sacrament is one thing and the vertue of the Sacrament is another And afterwards This is the Bread that cometh down from Heaven The Manna signified this Bread the Altar of God signified the same These were Sacraments differing in the Signs but agreeing in the thing signified Hear what St. Paul saith (a) 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3. Brethren I would not have you ignorant that our Fathers were all under the Cloud and all passed through the Sea and were all baptized into Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea and did all eat the same spiritual Meat and drank the same spiritual Drink The same spiritual but other corporal Food They did eat Manna we quite another thing But yet
proper Body which he assumed of the Virgin which might be seen and felt after his Resurrection as he saith to his Disciples Luke 24.40 Handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have XC Let us hear also what St. He urges the Authority of Fulgentius Fulgentius speaks in his Book of Faith. Firmly believe and doubt not in any wise that the very only begotten Son God the Word being made Flesh (a) Ephes 5.2 offered himself for us a Sacrifice and Oblation of a sweet smelling savour to God to whom with the Father and Holy Ghost by Patriarchs Prophets and Priests living Creatures were sacrificed in the time of the Old Testament and to whom now that is under the New together with the Father and Holy Ghost with whom he hath one and the same Divinity the Catholick Church throughout the World ceaseth not to offer a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine in Faith and Charity In those Carnal Sacrifices there was a signification of the Flesh of Christ which he without Sin should offer for our Sins and of that Blood which he was to shed on the Cross for the Remission of our Sins but in this Sacrifice there is a Thanksgiving and Commemoration of that Flesh of Christ which he offered for us and of that Blood which the same Christ our God hath shed for us Of which the Apostle St. Paul in the Acts of the Apostles saith (a) Acts 20.28 Take heed to your selves and to the whole Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to rule the Church of God which he redeemed with his own Blood. In those Sacrifices what was to be given for us was represented in a Figure but in this Sacrifice what is already given is evidently shewn XCI By saying That in those Sacrifices was signified what should be given for us but that in this Sacrifice what is already given is commemorated he plainly intimates That as those Sacrifices were a Figure of things to come so this is the Figure of things already past XCII By which Expressions he most evidently shews how vast a difference there is between that Body of Christ in which Christ suffered and that Body which we celebrate in remembrance of his Death and Passion For the former is properly and truly his Body having nothing mystical or figurative in it The latter is mystical shewing one thing to our outward Senses by a Figure and inwardly representing another thing by Faith. XCIII He concludes with another Testimony of S. Augugustine Let me add one Testimony more of Father Augustine which will confirm what I have said and shall put an end to my Discourse in his Sermon to the People touching the Sacrament of the Altar Thus he saith What it is which you see upon God's Altar you were shewn last Night but you have not yet heard what it is what it meaneth and of how great a Thing this is a Sacrament That which you see is Bread and the Cup thus much your own Eyes inform you But that wherein your Faith needs Instruction is that this Bread is the Body of Christ and the Cup is the Blood of Christ This is a short account of the Matter and perhaps as much as Faith requires but Faith needeth further Instruction as it is written (a) Isa 7.9 Except you believe you will not understand You may be apt to say to me You require us to believe expound to us that we may understand Such a Thought as this may arise in any man's Heart We know that our Lord Jesus Christ took Flesh of the Virgin Mary when an Infant he was suckled nourished grew and arrived to the Age of a young Man was Persecuted by the Jews suffered was hanged on a Tree put to Death taken down and buried the third day he rose again and on that day himself pleased he ascended the Heavens and carried up his Body thither and shall from thence come to Judge both quick and dead where he is now sitting at the right Hand of the Father How is Bread his Body and how is the Cup or the Liquor in the Cup his Blood These my Brethren are stiled Sacraments because in them we see one thing and understand another That which we see hath a Bodily Nature that which is understood hath a Spiritual Fruit or Efficacy XCIV In these Words this Venerable Author instructs us what we ought to believe touching the proper Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary and now sitteth at the right Hand of God and in which he will come to Judge the Quick and the Dead as also touching that Body which is placed on the Altar and received by the People The former is entire neither subject to be cut or divided nor is it veiled under any Figure But the latter which is set on the Lord's Table is a Figure because it is a Sacrament That which is outwardly seen hath a Corporeal Nature which feeds the Body but that which is understood to be contained within it hath a spiritual Fruit or Virtue and quickneth the Soul. XCV And in the following Words having a Mind to speak more plainly and openly touching this Mystical Body he saith If you have a mind to understand the Body of Christ hearken to the Apostle who saith Ye are the Body of Christ and his Members And if ye are the Body of Christ and his Members then there is a Mystical Representation of your selves set on the Lord's Table You receive the Mystery of your selves and answer Amen and by that Answer (a) i.e. Own your selves to be the Body and Members of Christ subscribe to what you are Thou hearest the Body of Christ named and answerest Amen become thou a Member of Christ that thy Amen may be true (a) i. e. How are we represented as Christ's Body in the Bread But why in the Bread I shall offer nothing of my own but let us hear what the Apostle (b) 1 Cor. 10.17 himself speaks of this Sacrament who saith And we being many are one Bread and one Body in Christ c. XCVI St. Augustine sufficiently teaches us That as in the Bread set upon the Altar the Body of Christ is signified so is likewise the Body of the People who receive it That he might evidently shew That Christ's proper Body is that in which he was born of the Virgin was suckled suffered died was buried and rose again in which he ascended the Heavens sitteth on the right Hand of the Father and in which he shall come again to Judgment But this which is placed upon the Lord's Table contains a Mystery of that as also the Mystery of the Body of the Faithful People according to that of the Apostle And we being many are one Bread and one Body in Christ. XCVII Your Wisdom He determines this second Question in the negative Most Illustrious Prince may observe how both by Testimonies out of the
but their meaning must only be that what they saw upon the Altar was truly certainly and without any Trope the Lord's Body Manifestation doth not necessarily import the Sensible Evidence of a thing but rather its certain Truth And accordingly it is used in this Sense by our Author in another Work (w) Ratramn de Praed lib. 2. p. 77. Apud Mauguin Qui vero ad illum quive atâ— istum pertineant finem in hac mortalitatis caligine nulla veritatis manifestatione comprehenditur Verba Isidori sunt supra Incertum tamen est ad quem sint Finem Praedestinati where expounding Isidores words Who are predestinated to Life and who to Death is uncertain expresseth it thus It is not comprehended by any manifestation of the Truth But more of this when I come to consider how M. Boileau expounds the Controverted Terms of our Author 3. Let us for once admit though it be false that the Writers whom he names did in the Twelfth Century hold the Opinion which he pretends our Author to have confuted How doth this infer that any body held it in Bertram's daies neer 300 Years before This sort of Reasoning is a little of kin to the Logick of that Oxford Alderman who said That if they could prove that King Henry the Eighth Reigned before King Henry the Sixth the City would carry their cause It is true he adds That this was a common Opinion in the middle of the Eleventh Century when Berengarius made his first Recantation and that Opinions do not grow common all on a sudden I hope he doth not think it was the Opinion of Pope Nicolas II. and the Council who ordered Berengarius to recant in that Form if he does it 's a shrewd Reflection on the Pope's Infallibility But suppose it were then commonly believed cannot an Opinion grow common under 200 Years Did not Gnosticism and the Millenary Opinions grow common in a much shorter time Did not Arianism overspread the World in less than 40 Years Nay are not the Doctrines of Molino grown common in 7 Years space There is nothing in that Chapter of Paschase like the Sentiments which he would fix upon Ratram's Adversaries and one of the Passages to which he refers viz. That the Sacrament is digested and passeth into the Draught is precisely Ratram's own Doctrine and he argues thence That what is Orally received is not Christ's Natural Body The Truth is the Opinions of Abbaudus and Walter plainly point out their Original The Dispute about the breaking of Christ's Body sprung from that beastly form of Recantation imposed upon Berengarius by Pope Nicolas the II. of which the Romanists themselves were afterwards ashamed and neither Nubes Testium nor Consensus Veterum think it convenient to be cited among their Testimonies for Transubstantiation The Pope and Cardinal Humbert (x) Ore corde profiteor de Sacramentis Dominicae Mensae eam fidem tenere quam Dominus venerabilis Papa Nicolaus haec Sancta Synodus tenendam tradidit scilicet Panem Vinum quae in Altari ponuntur post consecrationem non solum Sacramentum sed etiam verum Corpus Sanguinem Domini Nostri J. C. esse sensualiter non solum Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri Apud Gratianum de Consecr Dist 2. c. 42. Ego Berengarius resolving to make it full enough quite over-did the Business for they made him profess it as the Faith of the Pope and Council That Christ's Body is Sensibly and Truly and not only Sacramentally handled and broke by the Priest's hands and ground by the Teeth of the Faithful When the Council was over and the Recantation came to be scanned some who were too much (y) Abaelardus and others Vide Sequentiam in Festo Corp. Christi in Missali Rom. Fracto demum Sacramento Ne vacilles sed memento Tantum esse sub Fragmento Quantum toto tegitur Nulla rei fit scissura Signi tantum fit Fractura Qua nec status nec statura Signati minuitur Divines to believe the natural Body of Christ capable of Fraction or Division said it was broken and chew'd in Sacramento non in Re in the Signs only viz. the Accidents and outward Forms of Bread Others as (z) See their Words cited by M. Boileau in his Preface p. 36. And in the Remarks p. 210. 211 212 213 215. Abbaudus and Walter were for adhering to the Letter of the Council and were too much Philosophers to believe Accidents could subsist without a subject and they contended that our Saviours Body under those Accidents was broken truly and said that if it were not really broken it was not really his Body So that to say that the breaking affected only the Species or abstracted Qualities was to revive the Heresie of Berengarius This is the true Pedigree of the Disputes about the breaking of Christ's Body which cannot be deriv'd from any greater Antiquity than the Roman Synod A. D. 1059. This is more than enough to confute all that M. Boileau offers to prove that Ratram's Adversaries believed no Figure in the Holy Sacrament Let us next see how he proves that the Opinion encountred by him in the Second part of this Tract was not the Opinion of Paschase but of some body he knows not who that held the Sensible part of the Holy Eucharist or the Accidents of Bread and Wine to be the same Body which was Born of the Virgin c. Truly for the Proof hereof he misrepresents the Subject of the Question as though it were only concerning the Sensible Qualities of what is received in the Holy Sacrament whereas it is touching the Thing orally received Then he refers us to his Translation and Remarks which we shall consider in their proper place And in the beginning of his Preface he sets aside the Testimony of Cellot's Anonymus who tells us That Ratram and Rabanus both opposed Paschase in this Point tho' the Truth of what he asserts be notorious from the express Words of both those Writers And the Words of Rabanus are so Emphatical that although I have already (a) Dissert c. 6. produced them I cannot but repeat them here and add some few remarks to shew how fully and directly they contradict the Popish Notion of the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Holy Eucharist His words are these (b) Quidam nuper de ipso Sacramento Corporis Sanguinis Domini non rite sentientes dixerunt hoc ipsum Corpus Sanguinem Domini quod de Maria Virgine natum est in quo ipse Dominus passus est in cruce resurrexit de Sepulchro idem esse quod sumitur de Altari cui errori c. Rhabani Ep. ad Heribald ad calcem Reginonis c. 33. Some of late entertaining false Sentiments touching this Sacrament of the Lord's Body and Blood have said That this very Body and Blood of our Lord which was
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
Saviour But can any man in his Wits believe that their Scruple was meerly about the cutting and mangling of our Saviour's Body and that they would have made no bones of swallowing him whole No sure they stumbled at the Literal Sense of his Words they could not digest a command to eat mans Flesh which seemed as St. Austine observes to be an impious Precept and they would no doubt have as much abhorred him could such a Monster have been found who should swallow a man whole as an ordinary Canibal But is Mr. Boileau in earnest when he tells us (w) J'ay ajoute c'est a dire en la broiant avec les dents le coupant par morceaux parce que c'est le veritable sens de ces mots Charnellement c. Remarques p. 236. that to cut Christ's Body in pieces and tear it with the Teeth is the true Notion of Carnal eating Doth our Saviour's answer to those murmuring Deserters any wise countenance this Notion Doth it give the least hint that their mistake and scandal lay in apprehending that Christ's Body was to be eaten piece-meal No but he blames their stupidity for taking his Words which are SPIRIT and LIFE in a carnal or litteral Sense St. Austine cited by Bertram expounding our Saviour's Answer makes it import that his words touching the necessity of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood must be Spiritually that is Mystically and not carnally or literally understood In another place cited by (x) N. 33 34. Bertram he makes the hard saying an Instance of the necessity of understanding the words of Scripture in a Figurative Sense telling us those words are a FIGURE enjoyning us to communicate in our Saviour's Sufferings by a faithful and profitable commemoration of his Death on the Cross for us I confess both St. Austine and Bertram describing the mistake of these Disciples deny that his Body was to be cut into pieces and eaten by bits but they make not this to have been the scruple of those Infidels nor do either of those Writers so much as hint that Christ's Body was to be swallowed whole On the contrary St. Austine makes it to have been their Erroneous conceit that (y) Illi putabant se erogaturum Corpus suum ille autem dixit se ascensurum in coelum utique integrum Apud Ratram n. 80. Christ intended to give them his Natural Body his Body which they saw with their Eyes And Bertram shewing how our Saviour's Words confute that gross Conceit saith by way of Paraphrase on them that when his Disciples should behold him ascend into Heaven with his Body and Blood entire and without Diminution they should then understand the mistake of those carnal Infidels viz. That he did not command them to eat his Natural Body which was impossible since it was conveyed from them unto Heaven This Paraphrase he borrowed from (z) Verba quae locutus sum Spiritus Vita sunt spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum Non hoc Corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis c. Aug. in Ps 98. in Joannem Tract 27. Intellexerunt quia disponebat Jesus carnem qua indutum erat verbum veluti concisam distribuere credentibus c. St. Austine whom he cites for it N. 80. And (a) Sax. Hom. Fol. 44. Aelfric as hath been shewn expounds the words as did (b) Aug. in Ps 98. St. Aust Again N. XL. (c) Parce que comme la Substance visible c'est a dire ce qui paroist aux yeux de ce pain de ce vin Sicut hujus Visibilis Panis Vinique substantia exteriorem nutrit inebriat hominem c. As the Visible Substance that is to say what appears to our Eyes of this Bread and this Wine nourisheth and quencheth the thirst of the outward man c. In rendring this half Sentence there is a double Fraud committed 1. The Adjective Visible is unduly applied to the word Substance whereby he hoped to persuade the Reader that Substance is not here to be understood in its proper Sense but only for the Sensible Qualities of Bread and Wine whereas this Author joyned that Adjective to the Bread and Wine Isidore saith (d) Hujus visibilis Panis Vinique Substantia The substance of this Visible Bread and Wine not as Mr. Boileau Translates him the Visible Substance i. e. Qualities of this Bread and Wine feed the outward Man. 2. The Notion of the word Visible is corrupted by the Translator's Gloss inserted into the Text of Isidore viz. That which appears to the Eye of this Bread c. viz. the Accidents whereas the Author meant material Bread and Wine The Passage is a clear Authority against Transubstantiation and deserves a Remark or two 1. The Bread and Wine whereof he speaks is Consecrated Bread and Wine which the Pronoun THIS demonstrates 2. He saith that the SUBSTANCE of this Bread and Wine after Consecration do nourish the Body 3. He calls it Visible Bread and Wine which Term is so far from importing what our Adversaries would have it viz. The Sensible Qualities only that it signifies Material Bread and Wine as I hope to prove beyond all Dispute when I come to Examine Mr. Boileau's Exposition of the Controverted Terms So that I do not wonder that these words are not now read in Isidore's Works In the like manner he corrupts Bertram N. LII (e) Car ce Corps Visible Sensible que l'on recoit Hoc enim quod sumit Corpus Corruptibile est For this Visible and Sensible Body which is received is subject to Corruption The Epithetes Visible and Sensible are impertinently as well as deceitfully foisted in for if he had minded the Authors words Corpus in that place imports not the Body of Christ received but the Body of the Receiver and the Clause should have been thus rendred That which the Body receives is Corruptible I should not have taken notice of this Slip as I have not of some other meer slips in Translation had it not been for the Fraud thereby designed A worse piece of false dealing appears in the next Paragraph N. LIII where he adds a false Gloss to the words of St. Ambrose Doth it not require a greater power to Create a thing of nothing than to change the Natures that is the Substances of things Nonne majus est novas res dare quam mutare (f) Pour changer les Natures c'est a dire les Substances des choses naturas He tells us (g) Remarks p. 245. That the Natures here mentioned can be no other than those of Bread and Wine changed into Christs Body and Blood and this obliged him to add the word Substances by way of Explication Now admitting what he saith I can see no such necessity of understanding the word of the Natural Substances of the Elements Neither this Context of St. Ambrose to which he refers nor Bertram's Exposition of that Father nor yet
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
that the Body of our Saviour which was crucified and rose again is his Natural Body affected with the sensible Accidents of Bread which I take to be rank Nonsense and so I am apt to think doth our Translator also For he doth not render that Passage by the word Manifestation as he had elsewhere done leaving the Reader to seek the sense of so uncouth a Phrase in his Preface and Remarks but he renders it by words importing our Saviours Body in Human Shape Though in so doing he makes Bertram a very despicable and impertinent Sophister and to dispute vehemently against an Opinion which his Adversaries did not maintain For so he doth if they affirming the Holy Eucharist to be Christ's Body affected with the Sensible Appearances of Bread he brings Arguments to prove that it was not his Body in its proper state that is retaining the Members Dimensions Lineaments and all other Sensible Qualities of a Man's Body That Ratram used Manifestation as a Term equivalent to the Reality is clear to any Man who will observe how he useth the Adverb Manifeste which is one of its Conjugates When he is describing a Pledge and Image he saith (e) Significant enim ista rem cujus sunt non manifeste ostendunt N. 86. they have a relation to some other thing which they signifie but non manifeste ostendunt do not manifestly shew i.e. really exhibit This must be his sense for he he is delivering the Notion of Pledges and Images in General which are not the very thing for which they are deposited or which they represent in Substance and Reality and only want the Sensible Appearances thereof For on the contrary an Image hath the Sensible Appearance of what it represents without the Reality I do not deny but Ratram supposes Christ's true Body to be Visible when he saith it is the very Manifestation of the thing some of his Arguments to prove the Sacrament not to be Christ's Very Body are drawn from a Supposition that if it were so it would be a Living Organical Body Visible Palpable and Manifest to our Bodily Senses Yet the Visibility of Christs glorified Body is not the thing primarily imported by the word Manifestation but its Truth and Reality As the Apostle speaking of (f) 1 Tim. 3.16 God manifest in the flesh principally design'd to teach the Truth of Christ's Incarnation that the Word was truly made Flesh that is Man and not that God Visibly appear'd to Man. And as (g) Idem ipse Christus illis in Petra figuratus nobis in carne manifestatus est Aug. in Psal 77. St. Austin when he saith The same Christ who was Typified in the Rock to the Jews is now manifested in the Flesh to us doth not by that Phrase imply our Saviour's Visible Appearance to us but that he was truly and actually Incarnate for us As for his Second Reason to prove that Verity imports not the Reality but the Sensible Appearance viz. That the Writers of the Middle Age use the word to signifie the Depositions of Witnesses and the Proof or Evidence of things I conceive it to be weak and unconcluding The Instances to which he refers us are in M. du Cange's (h) Glossarii Tom. 3. col 1283. Glossary And I might tell him that they are not taken out of Writers of the Middle Age but the (i) Scilicet A. D. 1228. Latest Times but not to insist on that Circumstance I think that he cannot infer that Proofs by Witnesses are called Verities because they clear the Point in dispute in regard it seems more likely that Depositions if they are stiled Verities have that name from the Charitable Presumption that every Man hath so just a reverence of an Oath that he will swear nothing but the Truth I say if Depositions are stiled Verities for I conceive the Learned and Industrious M. du Cange is mistaken in the sense of the word Veritas (k) Veritas Depositio Testis Veredictum J. C. Anglis Veritate Scabinorum convincatur Procul dubio hallucinatur Veritas Scabinorum idem valet quod Judicium Scabinorum supra in voce Scabinus ubi statuit Cl. du Cange Scabinos esse Judices urbanos in those Instances he makes to prove that it signifieth the Deposition of a Witness and that he more truly expounds it by the English word Verdict which is the Sentence of the Jury who are Judges of the Fact and not Witnesses and in those places Judgments are stiled Verities according to a known Rule of the Civil Law that a judged Case is taken for Truth His other Instances from the Synod of Coyac A. D. 1050. are much more impertinent for the word Veritas is there a Feudal Term and imports in the former Canon the Title of the Church to its Possessions against which three years Usurpation should not prescribe and in the latter Canon the Homage and Fealty of the Vassals to their Lord and is equivalent to (l) Veritatem Justitiam Regis non contemnant sed sicut in diebus Adelfonsi Regis fideles recti persistant talem Veritatem facient Regi qualem c Fidelitas which signifieth Faith and true Allegiance So that M. Boileau hath made a great flourish with these Authorities to no purpose He tells us moreover that Paschase useth the word Veritas to signifie the Sensible Truth but the words cited out of him seem plainly to import the Reality They are these (m) Quando jam ultra non erunt haec Mystica Sacramenta in fide sed in REIPSA VERITAS quae adhuc recte agitur in Mysterio luce clarius referetur erit omnibus palam in fruitione quod nunc sumimus in Mysterio Pasch apud Boileau p. 216. Then these Mystical Signs in our Faith shall cease but the Truth in Reality which as yet is rightly celebrated in the Mystery shall be shewn clearer than the Light and that shall be evident to all in the enjoyment which we now receive in the Mystery I conceive Reipsa may very aptly be rendred the Real Truth or Truth in Reality Nor doth the latter Clause expound the word Veritas but is easie to observe a double Antithesis of Mystical Sacraments to the Real Verity and of an obscure Representation to the clear Vision which double Antithesis is ordinary in the Writings of the Fathers and in this Tract of Ratram Having thus answer'd that M. Boileau offers to maintain his Notion that Verity signifieth not the Reality but only the Sensible Appearance I shall next prove his Notion not only groundless and precarious but also false and absurd by shewing 1st That this Notion of Verity is inconsistent with Bertram's own Exposition of that Term in this Treatise And 2dly That it agrees not with the Use of the Word in other Writers of the same or elder Times I. It is inconsistent with Bertram's own Exposition of the Term in this Treatise who explaineth it very
Specierum sed ipsae quae postulantur Species inferendae Cod. Theod. l. xi Tit. 2. Leg. 4. requiring them to be brought in kind and not a composition for them in Mony Particularly that the (m) Speciem Vini Ibid. Leg. 2. Species of Wine be paid in Kind There are Laws to compel all Farmers to furnish their proportions of all Species to oblige Men and Ships and Wagons for the Carriage of them to Rome and other places Laws also directing the mixing of sweet and fresh with the Species decayed and corrupted by long lying in publick Granaries and Cellars Cassiodorus (n) 1. Speciem Laridi lib. 2. Ep. 12. 2. Tritici Speciem l. 3. Ep. 41. Vini tritici panici Speciem l. 12. Ep. 26. Vini olei vel tritici Species l. 12. Ep. 23. 3. 4. Casei Vini Palmatiani Species l. 12. Ep. 12. 5. De ferro l. 3. Ep. 25. Convenit itaque hanc Speciem diligenti indagatione rimari in his Epistles issues out orders for the providing of the Species 1 of Bacon 2 wheat 3 4 Cheese wine and 5 Iron And the Law-Notion of the Term I conceive took its rise from the great variety of Necessaries of several sorts and kinds that are requisite for the subsistance of Armies or great Cities or else from the variety of such Provisions paid in the Nature of Rents or Tribute Now as the word Sacrament is generally acknowledged to be a term borrowed from the Roman Military Laws so probably was the word Species and as Corn and Wine and other stores for the publick use either of the Prince the City or Army go by that Name especially what came in by way of Pension (o) Species praeterea quae mensis Regiis apparentur perquirite l. 12. Ep. 18. or Tribute so it is not unlikely that the Oblations of the Faithful brought to the Altar as a Tribute to God for the use of his Holy Table consisting of Bread and Wine the two main supports of Life might in allusion thereunto be called Species by Ecclesiastick Writers Now this premised I shall attempt to shew two things 1. That Species in Bertram imports the same thing which ' its used to signifie in the first (p) Bestias terra juxta Species suas Gen. l. 25. of Genesis by the Author of the Vulgar Latin Version viz. the Specifick Nature the Substance as well as the Appearance 2. That the word bears the same sense in other Authors and particularly in the Books de Sacramentis falsly ascribed to St. Ambrose To evince the former I shall present you with some passages which will appear very absur'd if the word be understood in Mr. Boileau's sense And I shall begin with that on which he himself hath bestowed a Remark (q) Quoniam secundum veritatem Species Creaturae quae fuerat ante permansisse cognoscitur n. 12. For ' its well known that the Species of the Creature remains in Truth what it was before Now if by Species we are with Mr. Boileau to understand the sensible Appearance these absurdities will follow 1. Ratram will contradict himself in what he had said in the very Sentence next before viz. (r) Hic quoque non iste transitus sc ab esse ad non esse factus esse cognoscitur Ibid. That in the Sacrament nothing is changed by way of Corruption nothing passeth from being into a state of Non Existence If in these words he intended only to affirm that the Accidents of Bread and Wine and not their Substance do remain after Consecration How can he say that nothing here is Corrupted if he thought that Accidents only remained and that their Specifick Nature perished 2. Whereas Ratram proposeth a distinction consisting of three Members if Species import only the sensible Qualities the two latter Members will be Coincident For in the next Paragraph (Å¿) Nihil enim hic vel tactu vel colore vel sapore permutatum esse deprehenditur n. 13. he proves there is no alteration because we perceive no Alteration either as to Touch Colour or Tast Now if in the preceeding Paragraph he designed only to assert that the sensible Qualities remain after Consecration I desire to be informed what other sensible qualities the Holy Elements have besides those here mentioned 3. It is plain that as passing from Non Entity into being is a substantial Change so the contrary is a substantial Change whereas if Species do not import the substance instead of the universally received distinction of two sorts of Substantial Mutation and one Accidental he makes Ratram the Author of a Novel and unknown Distinction of two kinds of Accidental Mutation and one Substantial And I might add that the Emphatical word in Truth which I take to signifie verity of Nature must stand for just nothing whereas the true meaning of the place is That the Creatures of Bread and Wine remain in Reality after Consecration what they were before Again (t) Figurae sunt secundum speciem visibilem n. 49. They are Figures in respect of the Visible Species In this place if we understand him of the Sensible Qualities the Assertion is false for it is the substance of Bread and Wine which have any resemblance of the Body and Blood of Christ the Accidents have no Analogy to it or the Benefits of our Saviours Death It is not Whiteness or Roundness or Driness or Moistness but the substance of Bread and Wine which feeds the Body and therefore aptly represents the Spiritual Improvements which the Soul finds in the worthy participation of the Holy Eucharist and therefore what Ratram calls the Visible Species in the former part of the Paragraph is stiled the Visible Creature in the latter Again (u) Quod illa Caro secundum quam Crucifixus est Christus sepultus non sit Mysterium sed Veritas Naturae haec vero Caro quae nunc similitudinem illius in Mysterio continet non sit Specie caro sed Sacramento Si quidem in Specie Panis est c. n. 57. where he tells us That the Flesh in which Christ suffered was no Mystery but the Truth of Nature whereas his Body in the Holy Eucharist is not Flesh in Specie but in Sacrament or Mystery for in Specie its Bread There will be no Antithesis unless we understand him to deny the Sacrament to be Flesh in the same sense wherein he affirmed his Body born of the Virgin to be Flesh viz. in verity of Nature Also where he declareth (w) Ast nunc Sanguis Christi quem Credentes ebibunt Corpus quod comedunt aliud sunt in specie aliud in significatione n. 69. That what the Faithful do Orally receive is one thing in Specie and another in Signification if Species imply only the outward appearance the Antithesis is frigid and without force For in Sacramental Discourses Things are opposed to their Mystical signification so that the force of such Antithesis lies
Appearance In other Authors it implieth the Creature also the kind or sort of Creatures in conformity to the use of the word in the Roman Laws or the Natural Substance Gaudentius (p) Recte etiam Vini Specie tum sanguis ejus exprimitur quia cum ipse in Evangelio dicit Ego sum Vitis Vera satis declarat sanguinem suum esse omne Vinum quod in Figura Passionis ejus offertur Gaudent Brix ad Neophyl Serm. 2. Bibl. Pat. tom 2. Edit Par. 1610. saith Likewise is our Saviour's Blood fitly set forth by the Species or Creature of Wine because that he himself in his Gospel by saying I am the true Vine doth sufficiently declare that all the Wine which is offered in the Figure or Sacrament of his Passion is his Blood. Here Species Vini and Vinum are the same and signifie the Natural substance of Wine and not the meer Appearances and sensible Qualities thereof Salvian (q) Speciem servantes naturam relinquentes lib. 1. de Gub. useth the word Species for the Natural Substance of Water in the place already produced upon another occasion Isidore of Sevil saith (r) Post Speciem Maris Terrae formata duo Luminaria magna legis Isid Hisp de Ordine Creat c. 5. After the Species of Sea and Earth you read that two great Luminaries were Created Species there signifieth the Creatures of Sea and Earth What St. Austin (Å¿) Aug. Serm. ad Infantes apud Fulgent de Bapt. Aethiopis meant by the Visible Species in the Sacrament which he opposeth to the Spiritual Fruit in a Passage cited and expounded by Bertram who addeth that the Visible Species feedeth the Body may be best learn'd from himself in the same Sermon where he hath these words (t) Sicut enim ut sit Species Visibilis panis multa grana in unum consperguntur tanquam illud fiat quod de Fidelibus ait Scriptura Sancta Erat illis anima Cor unum in Deum Sic de vino fratres recolite unde sit unum Grana multa pendent ad botrum sed liquor granorum in unitate confunditur Ita Dominus Jesus Christus NOS significavit NOS ad SE pertinere voluit Mysterium Pacis Vnitatis nostrae in sua mensa consecravit As to the making the Visible Species of Bread many Grains of Corn are moulded into one Mass as it is said of the Faithful in the Holy Scripture that they had one Soul and one Heart so my Brethren consider how the Wine is made one Body Many Grapes hang on the Bunch but the Juice of those Grapes is pressed together into one Body of Liquor Thus our Lord Jesus Christ hath signified US viz. the Body of Believers and would that we should belong to him that is as Members of the Mystical Body whereof he is Head and hath consecrated the Mystery of our Peace and Unity on his own Table There are several things to be Remarked from this Passage 1. That he saith the visible species of Bread is made up of many Corns moulded together and made up into one Lump Now this cannot be said of the Accidents but of the Substance of Bread made up into one Loaf before Consecration For in another place (u) Quod cum per manus hominum ad illam Visibilem Speciem perducitur non Sanctificatur ut sit tam magnum Sacramentum c. de Trin. l. 3. c. 4. he useth the same Expression with relation to Vnconsecrated Bread Which saith he after it is by the hands of Men brought to that Visible Species is not Sanctified and made so great a Sacrament but by the Invisible Operation of God's Spirit 2. When he comes to speak of the Sacramental Wine he doth not call it the Visible Species of Wine but simply Wine which is an Argument that by the visible Species of Bread he meant real Bread. 3. St. Austin makes the visible Species of Bread to be a Figure of the Unity of the Faithful among themselves as also of their Union with Christ their Head. Now the meer Appearances of Bread and Wine have no resemblance of many Members compacted into one Body the Figure Colour or Taste of the Consecrated Elements suggest not the least hint of the Union of the several Members of Christ's Mystical Body whereas their Natural Substances are very apt and lively Representations thereof 4. Bertram (w) N. 94. Exterius quod videtur speciem habet corpoream quae pascit corpus expounding St. Austin ascribeth an effect to the Corporeal Species which cannot be wrought by the Sensible Appearances severed from their Subject he saith They feed the Body which is Nourished only by substantial Food digested and turned into its own Substance Now how meer Accidents can be converted into Chyle and Blood and become substantial Flesh is inconceivable whereas how this may be effected by true Bread and Wine it is very easie to apprehend Caesarius (x) Etiam in hoc ipso quod innumerosis tritici granis confici novimus unitatem constat assignari populorum Sic enim frumentum solita purgantis solicitudine praeparatum in candidam Speciem molarum labore perficitur ac per aquam ignem in unius panis Substantiam congregatur Sic variae gentes diversaeque nationes in unam fidem convenientes unum de se Christi Corpus efficiunt Caesar Arel Hom. 7. de Pasch in Bibl. Patr. Tom. 2. Par. 1610. Bishop of Arles hath a Passage very like this of St. Austin Also in that the Bread is made of innumerable Grains of Wheat its certain that it signifieth the Unity of the People For thus Wheat carefully made clean and prepared is by the Mill brought to a white Species and by Water and Fire united into the substance of one Loaf Thus also various People and divers Nations agreeing in one Faith make up of themselves one Body of Christ Doubtless the Species spoken of by this Father is not the bare Appearance but the Substance of Meal And before where he speaks of the (y) In eadem Homilia Species of Manna he must be understood of the thing it self It is evident that Walafridus Strabo had this place of St. Austin in his eye when having said (z) Post Paschae Veteris solemnia Corporis Sanguinis sui SACRAMENTA in Panis Vini SVBSTANTIA eisdem Discipulis Tradidit Nihil ergo Congruentius his SPECIEBVS ad significandam Capitis atque Membrorum unitatem potuit inveniri Quia videlicet sicut Panis de multis Granis aquae coagulo in unum corpus redigitur Vinum ex multis acinis exprimitur Sic Corpus Christi ex multitudine sanctorum coadunata completur de â—eb Eccles cap. 16. That after the Solemnity of the Old Passeover our Saviour delivered to the same Disciples the SACRAMENT of his Body and Blood in the SVBSTANCE of Bread and Wine and taught them to Celebrate it in remembrance of
Similitudinem Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti ita etiam similitudinem preciosi sanguinis bibis de Sacra l. 4. c. 4. I see not the Species of Blood to which he answers but what thou seest hath a Resemblance of it For as thou hast received the similitude of his Death I presume he means in Baptism so thou drinkest the similitude of his Blood. Now the word Species being opposed to Similitude it is doubtless used for the Reality not for the Appearance And so indeed he Expounds himself objecting the same thing in these words (r) Quomodo vera Caro quomodo verus Sanguis Qui similitudinem video non video Sanguinis veritatem de Sacram. l. 6. c. 1. I see only a Similitude I see not the Verity of Blood. As I remember the word Species occurs but once more in these Books and in that (ſ) De Sacram. l. 2. c. 3. place it unquestionably signifieth a Figure or Type in which sense we find it also used in the Book (t) Cap. 9. De Initiandis and by Ratram too But I know not any advantage our Adversaries can make of this Were it necessary I could produce many Instances out of St. Ambrose to prove that Species imports the Nature or Substance As when he saith of the Pillar which directed the Marches of the Israelites (u) Illa autem columna nubis specie quidem praecedebat filio Israel Mysterio autem significabat Dominum Jesum c. Amb. in Psal 118. Oct. 5. The Pillar went before in the Species of a Cloud but it Mystically signified the Lord Jesus c. Who ever doubted it to be a Real Cloud Again speaking of the Water turned into Wine by our Saviour he saith (w) Vt rogatus ad Nuptias aquae Substantiam in Vini Speciem commutaret Ambr. op t. 5. Serm. 15. ex Edit Par. 1632. That our Lord turned the substance of Water into the Species of Wine That is no doubt into the Specifick Nature as well as the sensible Appearance of Wine But I shall trouble you with no more when I have produced one Instance of the use of this Term out of Paschasius Radbertus if he really did alleadg the Miracles which we now read in his Work to prove the Carnal Presence He makes Plegils a Saxon Priest to pray that God would discover to him What the (x) Quae foret Species latitans sub forma Panis Vini Pasc Radb de C. S. D. c. 14. Species was which lay hid under the form of Bread and Wine In which place according to the Romanists themselves Species must import the Natural substance of our Lord's Body and not the sensible Qualities only And I do not remember that Paschase who useth the word Species for the sensible Qualities of Bread doth any where intimate its substance to be destroyed I know in Berengarius his time it was taken for granted that he did But I am of opinion that this Notion was a refining upon the Doctrin of Paschase and the first Author in which I meet the word Species in the Popish sense is Algerus who disputing against Impanation saith (y) Quum in utero sumpserit Speciem vel formam cum substantia In altari vero Speciem vel formam Panis mutata non permanente substantia Alger de Sacr. l. 1. c. 6. That Christ doth not take on him the Species or Form of Bread in the Sacrament as He took the Species or Form of Flesh in the Virgin Womb For there he took the Species or Form together with the Substance but upon the Altar he assumes the Species or Form of Bread the substance not remaining but being changed I am confident the word Species was never used in the sense of the present Roman Church before the Eleventh Century and that not before the Disputes against Berengarius whose Adversaries were the first who advanced the Notion now currant I have the more largely insisted on these two Terms Veritas and Species in regard the Confutation of M. Boileau's Exposition of them doth effectually Rescue Ratram out of his hands and evince that there is no colour of Reason for him to claim the Authority of this Book for the support of Transubstantiation The other Terms remaining in Dispute I shall dispatch more briefly for in Truth I need only relate M. Boileau's Exposition of them to satisfie any Impartial Reader who is tollerably skilled in the Latin Tongue that the sense which he gives them is very unnatural and absurd I took notice elsewhere (z) Dissert Ch. IV. p. 73. how great Variety of Phrases are made use of in this little Tract to express what we call the outward Signs in the Sacrament and by which we understand as in Baptism the Substance of water so in the H. Eucharist the Substance of Bread and Wine But M. Boileau expounds them all of the sensible Qualities of the H. Elements without their Substance 1. The Adjective Visible which is sometimes joyned with Bread sometimes with Species sometimes with Creature Sacrament Food is by our Translatour so rendred as though it did signifie Apparent in opposition to Real The Visible Substance of Bread is by him made to imply so much of Bread as appears to the Eye viz. Figure and Colour The Visible Creature and Visible Sacrament is with him no more of them than falls under our Senses viz. the outward Appearance Now if this be the true Sense of the Word many passages of Ratram and other Authors are egregious Nonsense for Example S. Augustin (a) Citatus à Ratramno n. 78 79. calleth the Manna Visible Food and in a few lines after saith that in the Sacrament we now receive Visible Food which in the next Paragraph he calls the Visible Sacrament If by the Visible Food or Sacrament we must with the Romanists understand only (b) La Substance Visible cèst a dire ce qui paroist aux yeux de ce pain n. 40. Selonla creature visible et qui tombe soüs les sens n. 49. ce que le Sacrament a de visible n. 79. nourriture visible qui tombe sous les sens n. 78. so much as falleth under our senses viz. the sensible Qualities we must then understand by the Visible Food which the Fathers eat and understood Spiritually only the sensible Accidents of the Manna and believe that more than a million of persons for forty years together lived upon roundness whiteness and sweetness and other like Accidents of Manna Quod credat Judaeus Apella At this rate of expounding who knows but Ratram did with Basilides and Saturninus deny that Christ had true Flesh a Real Humane Body for he saith it was visible and palpable by which possibly he might mean that our Saviour's Body had only the Qualities which are proper to affect the Eye or the Touch without the natural Substance of a true Humane Body Should that old Heresie revive its Proselytes might as
distinguish between the Substance of Bread and Wine and their Appearance determining the former to be Changed upon Consecration and the latter to remain unaltered but there is nothing like it in the whole Book Lastly in (o) De Praedest lib. 1. p. 42. ibidem Vniversa quae sive secundum corpus sive secundum animam aguntur c. another work our Author saith that God appoints all things quae secundum corpus homines patiuntur which affect men in their Bodies now I suppose none will be so ridiculous as to interpret the words of the Appearance of their Bodies which plainly import the Natural Substance And even in this place he had just before said that as to the (p) N. 14. Secundum Speciem namque Creaturae panis vinum nihil habent in se permutatum Species of the Creature neither the Bread or Wine have any thing changed Which hath been fully proved to imply the Nature or Kind of those Creatures Likewise in the following context these Phrases in Truth or Reality and in their Proper Essence are used in the same sense with Corporally And doubtless whatever any thing is according to its proper Essence that it is (q) In Proprietate humor corruptibilis n. 18. in Propriety of Nature or (r) Nam Substantialiter nec Panis Christus c. Substantially both which Terms are used by this Author In another place (s) n. 65. 66. where he saith we must not consider any thing Corporally in that Meat and Drink viz. the Consecrated Elements he gives this Reason Because the soul cannot feed on Corporal Meat and Drink Now I would fain be informed whether the Substance of Bread and Wine be not as unsuitable Food for the soul as the sensible Appearances thereof as also whether the Soul can feed on the Natural Flesh of Christ any more than on Bread and Wine The words are easie to be understood by any man who hath no interest to make the plainest things obscure and their meaning is that the Soul which is a Spirit cannot receive Nourishment from any material Food which is it self a Corporeal Substance and the proper Sustenance of the Body Lastly He saith elsewhere (t) n. 75. Si Vinum illud Sanctificatum in Christi Sanguinem Corporaliter convertitur aqua quoque quae pariter admixta est in Sanguinem Populi credentis necesse est Corporaliter convertatur At videmus in aqua Secundum Corpus nihil esse conversum consequenter ergo et in Vino nihil Corporaliter ostensum If the Wine be CORPORALLY changed into Christ's Blood then must the Water mixed with it in the Chalice be CORPORALLY turned into the Blood of the Faithful Now we see that the Water hath nothing in it CORPORALLY changed therefore neither hath the Wine c. Will M. Boileau say that Ratram beleived the Water to be Really and Substantially tho not Sensibly and in outward Appearance turned into the Blood of the People If Corporally doth not signifie Sensibly but in Bodily Substance when he denieth the Water to be Corporally changed then neither doth it signifie Sensibly but Substantially when he denieth the Wine to be so changed into the Blood of Christ But M. Boileau (u) Remarq p. 246. 247. 248. tells us that Substantia likewise is improperly taken in this Book for the Appearance and to make this out tho he saith the Calvinists confess it to be sometimes used Improperly he hath Muster'd a great many Examples out of the Fathers whence we may conclude reasonably that he would not have failed to back his new Expositions of other Terms with the like colourable Authorities if he could any where have met with them But all this shew of Authority is meer empty Appearance for in those few of his Citations where Substantiae is used for the Qualities of any Substance it implyeth them Subsisting in their Subject and not of themselves their Subject being destroyed Besides what tho the word be sometimes improperly used must it therefore never be taken in ' its natural sense To which add that as in those Instances which he cites it is apparent that the place will not bear the word in its natural sense so on the contrary those places of this Book in which M. Boileau would expound it in an Improper sense will bear none but the Natural and Primitive sense of the Word N. 54. Where he renders secundum creaturarum Substantiam The Visible Creatures as they appear the place necessarily determins any unbiassed Judgment to understand the Word properly and in the sense of Aristotle for which M. Boileau frequently declares his Aversion Had Bertram designed only to say that the same sensible Qualities remain Quale and Tale would more aptly have expressed his sense (w) Nam Secundum creaturarum Substantiam Quod fuerunt ante Consecrationem Hoc et postea CONSISTVNT PANIS VINVM prius EXTITERE in qua etiam SPECIE jam Consecrata permanere videntur than Quod and Hoc which he useth And he would rather have said they had the Appearance of Bread and Wine before Consecration which they retain after not Peremptorily that they were Bread and Wine before and continue after in the same Specifick Nature Mr. Boileau would not be well pleased if we should refuse to take the word Substance in its proper sense in some places of this Book where it is very apparent that it is improperly used For example N. 30. Where Ratram Paraphaseth on our Saviours Words to his Disciples (x) John vi 62 63. Doth this offend you What and if ye shall see the Son of Man Ascend up where he was before In this manner When after my Resurrection ye shall see me Ascend into Heaven carrying with me my intire Body and every drop of my Blood (y) Sed Verè PER MYSTERIVM PANEM ET VINVM in Corporis Sanguinis mei conversa SVBSTANTIAM a Credentibus Sumenda n. 30. Then you will understand that my Flesh is not to be Eaten by the Faithful in the way that these Infidels imagine but that they must receive Bread and Wine being in Truth Mystically turned into the Substance of my Body Blood. Now there are two things which will not permit us to take the Word Substance properly 1. The Author saith that the things to be Received by the Faithful are (z) Panem vinum sumenda non uti in pridem editis Sumendam BREAD and WINE which appears manifestly to any impartial Reader who observeth the Syntax according to M. Boileau's Edition from the MS. For the Participle is of the Plural Number and Neuter Gender which plainly refers to Bread and Wine and not as in the former Editions Sumendam referring to our Saviours Flesh This I did not observe when I Corrected the Latin Text according to the Lobez MS. and therefore have not altered the Translation 2. He saith it is (a) Vere per Mysterium
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
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
though (a) Bib. Patrum Tom. 6. Par. 1610. Col. 226 227. Florus Deacon of the Church of Lyons accord not with Scotus in his Sentiments touching Predestination yet he agrees with him in contradicting the carnal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament for in his Exposition of the Mass he saith That when the Creature of Bread and Wine is by the ineffable sanctification of the Spirit translated into the SACRAMENT of Christ's Body Christ is eaten That he is eaten by parts in the Sacrament and remains whole in Heaven and in the Faithful Receiver's heart And again All that is done in the Oblation of the Lord's Body and Blood is a Mystery there is one thing seen and another understood that which is seen hath a Corporal nature that which is understood hath a Spiritual fruit And in the Manuscript (a) In Homiliario MS. Eccles Lugd. apud Mabillon A. B. Sec. IV. Par. 2. Praefat. nu 80. Homilies which F. Mabillon concludes are his expounding the words of our Saviour instituting the Sacrament he saith commenting on This is my Body the Body that spake was one thing the Body which was given was another The Body which spake was substantial that Body which was given was Mystical for the Body of our Lord died was buried rose again and ascended into heaven but that Body which was delivered to the Apostles in the Sacrament is daily consecrated by the Priests hands * Apud Hittorpium De rebus Eccles c. 16. Walafridus Strabo in the same Century teacheth That Christ in his last Supper with his Disciples just before he was betrayed after the Solemnity of the Ancient Passeover delivered the Sacraments of his own Body and Blood to his Disciples in the substance of Bread and Wine †Apud Albertinum de Euchar. lib. 2. pag. 934. Hoc est corpus meum id est in Sacramento Christian Druthmarus a Monk of Corbey and contemporary both with Bertram and Paschasius in his Comment on St. Matthew expounding the words of Institution saith That Christ gave his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body to the end that being mindful of this Action they should always do this in a Figure and not forget what he was about to do for them This is my Body that is Sacramentally or in a Sacrament or Sign And a little before he saith Christ did Spiritually change Bread into his Body and Wine into his Blood which is the Phrase of Bertram a Monk in the same Cloyster with him To these may be added * Apud L' Arroque in Hist Euchar. lib. 2. c. 13. ex Dacherii Spicileg Tom. 6. Ahyto Bishop of Basil in the beginning of this Century whose words cited by Mr. L' Arroque in his History of the Eucharist are these The Priest ought to know what the Sacrament of Baptism and Confirmation is and what the Mystery of the Body and Blood of the Lord is how a visible Creature is seen in those Mysteries and nevertheless invisible Salvation or Grace is thereby communicated for the salvation of the Soul the which is contained in Faith only Mr. L' Arroque well observes that his words relate to Baptism and Confirmation as well as the Lord's Supper he distinguisheth in both the sign from the thing signified and asserts alike in all three that there is a visible Creature communicating Invisible or Spiritual Grace which is received by Faith only Moreover the Question moved by Heribaldus to Rabanus which he answers and upon that score both those Learned and Holy Bishops have been traduced as Stercoranists evidently shews the Sentiments of Heribaldus to have been contrary to those of Paschasius on this Argument For he never could have moved the Question if he had not believed the external part of the Sacrament to be corporal Food as Ratramnus doth The Judgment of Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz whom Baronius stiles the brightest Star of Germany and as Trithemius says who had not his fellow in Italy or Germany agrees with that of Ratramnus and appears in several of his writings He teacheth * Raban de institut Cleric lib. 1. c. 31. That our Lord chose to have the Sacraments of his Body and Blood received by the mouth of the Faithful and reduced to Nourishment on purpose that by the visible Body the Spiritual effect might be shewn For as Material food outwardly nourisheth and gives vigor to the body so doth the Word of God inwardly nourish and strengthen the Soul. Again The Sacrament is one thing and the virtue of the Sacrament is another for the Sacrament is received with the mouth but the inner man is fed with the virtue of the Sacrament In his †Ad Calcem Reginon Prum editi per Baluzium habetur Epistola haec Rabani unde Heribaldum vide c. 33. Quidam nuper de ipso Sacramento corporis Sanguinis Domini non rite sentientes dixerunt hoc ipsum Corpus Sanguinem Domini quod de Maria Virgine natum est in quo ipse Dominus passus est in cruce resurrexit de Sepulchro idem esse quod sumitur de Altari cui Errori c. Penitential he makes the Sacrament subject to all the affections of common food and tells of some of late viz. Paschasius and his followers who had entertained false Sentiments touching the Sacrament of the Lords Body and Blood saying That this very Body of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary in which our Lord suffered on the Cross and rose again from the Grave is the same which we receive from the Altar against which error writing to Egilus the Abbot we have according to our ability declared what we are truly to believe concerning the Lords very Body From which Passage many things of moment may be collected 1. That Paschasius was written against in his life-time and not long after his propounding his Doctrine publickly by sending his Book together with an Epistle to Carolus Calvus For Rabanus died before Paschasius and * In praefat ad Rabani Epist n. 17. Baluzius makes it out very well that he wrote this Answer to the Queries of Heribaldus A. D. 853. In which year Egilus mentioned by him was made Abbot of Promie and the question of the validity of Orders conferred by Ebbo Archbishop of Rhemes after his Deposition was discussed in the Synod at Soissons 2. We learn from this Passage that Rabamus judged the Doctrine of Paschasius to be a Novel Error which he would not have done had there been any colour of Antient Tradition or Authority for it 3. That F. Cellot is mistaken in charging his Anonymous Writer with slandering Rabanus as also in saying that what Rabanus wrote on this Argument he wrote in his youth falsly presuming that Egilus to whom he wrote was Abbot of Fulda and immediate Predecessor to Rabanus in the Government of that Monastry where as it was another Egilus made Abbot of Promie A. D. 853. when Rabanus was
very old and but three years before his death 4. These words the same which is received from the Altar were as * Baluz in notis ad c. 33. Ad calcem Reginonis Baluzius and F. Mabillon observe razed out of the MS from whence Stevartius published that Epistle of Rabanus Which I take notice of because Mr. Arnauds Modest Monk of St. Genouefe makes so much difficulty to believe Arch-bishop Vsher who tells of a Passage of the same importance razed out of an old MS. Book of Penitential Canons in Bennet Colledg Library in Cambridge though he had seen it himself and no doubt the other MS. also out of which the lost passage was restored This Passage is an Authority of the X Century confirming †At the end of the Saxon Homily Printed by Jo. Day Bertram's Doctrine which I shall Transcribe But this Sacrifice is not the Body in which he suffered for us nor his Blood which he shed for us but it is Spiritually made his Body and Blood like the Manna rained down from Heaven and the Water which Flowed from the Rock as c. These words inclosed between two half Circles some had rased out of Worcester book but they are restored again out of a book of Exeter Church as is noted in the Margin by the first Publishers of this Epistle and the Saxon Homily they are both one Authors work viz. Elfric's Thus the Reader may be satisfied how the Passage was recovered And Bishop Vsher did not invent it which had it been lost utterly might also have been restored out of the Saxon Epistle printed immediately before it And now I am speaking of such detestable practices I cannot but add what for the sake of such a Passage hath befallen St. Chrysostom's Epistle to Caesarius The Passage runs thus * Sicut enim antequam Sanctificetur Panis Panem nominamus Divina autem illum sanctificante gratia mediante Sacerdote liberatus est quidem appellatione panis dignus autem habitus est Dominici Corporis appellatione etiemsi natura Panis in ipso permansit non duo corpora sed unum corpus Filii praedicamus sic c. Apud Steph. Le Moine inter Varia Sacra Tom. 1. p. 532. As before the Bread is Consecrated we call it BREAD but after the Divine Grace hath consecrated it by the Ministry of the Priest it is freed from THE NAME OF BREAD and honoured with THE NAME OF THE LORDS BODY though the NATVRE OF BREAD remaineth in it and we do not teach two Bodies but one Body of the Son so c. This Epistle Peter Martyr found in the Florentine Library and Transcribed several Copies of it one of which he gave to Arch-bishop Cranmer the Copies of this Epistle being lost the World was persuaded by the Papists that the Passage was a Forgery committed by Peter Martyr This past current for about a 100 years till at last Emericus Bigotius found it and Printed the whole Epistle with * Palladii vita Chrysostomi Gr. lat c. Quarto Par. 1680. Inter paginas 235. 245. In Schedis signatis G. g. H. h. the Life of St. Chrysostom and some other little things but when it was Finisht this †Vide Expostulationem hac de re editam in Quarto Londini 1682. Epistle was taken out of the Book and not suffered to see Light. The place out of which this Epistle was expunged is visible in the Book by a break in the Signature at the bottom and the numbers at the top of the Page But at length it is published by Mr. le Moine among several other Ancient pieces at Leyden 1685. And since more accurately in the Appendix to the Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England So that notwithstanding the French Monks indignation at the Learned Vsher for charging the Papists with the razure of an old MS. it s plain that such tricks are not unusual with them that they are more ancient than their publick Expurgatory Indices and more mischievous and that some of their great Doctors at this day make no conscience of stifling antient Testimonies against their corruptions when it lies in their power I shall trouble the Reader with no more Citations to prove the concurrence of other Doctors of the Ninth and Tenth Century with Ratramnus in his Sentiments touching Christ's Presence in the Holy Sacrament These are enough to shew that his opinion was neither singular nor novel and that though he be the fullest and most express witness of the Faith of those times yet he is not a single Evidence but is supported by the Testimonies of many of the best Writers of those times And his Doctrine is reproved by no body but Paschasius who reflects a little upon it in his Epistle to Frudegardus and that piece of his commentary on Matthew that is annext to it On the contrary the Doctrine of Paschasius was impugned as Novel and Erroneous by the Anonymous Writer published by F. Mabillon by Rabanus and Ratramnus neither doth it in all things please his Anonymous Friend said to be Herigerus who writes in his favour and collects passages out of the Ancients to excuse the simplicity of Paschasius His own writings shew that he valued himself upon some new discovery which excited many to a more perfect understanding of that great Mystery That his Paradox was in danger of passing for a Dream or * In Epistolis hortatur Placidum Regem Carolum ne existiment illum contexere fabulam de salsura Maronis Poetical fiction and that when he wrote to Frudegardus many doubted the truth of his Doctrine Frudegardus once his Proselite upon reading a Passage in St. †Augustin de Doct. Christ l. 3. c. 16. Augustine which Bertram also cites was dissatisfied with his Explication of Christs Presence and whether this Epistle did effectually establish him in the belief of Radberts Doctrine or whether he adhered to St. Augustine cannot now be known It is evident notwithstanding some gross conceipts which began to possess the minds of men in those dark and barbarous Ages that the Church had not as yet received the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation which was left by Paschasius its Damme a rude Lump which required much Licking to reduce it into any tolerable shape or form as a * The B. of St. Asaph in a Sermon before the late King 1678. Reverend Author observes and was not confirmed by the Authority of any Pope or Council in 200 Years after nor did the Monster receive its name till the Fourth Lateran Council The Writers of the Ninth and Tenth Centuries speak of a change or conversion of the Elements into Christ's Body but it is plain they mean not a Natural but a Mystical or Sacramental change such as happens upon the †See the Saxon Homily Christening of a Pagan they affirm the Elements to be Christs Body and Blood after
take away their Spiritual filth XVIII Behold how in one and the same Element are seen two things contrary to each other a thing Corruptible giving Incorruption and a thing without Life giving Life It is manifest then that in the Font there is both somewhat which the bodily sense perceiveth which is therefore mutable and corruptible and somewhat which the Eye of Faith only beholds and therefore is neither Corruptible nor Mortal If you enquire what washes the outside it is the Element but if you consider what purgeth the inside it is a quickning power a Sanctifying power a power conferring Immortality So then in its own nature it is a Corruptible Liquor but in the Mystery 't is a Healing Power XIX Thus also the Body and Blood of Christ considered as to the outside only is a creature subject to change and Corruption But if you ponder the efficacy of the Mystery it is Life conferring Immortality on such as partake thereof Therefore they are not the same things which are seen and which are believed For the things seen feed a Corruptible Body being corruptible themselves But those which are believed feed immortal Souls being themselves immortal XX. The Apostle also writing to the Corinthians saith * 1 Cor. 10.2 3. Know ye not This is further illustrated by the Baptism of the Fathers in the Sea and Cloud and by the Manna and Spiritual Rock which afforded Meat and Drink to the Fathers how that all our Fathers were under the Cloud and all passed through the Sea and were all Baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea and did all eat the same Spiritual Meat and did all Drink the same Spiritual Drirk for they drank of that Spiritual Rock that followed them And that Rock was Christ We see both the Sea and the Cloud bore a resemblance of Baptism and that the Fathers of the Old Testament were Baptized in them viz. the Cloud and the Sea. Now could the Sea as a visible Element have the power of Baptizing Or could the Cloud as a condensation of the Air Sanctifie the People And yet we dare not say but that the Apostle who spake in Christ did truly affirm that our Fathers were Baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea. XXI And although that Baptism was not the same with the Christian Baptism now Celebrated in the Church yet that it was Baptism and that our Fathers were therewith Baptized no Man in his Wits will deny None but a man that would presume expresly to contradict the Words of the Apostle Therefore the Sea and Cloud did sanctifie and cleanse not as they were meer bodily Substances but as they did invisibly contain the sanctifying Power of the Holy Ghost For there was in them both a visible Form appearing to the bodily Eyes not in Image but in Truth and also a spiritual Virtue shining within which was not discernable by the bodily Eyes but by those of the Mind XXII Likewise the Manna which was given the People from Heaven and the Water flowing out of the Rock were corporeal Substances and were both meat and Drink for the nourishment of the Peoples Bodies Nevertheless the Apostle calls even that Manna and that Water spiritual Meat and spiritual Drink Why so Because there was in those bodily Substances a spiritual Power of the Word which rather feed and gave Drink to the minds than the Bodies of the Faithful And whereas that Meat and Drink prefigured the future Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ which the Church now Celebrates St. Paul nevertheless affirms That our Fathers did eat the same Spiritual Meat and drank the same Spiritual Drink XXIII Perhaps you will ask In what sense the Fathers eat and drank the same spiritual Meat and Drink with us What same Even the very self-same Food which the Faithful now eat and drink in the Church Nor may we think them different since it is one and the same Christ who then in the Wilderness fed the People that were Baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea with his own Flesh and made them to drink his own Blood and who now in the Church feeds the Faithful with the Bread of his Body and makes them to drink the Liquor of his Blood. XXIV The Apostle intending to intimate thus much when he had said that our Fathers did eat the same Spiritual Meat and drank the same Spiritual Drink he adds And they all drank of that Spiritual Rock which followed them and that Rock was Christ To the end we might understand that in the Wilderness Christ was in the Spiritual Rock and gave the Liquor of his Blood to the People who afterwards * That is under the Gospel in our times exhibited his Body born of a Virgin and Crucified for the Salvation of such as believe out of which he shed streams of Blood whereof we are made to drink and not only redeemed therewith XXV Truly it is wonderful because it is incomprehensible and inestimable He had not yet assumed Man's Nature he had not yet tasted of Death for the Salvation of the World he had not yet redeemed us with his Blood whenas our Fathers in the Wilderness even then in their Spiritual Meat and Invisible Drink did eat his Body and drink his Blood as the Apostle testifies saying That our Fathers did eat the same spiritual Meat and drank of the same spiritual Drink Now we must not enquire how that could be but must believe that it was so For he who now in the Church doth by his Almighty Power spiritually change Bread and Wine into the Flesh of his own Body and the Liquor of his own Blood he also did invisibly make the Manna given from Heaven his own Body and the Water issuing from the Rock his own Blood. XXVI Which David understanding spake by the Holy Ghost saying (a) Psal 27.25 Man did eat Angels Food For it is ridiculous to imagine That the corporeal Manna given to the Fathers doth feed the Heavenly Host or that they use such Diet who are satiated with Feasting on the Divine Word The Psalmist or rather the Holy * Mat. 26.26 27 28. Luke 22.19 20. Ghost speaking of the Psalmist teacheth us both what our Fathers received in that Heavenly Manna and what the Faithful ought to believe in the Mystery of Christ's Body In both certainly Christ is signified who both feeds the Souls of the Faithful and is the Food of Angels And both he doth and is by a spiritual Relish not by becoming bodily Food but by virtue of the spiritual Word XXVII We are taught also by the Evangelist He argues from the Institution of this Sacrament before our Lord's Passion That our Lord Jesus Christ before he Suffered took Bread and when he had given Thanks he gave it to his Disciples saying This is my Body which is given for you do this in remembrance of me Likewise the Cup after he had supped saying This Cup is
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
delights the Palate What Is to taste the Lord to perceive any Corporeal Object Wherefore he invites them to make Tryal by their Spiritual Faculty of Tasting and not think of any thing Corporeal either in that Drink or Bread but to understand every thing Spiritually For the Lord is a Spirit and blessed is the Man that trusteth in him LIX And afterwards Christ is in the Sacrament because it is the Body of Christ yet it is not therefore Bodily Food but Spiritual What could be more plainly clearly and more divinely said For he saith in that Sacrament Christ is but he doth not say that Bread and that Wine is Christ which should he have said he would have made Christ corruptible and mortal which God forbid he should For it is certain that whatsoever is corporeally seen or tasted in that Food is liable to corruption LX. He adds Because it is Christ's Body You will reply upon me Look here he plainly acknowledges this Bread and Wine to be Christ's Body But have patience and mark what he subjoyns Yet this is not bodily Food but spiritual Use not therefore thy bodily Sense for it is no Judge in this Matter It is the Body of Christ indeed yet not Corporal but Spiritual It is the Blood of Christ yet not Corporal but Spiritual So that nothing is here to be understood Corporally but Spiritually It is the Body of Christ but not Corporally It is the Blood of Christ but not Corporally LXI And afterwards Wherefore the Apostle saith he speaking of the Type thereof saith That our Fathers did eat Spiritual Meat and drank Spiritual Drink For the Body of God is Spiritual The Body of Christ is the Body of a Divine Spirit as we read in the Lamentations * The Place St. Ambrose cites is Lam. 4.20 where the LXX read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the vulgar Latine Christus Dominus but our English Translation renders it truly The Lord 's Anointed By which Expositors understand not Jesus Christ but either Josiah or as some think Zedekiah Christ the Lord is the Spirit before our Face LXII He very clearly teaches how we are to understand the Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood For having said our Fathers did eat Spiritual Meat and drank Spiritual Drink when no body doubts that the Manna which they did eat and the Water which they drank were Corporeal He adds concerning the Mystery which we now celebrate in the Church determining in what Sense it is Christ's Body For the Body of God is a Spiritual Body Verily Christ is God and the Body which he took of the Virgin Mary which Suffered was Buried and Rose again was his true Body that is it remained such as might be seen and felt 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 yet felt And for this reason St. Ambrose proceeds to say The Body of Christ is the Body of a Divine Spirit Now a Divine Spirit is no Corporeal Corruptible or palpable Being But that Body which is celebrated in the Church according to its visible Nature is both Corruptible and such as may be felt LXIII In what respect then is it called the Body of a Divine Spirit Truly as it is Spiritual that is as it is invisible as it cannot be felt and is therefore incorruptible LXIV Which makes him further add That Christ is a Spirit as we read Christ the Lord is the Spirit before our Face Whereby he plainly shews in what respect it is accounted Christ's Body to wit in as much as the Spirit of Christ is therein that is to say the Power of the Divine Word which doth not only feed but also purifies the Soul. LXV Wherefore our Author goes on Lastly this Meat strengtheneth our Heart and this Drink maketh glad the Heart of Man as the (b) Psal 104.15 Prophet testifies Now doth our Bodily Food strengthen or doth this Bodily Drink make glad the Heart of Man But to shew of what Meat and Drink it is that he speaks he adds emphatically This Meat and this Drink What is this Meat and this Drink Even the Body of Christ the Body of the Divine Spirit and to explain the Matter yet more Christ himself who is a Spirit of whom he saith Christ the Lord is the Spirit before our Face By all which Discourse it evidently appears that in this Meat and Drink nothing is to be corporally understood but all must be Spiritually taken LXVI For the Soul which is in this place signified by the Heart of Man is not fed with bodily Meat or Drink but is nourished by the Word of God and grows thereby Which the same Doctor doth more expresly affirm in his Fifth Book upon the Sacraments saying It is not that Bread which goes into the Body but the Bread of Life Eternal which affords Sustenance to our Souls LXVII And that St. Ambrose spake not this of common Bread but of that Bread which is also Christ's Body is most manifest from the following Passages For he speaks of the Daily Bread which the Faithful pray for LXVIII Adding If it be Daily Bread why dost thou receive it but once in the Year as the Greeks in the East were wont to do Receive that every Day which may every Day do thee good and live so that thou mayest be every Day worthy to receive So that it is plain of what Bread he speaks to wit of the Bread of Christ's Body which sustains our Souls not as it passes into our Bodies but as it is the Bread of Eternal Life LXIX By the Authority of this most Learned Father He Sums up the force of St. Ambr. his Discourse we are taught how vast a difference there is between the Body in which Christ suffered and the Blood which he shed out of his Side as he hung on the Cross and that Body which is daily celebrated by the Faithful in the Mystery of his Passion and that Blood which is received with their Mouths as the Sacrament of that Blood wherewith the whole World was Redeemed For that Bread and Drink are not the Body and Blood of Christ as they are visible but as they Spiritually minister the Sustenance of Life Moreover that Body in which Christ once suffered appeared to be no other thing than really it was for such it really was as it appeared to the eye to the touch the same thing which was Crucified and Buried Likewise the Blood issuing from his Side did not outwardly appear one thing and inwardly contain another So that true Blood flowed from his true Side But now the Blood of Christ which the Faithful drink and that Body which they eat are one thing in their Nature and another in their Signification one thing as they feed the Body Bodily Food and another thing as they feed the Soul viz. the Sustenance of Eternal Life LXX Of which matter St. Hierom in his Comment
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
7. but advanced such a Notion of it as amounted to no more than the Illumination of the Mind by God's Spirit Whereas the Catholicks did further acknowledge its powerful Sway over our Wills and its assistance in every good Work. Now if Paschasius and his Party do in Words acknowledge a Sign or Figure but such as in effect is none Ratram might well enough charge them with denying any Vail or Figure in the Sacrament Bertram and (k) Quae ob id Sacramenta dicuntur quia sub tegumento corporalium rerum Virtus Divina Secretius Salutem eorundem Sacramentorum operatur n. 46. Isidore cited by him make Sacramental Figures to be res corporales Corporal Things not only the proper Accidents of a Body as the Figure and Tast of Bread and Wine which Paschase and Haymo both admit in the Sacrament but Corporal Substances And in the Holy Eucharist (l) Sub velamento corporei Panis corporeique Vini c. n. 16. See Numb 97.98 Ratram saith That Christ's Spiritual Body and Blood are under the Vail of Corporeal Bread and Corporeal Wine which are Bodily Substances He also saith of the Consecrated (m) Corpus Sanguis Christi quae Fidelium ore in Ecclesia percipiuntur Figurae sunt secundum visibilem Speciem Which is expounded by Visibilem Creaturam in four Lines after n. 49. Bread and Cup which is called Christ's Body and Blood that it is a Figure of Christ's proper Body That the Body and Blood of Christ received in the Church are Figures as they are Visible Creatures Whereas (n) Lib. de C. S. D. c. 4. Est autem figura vel character hoc quod exterius sentitur sed totum veritas nulla adumbratio quod intrinsecus percipitur Paschase contends that the Consecrated Elements are both a Figure and the Truth as Christ who is true God is stiled (o) Heb. 1.3 the Figure or Character of his Substance This Haymo although he teacheth a Real Presence of Christ's natural Body look'd upon as absurd saying that nothing can be a Figure or Sign of it self and upon that account denied (p) Panis ille Sacratus Calix signa dicuntur Non autem hoc quantum ad carnem Christi Sanguinem accipiendum est Jam enim Corpus Sanguis Christi non essent Nullum enim Signum est illud cujus est Signum Nec res aliqua sui ipsius dicitur Signum sed alterius Apud Mabill A. B. S. 4. p. 2. Praef. n. 93. The consecrated Elements to be Signs of Christs Body Nor will the Text cited by Paschase bring him off for in the (q) It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Original Christ is said to be the Figure of his Person not his Substance and the Vulgar Interpreter must mean Subsistence by Substantia or he was an Arian For the Son was the Image not of the Essence but the Person of the Father and consequently Christ was not truly the Father though truly God so that the same thing is not proved to be both a Figure and Truth I confess Paschase expounds the Words of Christ's Human Nature which tho' it clear him of Arianism yet it spoils his proof that a thing may be a Figure of it self Upon reading his Book with the best attention I was able I cannot say whether he deny the Substance of the Consecrated Elements to remain or not he is so inconsistent with himself and seems rather to be for Impanation than Transubstantiation But our Adversaries believing his Doctrine to be the same with that of the present Church of Rome which is that meer Accidents remain to be a Figure or Vail of Christs natural Body he and they are as justly chargeable with denying any Figure as the Fancied Predecessors of Abbaudus and Walter nay as those Authors themselves who only asserted that Christ's very Body not the Accidents only was sensible and sensibly broken but never denied that the Accidents or somewhat which made the same Impressions on Sense as did the Accidents of Bread and Wine before Consecration shrowded it from their Eyes Whether those Accidents were subjected in Christ's Body or only environed it or whether God miraculously Imprinted the Idea of them on the Organs of Sense the case is no way varied For the Natural Body of Christ is still covered from the outward Senses so that what is pretended could not be the Point in Dispute between Ratram and his Adversaries who must needs admit a Figure and Vail in the Holy Eucharist as the Roman Catholicks now do 2. A right Understanding of the Terms of the Question will clear the Truth of what I said last and overthrow M. Boileau's Fancy In the Question there are three Parts to be considered 1. (r) Subjectum Quod in Ecclesia ore fidelium sumitur Suppositum Quod Corpus Sanguis Christi fiat Quaesitum An hoc fiat in Mysterio an in Veritate The Subject of it which is comprized in these words That which the Faithful do in the Church receive with the Mouth which import somewhat more than the bare Accidents or Superficies of Bread and Wine viz. the Substance which they environ and which passeth into the Mouth with them 2ly A thing admitted by both Parties touching this Subject viz. That by Consecration it is made Christ's Body and Blood. 3ly The point remaining in debate which is in what manner and by what sort of change it is made Christ's Body and Blood whether by a true and natural change or only by a Mystical and Sacramental change There is a great Emphasis in the Word Fiat which is more than a bare Verb Substantive in the Question and imports a change made (s) At quia confitentur Corpus Sanguinem Dei esse nec hoc esse potuisse nisi facta in melius commutatione neque ista commutatio Corporaliter sed Spiritaliter facta sit necesse est jam ut figurate facta esse dicatur Ratr. n. 16. Ratram proves against his Adversaries that it was a Figurative and Mystical not a Substantial and Corporal change and Haymo (t) Idem Panis in Carnem Domini mutatur idem Vinum in Sanguinem Domini transfertur non per figuram neque per umbram sed per Veritatem Haymo Hom. in Evang. die S. Palmarum Item in 1 Cor. 11. eadem habet prope ad verbum who was of the contrary Opinion makes the Elements to be converted into Christs Body and Blood not Figuratively or Mystically but in Verity so that if Haymo were as F. Mabillon (u) A. B. S. 4. p. 2. n. 93. supposes the Adversary whom our Author disputes against on the first Question Ratram as expresly denies the Real Presence of Christ's Natural Body in the Holy Eucharist as Paschase or Haymo can assert it I confess he explains Verity by Manifestation and makes them to say that the Object of their Faith was also perceived by the bodily Eye
of a Temporary Prohibition (h) Vide Indicem in Classe 2. B. donec corrigatur till he be corrected or explained I fear those Fathers despaired of softning his harsh Expressions into any tolerable Catholick Sense 3. If we may judge of the Sense of the Pope who published the Index and the Council which ordered it to be made by the Judgment of the most eminent Doctors in and soon after that time we must believe that False and Heretical Doctrine was the fault which the Trent Censors found with it Sixtus Senensis who wrote within three Years after the Council was dissolved calls it (i) Perniciosum Oecolampadii volumen in vulgarunt sub titulo Bertrami Sixtus Sen. in Praef. Biblioth S. a pernicious Book of Oecolampadius against the Sacrament of Christ's Body And saith (k) Aug. Expositionem hujus loci Bertramus detorquet ad Haeresin Sacramentariorum Lib. 6. Annot. 196. n. 1. vide n 2. That he wrests St. Austin's Exposition of these words I am the Living Bread to the Sacramentarian Heresie making the Holy Eucharist to be nothing else but Bread and Wine in substance bearing a Figure and Resemblance together with the Name of Christ's Body which is not truly and corporally present but only in a Spiritual and Mystical way And makes (l) Berengarius ducentis pene post Bertramum annis eandem Haeresin instauravit ib. n. 6. Berengarius to have revived the same Heresie Two hundred Years after him Espencaeus an Author of the same time points out the very Propositions which shew the Pseudo-Bertram (m) Espencaeus de ador Euch. lib. 2. c. 19. as he stiles him to have been no true Son of the Church but the Son of a Strange Woman (n) Vide pref p. 8. Claudius Sainctes who was at the Council of Trent judged the Book full of Errors and Heresies and therefore spurious Gregory de Valentia (o) Greg. Valen. Comment Theol. Tom. IV. Disp VI. Punct 3. tells us that the Book is leaven'd with the Sacramentarian Error and justly sure for false Doctrine condemned in the Trent Index And Possevin (p) Appar T. 1. p. 219. Bertramus Prohibitus est omnino a Clem. VIII Pont. Max. in postremo indice Librorum prohibitorum Itaque amplius legendus non est nisi quis concessus Sedis Apostolicae ad refellendos qui ex illo errores afferuntur Bertramo qui Divinum hoc mysterium haud recte intelligebat neque credebat acquaints us that notwithstanding the favourable Judgments of the Lovain Divines It may by no means be read save by the Pope's special License in order to confute it being utterly Prohibited So that it is not for an obscure Expresson or suspected Proposition but for downright Heresie that he stands condemned M. Boileau (q) Preface p. 8. He might have added Baronius who could not be ignorant of this Work yet never vouchsafeth to mention it nor the Author more than once and that with Disgrace as an Adversary to Hincmare in the Controversie of Predestination confesseth that not only the Trent Censors but Pope Clement the VIII with the Cardinals Bellarmine Quiroga Sandoval and Alan utterly rejected this Book as Heretical But he gives an incredible account of their inducement to do so viz. That the Protestants run them down by the pure dint of Impudence (r) Estant imprime par le soin des Protestants d' Allemagne comme un ouvrage qu'ils s'imaginerent leur estre favourable ils en furent â—rus sur leur parole presque tous les Catholiques le rejetterent comme un tres-mechant livre c. Pref. p. 5. see also p. 12. They first Published it they claimed it as favourable to their Sentiments and made Translations of it into French to serve their own turns and they had the fortune to have their bare word taken and thereupon the R. Cs. generally rejected it as a pernicious Forgery These were Candid Doctors indeed to take an Adversaries bare word and let go so considerable a Champion for the Real Presence This was an extraordinary piece of Civility for those Doctors are not usually so prone to believe us though we produce Scripture and Authentick Testimonies from the Fathers in proof of our Assertions The first Editions of this Book have little appearance of that confidence we are accused of there were no large Prefaces or Remarks printed with the Text no Expositions or Paraphrases but plain Translations for many Years after the Roman Doctors had censured it but the naked Text was fairly left to the Readers Judgment The first Publishers of our Party could not possibly make a more confident pretence to the favour of Bertram than M. Boileau doth and yet we must beg his Pardon that we cannot return the Civility and give him up to the Church of Rome on his bare word Whatever motives prevailed with them it is undeniable and by M. Boileau himself confessed that their greatest Men have judged this Book Heretical and I see no reason to believe that Espenceus Genebrard and other Sorbon Doctors of the last Age were not as competent Judges whether the Doctrine it contains be agreeable to the Faith of the Church of Rome as himself M. le Faure and the other Doctors his Approvers And yet if after all the Judgment of so many great Prelates and Doctors of the Church of Rome must stand for nothing and be no prejudice to the Notion of Ratram's Orthodoxy advanced by Mr. Dean of Sens I think it but a modest and equitable request to him and his Friends that they make no use of the Concession of the Centuriators (s) As Mr. Boileau doth Remarks on n. 15. and some others citing Cent. IX de Doctrina Transubstantiationis habet Semina Bertramus utitur enim vocabulis commutationis conversionis Non sequitur Vide in Dissertationis nostrae cap. 5. quo sensu his Vocabulis utatur Centuriatores etiam objiciunt Mabillonius N. Alexander who acknowledg in this Author the Seeds of Transubstantiation Especially when it is remembred that those Authors being Lutherans have no power to make Concessions for us and being for Consubstantiation which Doctrine is utterly inconsistent with Ratram it was indifferent to them since he was no Friend of theirs whether they gave him up for a Calvinist or Papist if their Inclinations were determined one way rather than the other they must be stronger to allow him for a Transubstantiator who agrees with them in the Belief of a Corporal Presence than to acknowledg him a favourer of our Sentiments which are against both 2. A Second Reason why we cannot understand this Tract in the Sense of M. Boileau and for Transubstantiation is because Aelfric and our Saxon Ancestors who lived in the Tenth Century have taught us to understand it in a contrary Sense And if there be any thing in the Vulgar Plea for Oral Tradition we may justly expect a better account of the Doctrine
in the smaller piece must consequently be equal to the Virtue of the whole Host This is a very intelligible Notion That in Signification and Efficacy a part may be equal to the whole especially where it operates as a Moral Instrument But to say that in Substance or Quantity after infinite Divisions the least sensible Part should be equal to the whole is an insolent Contradiction to the standing Principles of Geometry And in some places he so renders Bertram that the Passages which in the Author appear a little favourable to M. Boileau's Exposition in Aelfric's Paraphrase quite subvert it comparing the Sacrament of Baptism with the Holy Eucharist having determined that Water in the Former is in its own nature a corruptible Liquor but in the Sacrament it is an Healing Virtue saith in like manner of the Holy Eucharist That outwardly considered the Body and Blood of Christ is a corruptible Creature but if you ponder its Mystical Virtue it is Life M. Boileau Translates Superficie tenus considerata consider'd as to its Exterior Superficies which falleth under Sense on purpose to beguile the Reader and make him believe that Bertram calls the Sensible Accidents only a corruptible Creature But Aelfric renders Superficie tenus (p) aeften lichamlicum andgite Fol. 32. after bodily Understanding that is consider'd Corporally or in its Nature in opposition to its Virtue and Beneficial Efficacy For so he expounds himself immediately and that Ratram intended not to separate the Superficies from its Subject is I think very evident from N. 10. (q) Vinum quoque aliud Superficie tenus ostendit aliud interius continet Quid enim aliud in Superficie quam SUBSTANTIA VINI conspicitur Ratr. N. 10. where he saith of the Consecrated Wine What do we discern else in its Superficies but the Substance of Wine And speaking of the Baptismal Water he useth the like Phrases (r) In eo tamen fonte si consideretur solummodo quod corporeus aspicit Sensus c. n. 17. Cognoscitur ergo in eo fonte inesse quod Sensus corporis artingat idcirco mutabile atque corruptibile n. 18. as it is seen by the Bodily Sense it is a corruptible fluid Element and again There is in the Holy Font that which the Bodily Sense can reach which is mutable c. and yet no Body will pretend that those Phrases import no more than the Sensible Accidents of Water without its natural Substance So then Substances are Objects of Sense by the good leave of the (s) Transubstantiation defended p. 5 Defender of Transubstantiation tho' he Chastiseth his Learned Adversary as one who hath less Logick than a Junior Soph for saying that it is a matter of Sense that we dispute with the R.Cs. when we prove the Holy Eucharist to be Bread and not Flesh and for all the Maxims which he gravely lays down against it Substances do truly though not immediately affect the Organs of Sense which are competent Judges of the Essential difference of Bodies by their proper Sensible Qualities And all this he confesseth as soon as his Passion is a little spent Again AElfric teacheth us Ratram's true sense of Christ's Spiritual Body and shews it to be vastly wide of what the Romanists fancy For he meant not thereby Christ's Natural Body subsisting after the manner of a Spirit that is without being Visible or Local and without its proper Dimensions under the Visible forms of Bread and Wine but on the contrary by Christ's Spiritual Body he understands the Viible Sacrament or consecrated Bread which he calls the Holy Housel and stles it a Spiritual Body in (t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen in Matth. Tom. I. pag. 254. Edit Huetianae Origen's sense when he calls it a Typical or Symbolical Body or as the Apostle calls the Rock in the Wilderness a Spiritual Rock (u) I Cor. 10.4 i.e. a Typical Rock To make out this I need only produce his bare words where distinguishing his Body wherein he Suffered from that in the Sacrament he proves them to be quite different things because the former was born of the Flesh of Mary with Blood Bones Skin Sinews distinct Limbs and animated with a Rational Soul whereas (w) Saxon Hom. fol. 34 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of manegum cornum gegaderod Et Ratramnus n. 72 At vero caro Spiritualis quae Populum credentem Spiritualiter pascit secundum speciem quam gerit exterius frumenti granis manu artificis consistit c. his SPIRITUAL BODY which we call the HOUSEL is made up of many Corns without Blood Bone Limb or Soul c. Therefore not as the Trent Fathers teach us the entire Person of Christ Body Soul and Divinity It is obvious also to remark the same thing fairly intimated by him in another place where expounding these words of our Saviour He that eareth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath everlasting Life He glosseth thus after St. Austine (x) Liflica hlaf fol. 69. gastlice husel fol. 71. He did not command them to eat that Body in which he was apprehended nor to drink that Blood which he shed for us but he meant the holy HOUSEL by those words which is SPIRITUALLY his Body and Blood and proceeds immediately after Fulgentius and Ratram to compare the Legal Sacrifices with this Eucharistical one and makes the difference principally to consist herein that the Legal Sacrifices did PREFIGURE Christ TO BE given us and the Holy Eucharist was a commemorative Type or Memorial of Christ ALREADY given to Die for our Sins And in Elfrics latter Epistle he saith that the Consecrated Bread (y) On lichamlican ðinge ac on gastlecum and gyte fol. 69. which he calls Living Bread that it is not Christ's Body in Corporal Substance or Reality but in a Spiritual i. e. Sacramental or Mystical Sense I could add many more Observations from this Homily and other Monuments of our Saxon Ancestors which shew that the Transubstantiators and not we are departed from the Faith of our Ancestors 700 years ago As his speaking of (a) ðeah sume men gesceote laes se dael ne biþ sƿa mare miht on ðam maran daele ðonne on þam laessan fol. 37. pieces of Christ's Body and (b) Fol. 62. 65. its growing black hoary or rotten whereas no such division or ill-favoured Accidents can happen to Christ's true Body and how new Accidents can be generated without a Subject or be subjected in the remaining Accidents of Bread and Wine is a Phaenomenon that transcends all Philosophical Solution For Consecration can have no effect on Accidents not existing and which have no relation at all to the Holy Mystery and consequently cannot be presumed to exempt them from the common Law of Accidents which necessarily require a Subject to subsist in whereas these are not subjected in Christ's Body and how they should be subjected in other Accidents Aristotle himself would not be
a Spiritual Efficacy and Nutritive Virtue which Spiritually feeds the Soul as the Material Bread and Wine nourish the Body This Mr. Boileau (m) Remarques p. 226. flatly denieth but upon very slender Reasons For saith he were this the Authors sense he could not say as he doth that Christ's Body is there and that it is a Crime so much as to imagine the contrary That there is in the Sacrament a change of one thing into another or that the Corporal appearances of Bread and Wine and Christ's Body have not two several Existences But all this is meer Smoak and Amusement For Ratram doth not say it is a Crime to think that the Consecrated Elements are not Christs NATURAL Body he saith it himself twenty times over and tells us that they are Christs SPIRITUAL Body and the Sense of the word Spiritual I have already shewn Neither doth he affirm the Sacramental change to be of one thing into another those words are added by way of Paraphrase by Mr. Dean of Sens as I shall shew in its proper place He fairly intimates the contrary where he tells us That it is a change for the beter (n) Nec hoc esse potuisse nisi facta in melius commutatione neque ista commutatio Corporaliter sed Spiritualiter Facta sit necesse est jam ut Figurate c. n. 16. having before proved it to be no Physical change for such an advancement may be made without any Substantial change by raising the Elements to a Dignity above the condition of their Nature and separating them from common to sacred Uses As for what he adds that the Corporal appearances and Christs Body have not two distinct Existences I shall when I come to consider how he abuseth the word Species shew that the Bodily Appearances he speaks of are meer Fiction never dream'd of by our Author In the mean time I shall give the Authors true sense which is this That there are not two Consubstantiate Beings in the Sacrament as in a Man there is a Soul and Body but that one and the same thing viz. The Elements consider'd with respect to their Natural Substance are Bread and Wine but consider'd as Consecrated they are Sacraments of Christ's Body and Blood. This is easily illustrated by a familiar Example The King is not two Persons as he is a Man and a Prince but one who considered in his Natural Capacity is a Man and in his Civil Capacity is a Prince The same Inference may be also made from Ratram's Parallel of the Holy Eucharist with Manna and the Rock Water which he saith were Spiritually turned into Christ's Body and Blood and were eaten and drunk by the Faithful Israelites in the Wilderness His scope is plainly this to prove that the change made by Consecration is not Substantial but Figurative like that of the Manna which could not be properly Transubstantiated into Christ's Body before his Incarnation before he had a Body prepared him And yet a wanton Wit might in Mr. Boileau's way as handsomely elude all Arguments against Ratram's belief of a substantial change of the Manna and Water into Christ's Body as he doth our Arguments against the Corporal Presence from Bertram If he object that Bertram speaks of the substance of Manna and tne Water it is easily answered that the word Substantia even by the confession of Mr. Boileau (o) Remarques p. 246 247. is not always taken in the strict Philosophical Notion but sometimes more largely for the Sensible Qualities of things If he urge that Bertram calls them Corporal Things it may be answered that by (p) Remarques p. 222. Mr. B's confession that may signifie no more than the External appearance of a Body and the sensible Accidents If he further press the Impossibility of the Thing that Manna should be substantially converted into a body not Existing It may be plausibly replied That Bertram saith (q) N. 25. We must not exercise our Reason but our Faith in this matter It is a Miracle a Mystery Incomprehensible a Work of God's Omnipotence which is not to be limited by the pretence of Impossibilities and Absurdities In fine when he comes to determine the first Question and make his Inference from all the Arguments and Authorities which he had before alledged he concludes thus (r) N. 49. Figurae sunt secundum Speciem Visibilem at vero secundum Invisibilem Substantiam id est Divini Potentiam Verbi vere Corpus Sanguis Christi Existunt The Body and Blood of Christ orally received by the Faithful may be considered either as Visible Creatures and so they are Figures and feed the Body or according to their Invisible Substance which is as he explains himself The Power of the Divine Word and so they are truly Christ's Body and Blood feeding and sanctifying the Souls of the Faithful From which Passage it is plain not only that Ratram proves a Figure in the Sacrament but that this Figure is more than the outward appearance of Bread and Wine that it is the Substance for what he meant by the visible Species he after explains by calling them the (Å¿) Visibilis Species is Expounded by Visibilis Creatura Visible Creature and affirming that it feeds the Body and though he oppose hereunto the Invisible Substance the words that follow direct us to take Substance in an improper sense For he delivers himself with great Caution as if it were on purpose to prevent any such Mistake according to the Invisible Substance (t) Invisibilem Substantiam by potentioris Virtutem Substantiae that is saith he the Power of the Divine Word and again The virtue of a more Powerful Substance which is the Grace annexed to the Sacrament by virtue of the Institution For that he should hereby mean Christ's Natural Body no Body will believe who considers that he affirmed (u) Inerat corporeis illis Substantiis SPIRITUALIS VERBI POTESTAS quae mentes potius quam Corpora credentiâ—m pasceret atque potaret n. 22. a Spiritual Power of the Word to have been in Corporeal Substances of Manna and Water in which no R. C. ever pretended that Christ was present in verity of Substance In the second Part it is as evident that he encounters not that Fictitious Error Mr. Boileau would have him viz. That the outward Species and Sensible Accidents of Bread and Wine are Christ's Flesh and Blood born of the Virgin c. For first The subject of the Question is as hath been already shewn the Consecrated Elements the whole Eucharist as Orally received and not their meer Accidents For he saith (w) Nam secundum Creaturarum Substantiam quod fuerant ante Consecrationem hoc postea consistunt Panis Vinum prius extitere c. N. 54. The substance of the Creatures remains after Consecration what they were before that is Bread and Wine Indeed if the Subject were only the outward Species or Accidents of Bread and
Wine I know no need Mr. Boileau hath to Translate the word Veritas the Sensible verity as he doth forty times over where Ratram denies that which is orally received to be Christ's Natural Flesh For the meer Accidents are in no sense Christ's Natural Body they are in no way Christs Body in verity of Nature neither the Sensible nor yet the Invisible verity thereof 2. The matter in Question cannot be whether the Holy Eucharist is Christs Body born of the Virgin in its proper state with its Sensible Qualities and Dimensions but whether it be his True and Natural Body which Paschase describes as in the Question The former could not be the Notion opposed by our Author for besides that he no where mentions any such Opinion it doth not any way else appear by any Writer either before or of his time that such an Opinion was ever embraced or vented by any Man. The latter was the Doctrine of Paschase a Doctrine which by his own confession gave offence to many and that Ratram disputes against it seems very clear to any Man who observeth in how accurate Terms he establisheth an Essential Difference between the Consecrated Elements and Christs Natural Body He distinguisheth them as things of vastly different Natures using the words aliud and aliud ONE THING and ANOTHER THING THIS Body and THAT Body which was born of the Virgin. He teacheth that Sacraments are ONE thing and the THINGS whereof they are Sacraments are ANOTHER That Christs Natural Body and Blood are THINGS but the Mysteries hereof are SACRAMENTS Num. 36. Again He proves them to differ I think Essentially because the same Definition doth not agree to both For one of their Canonized Schoolmen teacheth (x) Bonav in Sent. 14. Dist 10. p. 1. q. 4. That even Omnipotence it self cannot separate the Definition and the thing Defined Again He calleth the one Christs PROPER Body the other his MYSTICAL Body N. 94 95. And in a word he distinguisheth the Eucharist from Christs Proper Body in almost the same words wherein St. Hierom (y) Tantum interest inter Panes Propositionis Corpus Christi quantum inter umbram Corpora inter Imaginem Veritatem inter Exemplaria ea quae praefigurabantur Hier. in Titum Cap. I. compares the Shew-bread with the Eucharist calling it Christs Body and declaring how much the latter excels the former N. 89. It appears saith Ratram that they are extremely different as much as the Pledge differs from the Thing for which it is given in Pledge as much as the Image differs from the Thing Whereof it is the Image as much as a Figure from the Truth And if the words do not effectually import an Essential Difference it 's hard to devise words that can do it In a word the Scope of all his Arguments and Authorities is to prove such a Difference between the Holy Eucharist and our Saviours Natural Body And in the close of the Book when he sums up the force of all his Reasonings and comes to determine the Point he concludes thus (a) N. 97. From these Testimonies of the Holy Scriptures and Fathers it is most evidently demonstrated that the Bread and Cup which are called the Body and Blood of Christ are a FIGURE because they are a Mystery and that there is NO SMALL DIFFERENCE between the BODY which is so MYSTICALLY and the BODY that SUFFERED c. For this latter is the PROPER BODY of our Saviour nor is there any FIGURE or Signification therein but the very manifestation of the thing it self (b) N. 98. Whereas in the Body which is celebrated by a MYSTERY there is a FIGURE not only of Christ's PROPER BODY but also of the People who believe on Christ For it bears a FIGURE of BOTH BODIES (c) N. 99. Moreover That Bread and Cup which is called and is Christs Body and Blood represents the Memory of the Lords Passion i. e. as he explains himself in the next Number (d) N. 100. they are placed on the Altar for a FIGURE or MEMORIAL of the Lord's Death And lest his Adversaries should misrepresent his Doctrine as though he taught that Christs Body and Blood were not received by the Faithful but a meer Memorial and Figure of them as the Romanists slander the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches he (e) N. 101 closeth all with a caution against any such Inference adding that Faith receives not what the Eye beholds but what it self believes for it is Spiritual Meat and Spiritual Drink which do spiritually feed the Soul. Which words if Mr. Boileau take to be a Declaration in favour of their Real Presence I shall the less wonder since our Adversaries at Home have the confidence from such Apologies of our own Divines to infer that they and the Church of England are for their REAL PRESENCE Having thus shewn how Mr. Boileau either grossly mistakes or wilfully misrepresents the Authors Design in the account he hath given I shall now proceed to take a view of his Translation Now this Book of Ratram's being a Theological Controversie whosoever shall undertake to turn it into any other Language ought to employ his utmost care in truly expressing the Authors Sense and as much as the Language will bear it in his own words He may not take those liberties of Paraphrase which are llowable in the Translator of a Poem or a Piece of History or Morality He may not to adorn his Version or smooth his Stile add omit or change a word for the Nature of the Subject forbids it And moreover Mr. Boileau hath obliged himself to observe the strictest Laws of Translation having professed to have made this Version with all possible exactness and brought severaâ— of his Brethren of the Sorbon to al vouch its conformity to the Author 's Text. He is severe upon (f) Preface p. 47 48. M. Dacier and the Protestant Translator of Bertram for taking as he conceives undue Liberties He will not allow the (g) Remarques p. 250. and p. 277. latter to express in French what is plainly understood in the Latin and expressed within four Lines before and he cries out Falsification and Corruption because the Protestant Publisher of Bertram doth with an Asterisk refer the Reader to the Margin and there explains a word in the Text by another Latin word which he thought equivalent A Man might therefore reasonably expect that Mr. Boileau had avoided all these Faults and that if his Version had any defect it should be in the grace of his Language only by his keeping too close to the Authors own Terms But I perceive Mr. Boileau is subject to that general Weakness of Humane Nature which makes men very severe against those Vices in others which they discern not in themselves For certainly never did any Man use those undue liberties of adding omitting and altering the Authors words at a more Extravagant rate than he hath done in Translating Bertram Insomuch that
Water or Oil or an Ordinary House without denying Water Oyl or the Building to exist my longer And in this sense (p) Cyril Catech. Mystag 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. St. Cyril of Jerusalem saith As the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are not meer or common Bread and Wine so after the Invocation of the Holy Ghost the Chrism is not common Oyl And in like manner Catech. 1. He compares the Sacramental Bread and Wine with Meats offered to Idols teaching That as the former by the Invocation of the Holy Trinity of common Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Christ so the Meats offered to Idols are in their nature common Meat i. e. Lawful but by Invocation of Devils they are rendred profane or unlawful Which infers no destruction of the Old Substance but only the introducing of a new Quality or relation to the impure Daemons which rendred the Meat prophane or unclean So that to be made what a thing was not before infers not necessarily that it ceaseth to be what it was before it is sufficient that it receiveth some new perfection or additional Dignity Again N. LVI Intellige quod (q) Les choses qui y tombent sous le sens ne sont pas le Corps le sang de J. C. dans leur espece ou apparence visible mais qu'ils y sont par la Vertu du Verbe non in Specie sed in Virtute Corpus Sanguis Christi existant quae cernuntur Know assuredly that the things which fall under the Senses are not Christs Body and Blood in their Species or Visible Appearance but that they viz. Christs Body and Blood are there by the Vertue of the Word Ratram saith That the Visible Elements are Christ's Body and Blood not in Nature but in Virtue which is a distinction understood by every Freshman but Mr. Boileau makes him to say That which destroyeth the Antithesis which insinuates an unheard of distinction of Appearance and Virtue and which is not a proper Answer to the Objection started upon the Authority of St. Ambrose Mark you say Ratram's Adversaries This Father teacheth (r) Hic jam surgit Auditor dicit Corpus Christi esse quod cernitur Sanguinem qui bibitur c. that what is seen on the Lords Table and orally received is the Body and Blood of Christ To this Ratram answers by a distinction and sheweth in what sense the Holy Elements are Christ's Body and Blood and in what sense they are not so viz. In their Species or Nature they are not Christ's Body and Blood but in their Virtue and Efficacy It was not his business to affirm the presence of Christs Body and Blood but to give an account in what sense St. Ambrose affirmed the Consecrated Elements to be Christs Body and Blood. Again N. LXXVII (s) Car si ce Corps est celuy de J.C. s' il est ainsi appellè veritablement parce qu'il est le Corps du J. C. il est le Corps de J. C. dans la Verite c'est a dire de la maniere dont il se comporte dont il paroist a nos yeux c. Si enim Corpus Christi est hoc dicitur vere quia Corpus Christi est in Veritate Corpus Christi est si in veritate Corpus Christi est c. If this Body which is celebrated in the Church be Christ's and it be so called truly because it is the Body of Christ then it is the Body of Christ in Truth that is as it sheweth it self to the Eye if so c. It was cunningly done to make Non-sense of an Argument which truly translated would have quite spoiled the whole design of M. Boileau's Version and Remarks He could not be ignorant that dicitur vere quia c. ought to have been rendred if it be truly i. e. properly affirmed that it is Christ's Body And that he argueth that it is not in propriety of Speech affirmed to be Christ's Body because it is not so in Truth of Nature in regard Christ's Natural Body is Incorruptible Impassible and Eternal whereas the Sacrament is undeniably corrupted being broken in pieces chewed small by the Teeth digested and turned into the Substance of the Receivers Body But to trouble my self and the Reader with no more particulars of his false dealings I shall give you an entire Paragraph exactly translated from his French which I desire may be compared with the Authors Latin. N. LVII Quam diligenter quam prudenter facta distinctio De carne Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepulta est id est secundum (t) C'est a dire dans l'apparence sensible de la quelle J. C. a eie crucifie enseveli quam Christus crucifixus est sepultus ait Vera itaque Caro Christi de illa quae sumitur in Sacramento Vere ergo carnis illius Sacramentum est Distinguens Sacramentum Carnis a Veritate Carnis Quatenus in Veritate Carnis quam sumpserat de Virgine diceret eum crucifixum sepultum quod vero nunc agitur in Ecclesia Mysterium verae illius carnis in qua crucifixus est diceret esse Sacramentum Patenter Fideles instituens quod illa Caro secundum quam crucifixus est Christus Sepultus non sit Mysterium sed Veritas Naturae haec vero Caro quae nunc similitudinem illius in Mysterio continet non fit Specie Caro sed Sacramento Siquidem in Specie Panis est in Sacramento verum Christi Corpus sicut ipse clamat Dominus Jesus Hoc est Corpus meum Now observe with what prudence St. Ambrose establisheth this distinction He saith of the Flesh which was crucified and buried that is according to which Christ was crucified and buried (t) C'est a dire dans l'apparence sensible de la quelle J. C. a eie crucifie enseveli that is to say in the sensible appearance whereof Jesus Christ was crucified and buried It is the True Flesh of Jesus Christ But of that receivd in the Sacrament he saith it is truly the Sacrament of that Flesh distinguishing of his Flesh from the Sensible Verity of his Flesh meaning that according to the Sensible Verity of his Flesh Christ was crucified and buried and that the Mystery celebrated in the Church is the Sacrament of that True and Sensible Flesh in which he was crucified And thereby plainly teaching the Faithful that this Sensible in and according to which Christ was Crucified and Buried is no Mystery but the (u) Mais la verite de la nature avec toutes ses dimensions au lieu que cette chair qui en contient l'Image dans le Myst cre n' est pas la chair selon l'apparence selon ce qui tombe sous le sens mais dans le Sacrament Puis que selon les apparences sensibles ce que
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.
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
plausibly wrest the Terms of this Author to prove that Christ had only the Species or external Appearances of an Humane Body as M. Boileau doth to shew that he believed only the accidents of Bread and Wine to remain in the Sacrament after Consecration It is plain that Bertram by Visible Bread means Material Bread and by the Visible Creature he means a Corporeal Creature and by Visible Food Bodily Food It 's very well known that the (c) Graeci passim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 opponunt per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Substantias Corporeas intelligunt Ita Latini per Visibilia Fathers both Greek and Latin commonly distinguish all beings into Visible and Invisible or Sensible which is all one with (d) Greg. Nyssen in Cant. Hom. 6. sic dividit rerum Naturam exponit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Material and Intelligible or Spiritual And accordingly in the Nicene Creed we find all God's Creatures divided into things Visible and Invisible that is Corporeal and Incorporeal Bodies and Spirits So that there is no room to doubt but Bertram useth the Word Visible in the Vulgar and received Sense for Corporeal and Material Bread. 2. And the same doubtless he means by that which the eye beholds which the bodily sense perceives that which outwardly appears For he speaks in the same manner concerning (e) In eo tamen fonte si consideretur solummodo quod Corporeus aspicit sensus elementum fluidum conspicitur c. n. 17. the Water in Baptism if you consider ONLY what the bodily Sense beholds it is a fluid Element or Substance And again (f) Erat namque eis Visibilis forma quae corporis sensibus appareret N. 21. of the Cloud and Red-Sea they had a Visible form which appeared to the bodily Senses which we are to understand of the Substance of the Sea and Cloud for this latter expression is in effect the same which he had said before (g) Igitur Mare Nubes non secundum hoc quod Corpus extiterant c. Ibid. that the Cloud and Sea were Bodies and soon after (h) Similiter Manna Aqua Corporales extiterant 22. Inerat Corporeis istis Substantiis Spiritualis Verbi potestas Ibid. Verba Visibilis Corporalis Rabanus De Instit Cler. l. 1. c. 30. pro synonymis habet Aqua enim Sacramenti Visibilis est Aqua Spiritus invisibilis est Sicut etiam Aqua Corporalis corpus lavat potat ita Spiritualis Spiritum abluit pascit of the Manna and Rock Water that they were Bodily Substances and that both the one and the other had a Spiritual Virtue a Sanctifying Power upon which he illustrates this Question touching the Eucharist by comparing it with those Sacraments of the Old Testament And the last of these three Phrases That which outwardly appears or which appears to the Bodily Sense though it look a little suspiciously yet in Truth no way favours M. Boileau's Hypothesis For even in the Celebrated Catacheses of Cyril which our Adversaries produce in Triumph against us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apparent or Visible Bread signifieth true and real Bread the Substance and not the meer appearance of it as much as (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catech. Myst 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apparent or Visibile ointment signifieth true ointment or the Substance of the Chrism And indeed the Phrases above mentioned in Ratram designed to express the outward part of the Sacrament are equivalent to an Expression of Origen (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. in Matth. p. 254. Edit Huet who saith that Holy Eucharist as to the material part is digested and passeth into the draught For Bertram expresseth himself in the same manner and makes all the several Phrases which follow equivalent viz. (l) Num secundum hoc quod videtur quod Corporaliter sumitur quod dente premitur quod fauce glutitur quod receptaculo ventris suscipitur c. n. 52. As it is seen as it is Corporally received pressed by the Teeth and passed down the Throat into the Belly Now what this material part of the H. Eucharist is Origen himself very expresly declares viz. (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. the Material Substance of Bread. 3. M. Boileau makes the word Body to imply only the (n) Corporaliter Secundum corpus en ce que paroist aux sens corporels n. 15. See the Remarks sensible Qualities and corporally to be in a sensible way The Exposition is very harsh yet to justifie it he doth not alledge so much as one Instance in which these are so used by any Father or other good Author It were easie for me to produce an hundred instances of its being taken otherwise but to save both my self and the Reader trouble I will content my self to offer two or three places in this Tract in which it cannot without falshood and absurdity be so rendred N. 15. We see there is nothing CORPORALLY changed in them therefore they must needs acknowlege that they are changed in some other respect than that of the BODY c. I presume none will deny that in this place the Terms Corporally and in respect of the Body are equivalent and are opposed to Figuratively in Signification or Spiritually and sometimes to Virtually or in respect of its Efficacy Now there lies no Antithesis between an Appearance and a Figure or between Sensible Qualities and Signification but there is a manifest Antithesis between in Verity of Nature and in Figure between the Substance and Signification of the Consecrated Elements and such as is authorized by many examples some whereof have been lately produced whereas I dare challenge M. Boileau and all his Brethren of the Sorbon to make a single instance in St. Ambrose Jerome Augustin Fulgentius or Isidore which are all the Fathers cited in this Tract of an Antithesis between Appearance and Signification Again if corporally changed be no more than Sensibly or in outward Appearance changed then Ratram's Discourse is impertinent upon two accounts 1. For labouring to confute an Absurd Doctrin which no Body maintained for it is not pretended that Ratram's Adversaries affirmed that Consecration made any change in the sensible Appearances of the Hallowed Bread and Wine And 2dly For proving more than was needful he mentions all the three kinds of Physical Changes he proves that Consecration doth not work any of the three whereas it had been sufficient for him to have shewn that it made no Alteration And indeed by proving that nothing is Generated or Corrupted he proves effectually that Bread and Wine remain after Consecration which will not consist with the Council of Trent Besides if this were his meaning that nothing is Sensibly changed when he denieth a Corporal Change it is very wonderful that he should no where
Mystically turned into the Substance of his Body and Blood whence we may learn that it is not properly changed it is a Mystical not a Natural and Substantial change and therefore doth not change the H. Elements from their own Natural Substance into the Proper Substance of our Saviours Flesh and Blood. There may appear some Emphasis in the Adverb Vere in Truth but the Addition of Per Mysterium mystically clears the Authors meaning who useth the Word to import the Sacramental Verity not the Natural For Sacraments give a true Representation and the Real Benefits and Virtue of the thing signified tho they do not Exhibit the very thing it self And this sense of the word True in Opposition to False or Imaginary also to the Natural Sustance is clearly expressed by the Author of the Books (b) De Sacram. l. 6. c. 1. In Similitudine quidem accipis Sacramentum Sed verè Naturae GRATIAM VIRTVTEMQVE consequeris Suspicor legendum verae sed nil ex conjectura statuo de Sacramentis who to an Objection which I have mentioned before I see the Similitude not the Truth of Blood Answers Tho thou receivest the Sacrament in a Similitude yet thou truly obtainest the Grace and Virtue of the Natural Substance which may improperly be stiled the Substance of his Blood. And good Authority I find for this improper use of the word Substance in Sacramental changes in the Old Gallican Missal published first at Rome by Thomasius and after at Paris by F. Mabillon in which we have this Collect. (c) Confirma Domine famulos tuos quos ex Aqua Spiritu sancto propitius redemisti ut veterem hominem cum suis actionibus deponentes in ipsius conversatione vivamus ad cujus SVBSTANTIAM per haec Pasc halia Mysteria TRANSTVLISTI Per. Miss Gallic Miss Paschal Fer vi Confirm O Lord us thy Servants whom thou hast graciously redeemed with water and the Holy Ghost that putting off the Old Man with his works we may live after the Conversation of him into whose SUBSTANCE thou hast by these Paschal Mysteries TRANSLATED us c. This Prayer was made in the name of the New Baptized Persons on the Friday in Easter week And you may observe that it speaks of those Neophytes as turned into the Substance of Christ by the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper received immediately upon it Which cannot be understood of the Natural Substance of his Flesh but of his Mystical Body into which they were Incorporated by the Sacrament of Baptism and made true Members of Christ not in Verity of Nature but in Veritate Mysterii vel Sacramenti deriving true Grace and Spiritual strength from Christ their Head. I shall but in a word shew how vainly he baulks the Adverb Figurement Figuratively in Translating Figurate and constantly renders it in a Figure which I should not have noted but that there is a manifest design to Insinuate that the Accidents are the outward Sign and Figure under which not Bread and Wine but the Natural Substance of Christs Body and Blood do exist And F. Mabillon (d) A.B. Sec. iv p. 2. n. 116. Vno in versu duo sunt facinora Primum quod Sub Figura vertit Figurement uti etiam pag. 2. non enim ait Auctor haec Mysteria in Figura celebrari sed Sub Figura quae Corpus Christi velet non excludat imputes it a great Crime to the Hugonot Translatour that he hath rendred Sub Figura Figuratively whereas to any Man who will consult this Author throughout it will soon appear that the good Father departed from his usual Candour in passing that severe Censure on his Country-man For Ratram doth indifferently use the following Phrases viz. (e) Mysteria Corporis Sanguinis Sub Figura dicit celebrari n. 34. Verba autem St. Augustini ita se habent Figura ergo est n. 33. quibus contraria esse affirmat Ratramnus placita eorum qui docent non in Figura n. 32. Aliud exterius per Figuram ostentans n. 92. Figurate Christi Corpus Sanguis existunt n. 10. Secundum quendam modum Corpus Christi esse cognoscitur modus iste in Figura est n. 84. Vnder a Figure in a Figure by a Figure Figuratively and it is a Figure affirming in all these various ways of Expression that the Holy Eucharist is Christs Body as may be seen by the Instances in the Margin and indeed the words in a Figure do not imply the Holy Eucharist to consist of the Person of our Saviour under the Accidents of Bread and Wine which our Adversaries call the Figure or Vail For St. Austin (f) Petra Christus in Signo Verus Christus in Verbo in Carne n. 78. i. e. Signum Christi non Verus Christus cited by Ratram saith That the Rock was Christ in Signo which imports not that it was Christ personally present under the Appearance of a Rock but that the Rock was a Sign or Type of Christ So in his Exposition of the LIV (g) David in Figura Christus est Tom. 8. in Ps 54. Psalm he saith David was Christ in a Figure that is a Figure of Christ or Figurately stiled the Christ or Anointed of God. 2. He likewise amuseth us as though there were some special Mystery in those Verbs which according to the Tumid Stile of the Middle Ages Ratram useth instead of the Verb Substantive Est And therefore he renders (h) N. 12. Et alibi passim Cognoscitur is sensibly known Cernitur and Videtur appears to our Bodily sense in the like manner Ostenditur and Monstratur Now if there were any Emphasis intended in the use of these words as perhaps sometimes there was though not generally yet the Emphasis is directly contrary to what M. Boileau makes it for the Author doth not use those Terms by way of Reserve and Caution or to express an uncertainty as this Translator very ridiculously makes him rendring Videntur it seems N. 54. For where there is an Emphasis they do vehemently affirm or deny and imply the highest assurance of the Truth of what is said the Evidence of Sense and certain Knowledge being the best grounds upon which we can conclude a thing either to be or not to be So that in the place newly mentioned Ratram doth expresly say That we see the Consecrated Bread and Wine remain in the former Species or Kind and not as our (i) Et depuis il semble qu'elles demeurent dans la meme espece c'est a dire apparences Remarque p. 250. Translator hath it it seems they remain after Consecration in the same Appearance And he useth promiscuously Videtur Ostenditur and Cernitur which last is not capable of that doubtful sense which the first may sometimes bear However I say commonly these Verbs are not Emphatical but used for the Verb Substantive as in the following Instances (k) Non parva