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
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
born of the Virgin Mary in which our Lord suffered on the Cross and rose from the Grave is the same Body which is received from off the Altar against which Errour c. I hence observe 1. That the Opinion censured by him is the express Doctrine of Paschase and the Roman Church at this day Nor is there any colour for M. Boileau to say That he censured men who held the Accidents to be Christs Body for he speaks of the Body received from the Altar which he will not deny to be somewhat besides the sensible Figure and Accidents of the consecrated Elements 2. He censures this Opinion as a Falshood and Error against which he had purposely written 3. He condemns it as a late Opinion so that it had not Antiquity to plead 4. He represents it as no Vniversal Opinion but as the Sentiments of some few (c) 1. Quidam non omnes ubique 2. Nuper non semper 3 Non rite sentientes ergo erronei So that in short the Doctrine which was made an Article of Faith in the Eleventh Century was in the Ninth Century not so much as a Probable Opinion but rejected by Rabanus as a false Novel and private Opinion and by no means the Ancient Catholick and True Belief of Christ's Church If Mr. Boileau could produce any Piece of the Ninth Century wherein the Proposition censured by Rabanus and Ratram is expounded as it is by him or that contradicted Cellot's Anonymus we would readily yield the Point in Dispute But that without any proof nay against so notorious Evidence and so express a Testimony he should hope to obtrude upon us his own Chimera's touching the Design and Adversaries of Bertram in this Book argues a degree of Confidence unbecoming a Divine of his Character F. Mabillon (d) A. B. S. 4. p. 2. Praef. n. 56. Rabanum Ratramnum Anonymum Herigerum aliosque siqui sint Paschasii Adversarios in reali Christi corporis in Sacramento praesentia cum ipso convenisse contentionem hanc in vocum pugna sitam fussse hath more Ingenuity and Discretion than to attempt it and frankly confesseth that both these Writers did dispute against Paschase though to salve all again he pretends that they believed the Real Presence as much as he did that they differed only in Words not in Doctrine so that it was rather a Verbal than a Real Controversie But by this Learned Fathers leave the difference appears much more weighty Paschase and his Adversaries are at as wide a distance as Protestant and Papist and of this the Reader will be satisfied upon perusal of the Fifth Chapter of my Dissertation wherein I have set down the Doctrine of Paschase and the Church of Rome together with Ratram's contrary Doctrines and have from the Author himself shewn in what Sense he hath used those Terms which seem proper to establish Transubstantiation but really overthrow it and this without the help of those new and bold Figures which M. Boileau hath been forced to invent Hitherto I have been detecting the weakness of those Arguments which this Doctor makes use of to prove his Paradox that the Doctrine of Ratram is conformable to that of Paschase and the Faith of the Church of Rome I shall now offer some few Reasons that convince me of the contrary 1. It is a just and strong Presumption of this Authors being against them that for above 120 Years together after his first appearance in Print their most eminent Doctors have with one consent yielded the Point I will not except his Lovain Friends whose Expedient to make him Orthodox is with good Reason by M. Alix declared impracticable since the appearance of Manuscripts for they justifie those passages to be Genuine which the Lovain Divines would have expunged as spurious Mixtures If Bertram be so full and considerable a Witness of the perpetuity of their Faith touching the Presence of Christ in the Holy Sacrament How comes it to pass that their Supream Judge of Controversies hath treated him as a Knight of the Post The Doctors of the Church of Rome in former daies were not unacquainted with the Art of Expounding which is now practised with so much applause but have shewn themselves much greater Masters in it than M. Boileau and have used it with greater dexterity for evading the Testimonies produced out of other Fathers by our Divines against Transubstantiation Nor can we doubt but that they were bred under the strongest Prepossessions and Prejudices for the Real Presence and consequently as well disposed to understand all the obscure and harsh Passages of this Book in the sense of their own Church if the Words could possibly have born it If it be now so plain as (e) Nous avons son livre il ne faut que le lire Pref. p. 24. 25. M. Dean of Sens would have it thought That Bertram wrote neither against the Stercoranists nor the Real Presence If the very reading of the Book be sufficient to convince a man thereof How came it to pass that so many Popes and Cardinals with other eminent Prelates and Doctors have conspired in the Condemnation of so Useful and Orthodox a Work To pass a (f) Pref. p. 5. Sentence quite contrary to its merit and such as no man who had well examined it could reasonably have expected Did they condemn it without Examination Then God preserve us from such Judges Did they not understand the Book Or did they want Skill to try it by the Roman Standard For my part I cannot think so meanly of the Trent Fathers who were employed to censure Books and who composed the Index What pity was it that no Artist of that time could furnish those Fathers with a pair of M. Boileau's Spectacles F. Mabillon (g) A. B. Ubi supra n 126. At cum haec classis contineat libros qui propter Doctrinam quam continent non sanam aut Suspectam rejiciuntur nihil inde in Ratramni fidem inferri potest nisi quod ob duriores quasdam obscuriores sententias suspectam Doctrinam visus est continere tells us that Bertram is not placed in the first Class of the Index which consists of condemned Authors but in the second Class in which the Works of Catholick Writers containing false or suspected Doctrine are prohibited so that nothing can be hence concluded against the Soundness of his Doctrine but only that some harsh and obscure Sentences rendred it suspected To this I Answer 1. That nothing appears in the Censure by which we can learn that the Book was prohibited only for Suspected Doctrine and not for unsound Doctrine which is also assigned as the Reason why some Books of Catholick Divines are rejected 2. If the Censors of Books had only rejected Bertram for the Obscurity of his Expressions or Suspicious Doctrine and not for false and unsound Doctrine why might they not have allowed him as they have done others in the same Class the favour
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
exegeticè usurpatur that TRULY and REALLY are Terms equivalent and here the former is expounded by the latter I have been the more prolix on this Term because M. Boileau layeth the stress of the whole Controversie upon its true Sense in which I persuade my self that any impartial Reader must needs perceive him to have been grosly misled by Prejudice I shall now proceed to shew how gross an Errour he is guilty of in expounding another Term of no less moment in this Controversie which is the word SPECIES which he makes to signifie the (b) I l signifie apparence non pas la Substance la Nature des choses comme les Philosophes le prennent ordinairement Praef. p. 41. Remarq p. 220 p. 250. I l n'entend pas la Verite de la Nature mais seulement ce que l'on appellè les Accidents qui tombent sous le sens p. 253 254. Appearance and not the Substance and Nature of things in which Exposition if I prove him deceived he must for ever renounce his confident claim of Ratram for a Patron of Transubstantiation Let us then before we offer any thing to evince the contrary see what Proof M. Boileau brings to make out his Assertion that by Species in this Tract must be understood the Sensible Apearance or Accidents and not the Nature or Substance of things Now for Proof hereof he sends the Reader to his Remarks and upon a careful perusal of the places to which he refers I protest I cannot observe the least Shew or Appearance either of Reason or Authority to countenance the sense which he imposeth on the Term and the Truth is I have always had more trouble to find out his Arguments than to Answer them The former of the two places to which he refers is a Remark on these words (c) Rem p. 220. on n. xii Quoniam secundum veritatem Species creaturae quae fuerat ante permansisse cognoscitur It is well known that the Species of the Creature remains in Truth what it was before This Passage I confess deserved a Remark and unless our Translator make out his sense of Species very clearly it will stand in direct Opposition to the Trent Doctrine That the Substance of Bread and Wine remain not after Consecration To clear this Passage he therefore cites another by which it may be expounded in which Ratram saith (d) Non enim secundum quod videtur vel carnis Species in illo pane cognoscitur vel in illo vino Cruoris unda monstratur num x. That we see not the Form or Appearance of Flesh and Blood in this Mystery How honestly that Passage is thus rendred by him hath been already shewn but how he proves Species in that place to signifie Appearance I am still to learn for as I noted before unda cruoris imports the Liquid Substance of Blood and gives us fair ground to conclude that Species Carnis signifieth the Substance and not the meer Accidents of Flesh He further addeth (e) Rem p. 220. That Ratram learnt this use of the word from the Books of the Sacraments ascribed to St. Ambrose whence he cites this Passage following for an Example of it (f) Spiritus enim Sanctus in Specie Columbae non in Veritate columbae descendit de Coelo lib. 1. cap. 3. The Holy Ghost descended from Heaven in the Species or likeness of a Dove not in the Verity or Real Substance of a Dove I freely grant the word in this place imports the Likeness or Appearance in opposition to Truth of Nature but then withal I deny that it signifieth any thing like what they make Species of Bread and Wine in the Holy Eucharist to be It doth not import all the Sensible Qualities of a True Dove which was miraculously converted into the Holy Ghost nor yet doth it imply the Sensible Accidents of a Dove existing without a Subject For though the generality of the Fathers are express in denying the Holy Spirit to have assumed the Nature or Real Body of a Dove yet some of them (g) Surgenti manifesta Dei praesentia claret Scinditur auricolor coeli septemplicis aethra Corporeamque gerens Speciem descendit ab alto Spiritus aeream simulans in nube columbam Jnvencus Evang. Hist l. 1. inter Poet. Vet. Eccles Basil 1564. in Quarto Non tamen de avibus sumpsisse columbam sed ex aere minime dubitatur l. 3. de mirabil Script c 5. apud August Tom. 3. make him to have assumed a Body like a Dove formed of Air condensed of which matter it is ordinarily believed the Bodies assumed by Angels do consist And if so the Accidents which affect the Senses have a Real and Corporeal as the Colours and Features of a well-made Effigies subsist in a Real Subject though not in the Very Person whom it resembles So that this Citation is no Authority for the sense he imposeth on the Term and upon examination of these Books whence he makes Bertram to have learn'd this use of the word Species many undeniable Examples of its being used for the Substance and Specifick Nature will appear This is all the Proof he offers unless the ipse dixit of a Sorbon Doctor must pass for a Demonstration (h) Ad num 54. the other Remark to which he sends us contains neither Argument nor Authority to bear out his Exposition of that Term. I shall therefore now take leave to enquire into the true sense thereof and in a short Digression give a probable Account how it came into use with Ecclesiastick Authors And had M. Boileau taken the same method to search out the true meaning of Species which he took to justifie his forced Interpretation of Veritas that is had been pleased to consult the Learned M. du Cange I might have spared my pains From him he might have learn'd that it is (i) Species Vox J. C. notissima quibus idem sonat quod veteribus fruges c. Glossar Tom. 3. col 918. a Term wherewith the Lawyers are well acquainted and signifieth all that the Ancient Latin Writers include in the Notion of Fruges Wine Oyl Corn Pulse c. And the Glossary at the end of the Theodosian Code published by Gothofred extende its Signification (k) Species sunt res seu corpora quaecunque quorum usus est aliquis in humana conversatione quidem quae tributi annonarumque nomine Fisco penduntur Glossar Nomic tit Species to all Necessaries of Life Tributes Publick Stores of Provisions and not only for the Belly but the Back also Rich Cloaths and Houshold-stuff Jewels as also Materials for Building Timber and Iron passing by that Name in both the Theodosian and Justinian Codes in the Writers of the Imperial History Vegetius Cassiodorus c. In the Theodosian Code there are many Laws concerning the publick Species (l) Tributa in ipsis Speciebus inferri Non sunt pretia
falsly that Ratram intended to dispute against the Real Presence yet since he treats his Adversaries as Catholicks and calleth them the Faithful the Question in dispute must necessarily have been some opinion of less moment than the Real Presence the belief thereof or of the contrary could never have been held indifferent by the Faithful Not to spend time in exposing his absurd pretence to suppose a thing when he immediately assumes and concludeth the contrary I deny this consequence viz. Ratram doth not call his Adversaries Hereticks but treats them as Brethren therefore he did not write against the Real Presence All that can be concluded thence is that the Adversaries of that Doctrin were then as they still are Persons of a more charitable and meek Spirit than those who maintain and propagate it There is a great deal of difference between Heresie and some gross Errors whose Patrons do not desert the Communion of the Church and therefore it doth not follow that because Ratram treats these Erring Brethren as Catholicks and includes them with their Adversaries in the common Notion of Faithful he must needs esteem the Question in dispute of so little moment that it was indifferent which way it was held It 's plain he (a) Num. 11. chargeth them with Consequences very absurd (b) Num. 15. with contradicting themselves with subverting what they pretended to believe (c) Num. 32. Sanctorum Scriptis Patrum contraire comprobantur and with contradicting the Authority of the Fathers which are no very slight Accusations and shew plainly that he did not esteem it a matter of no moment whether his own or his Adversaries Opinion were embraced His second Reflection is That Ratram could not possibly write against Paschase because he takes no notice of the Miracle of Christ's Apparition in the form of Flesh alledged by Paschase in the fourteenth Chapter of his Book To which I Answer 1. That there is no necessity that he should take notice of this Miracle any more than he doth of his other Arguments since as it hath been before observed that it is the Notion and not the Book of Paschase against which he disputeth He acts the part of an Opponent throughout and never answers one Argument save that he once N. 56. obviates an Objection from St. Ambrose 2. That admitting us to pretend that Ratram encountered the Book of Paschase we may as fairly from our Author's Silence infer that there were no such Miracles alledged in it but that those Fables were since foisted in M. Boileau saith that Blondel rejects the whole Chapter as spurious I have not his Book at command to see his Reasons but I cannot believe he did it without all Authority as is pretended M. Boileau (d) Pref. p. 52. himself saith enough to shew that the two last Miracles were foisted in when he acquaints us that one Old Manuscript hath all Three but another more Antient only One. If one Superstitious Monk took liberty to Insert those two why might not the first which doubtless was the Fiction of some Greek Monk after the Second Nicene Synod together with the Discourse that ushers it in be a Forgery too As for the Story of Gregory the Great and the Roman Matron which is likewise foisted into our Saxon Homily out of the Life of that Pope it was impossible that Paschase should alledge it Since that Life of Gregory was not written in many years after (e) According to F. Maubillon A. D. 831. Paschase had Published his Book and admitting him to have Lived till 865. which is fourteen Years after the time when Sirmondus saith he Died Paschase must have been at least seven Year in his Grave before (f) Vide Vossium de Hist Latin. l. 2. c. 36. de Joanne Diacono Joannes Diaconus wrote the Life of Gregory in which only it occurs and Dedicated it to Pope John the VIII who was Advanced to the Papal Throne A. D. 872. that is about forty Years after Paschase first Published his Book and above twenty after his (g) A. D. 851. Resignation of the Abby and consequently after his second Publication of it with an Epistle to Carolus Calvus in which he stileth himself Abbot As for the story of Plegils the Saxon Presbyter who prayed to see Christ in the form of a Child and obtained his Request it is a shrew'd Presumption against the Antiquity and Authority thereof that it is omitted by the Interpolator of the Saxon Homily who would hardly have neglected so remarkable a Miracle wrought in Favour of an English Priest But Thirdly not to stand exposing the Falshood and Impudence of these fained Apparitions or rather of their Fabulous Author (h) Joannes Diaconus lived neer 300 years after Gregory's Pontificate is a Fabulous Writer and Author of the story of Trajans Soul being Praid out of Hell by that Pope they all prove too much or else just nothing For either in these Apparitions they saw what really was under the forms of Bread and Wine and what really was Transacted in the Sacrament or they did not If they did not the whole was a meer Illusion and Fancy And on the other hand if they did Then Christ according to the description of the first and third Miracle is still an Infant both the Jew and the Saxon Priest are said to have seen a little Child Again Christ must be divided into several parts as the Jew saw his Body broken in Pieces in St. Basil's Hands Again every Communicant doth not Receive Christ Intire but only some part of him for the Roman Matron saw the Piece which she was to receive turned (i) him bam Æ¿ear ð aeteoÆ¿ed seo snaed ðaes husles ðe heo ðicgan sceolde sÆ¿ylce ðar laeg on ðam disce anes fingres liþ aeal geblodgod Hom. Sax. Fol. 38. into a Joint of the little Finger all Bloody Again at this rate Christ must be actually slain and the Sacrifice of the Altar be a Bloody Sacrifice for the Jew is said to see his Body divided in S. Basils hands and our Saxon Miracle Monger tells us that the two Monks saw an Angel with a Sword at Consecration divide the Childs Body and pour his Blood into the Chalice and if so what becomes of the Doctrin of Concomitancy So that either these Miracles prove nothing at all or else they prove what will as little consist with the Romish Belief as with ours His Third Reflection is this That if Ratram had been against the Real Presenâ—e he would not have failed to have Reproached the Greeks with the Belief of it in his four Books Written against them But this is a very Trifling Remark for this was a point upon which the Greek as well as the Latin Church was at that time divided and as it had been unreasonable to Reproach the whole Church with the Errors of one Party so it had been Imprudently done to object to the Greek a Reproach which might have been
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
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