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
Holy Scriptures and the Fathers it is most evidently demonstrated That the Bread which is called the Body of Christ and the Cup which is called the Blood of Christ is a Figure because it is a Mystery and that there is a vast Difference between that which is his Body Mystically and that Body which suffered was buried and rose again For this was our Saviour's proper Body nor is there any Figure or Signification in it but it is the very thing it self And the Faithful desire the Vision of him because he is our Head and when we shall see him our Desire will be satisfied (a) 1 John 10.30 For he and the Father are one Not in respect of our Saviour's Body but forasmuch as the Fulness of the Godhead dwelleth in the Man Christ XCVIII But in that Body which is celebrated in a Mystery there is a Figure not only of the proper Body of Christ but also of the People which believe in Christ For it is a Figure representing both Bodies to wit that of Christ in which he died and rose again and that of the People which are regenerated and raised from the Dead by Baptism into Christ XCIX And let me add That the Bread and Cup which is called and is the Body and Blood of Christ represents the Memory of the Lord's Passion or Death as himself teacheth us in the Gospel saying (a) Luke 22.19 This do in Remembrance of me Which St. Paul the Apostle expounding saith (b) 1 Cor. 11.26 As oft as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew forth the Lord's Death till he come C. We are here taught both by our Saviour and also by St. Paul the Apostle That the Bread and Blood which is placed upon the Altar is set there for a Figure or in remembrance of the Lord's Death that what was really done long since may be called to our present Remembrance that having his Passion in our mind we may be made partakers of that Divine Gift whereby we are saved from Death Knowing well that when we shall come to the Vision of Christ we shall need no such Instruments to admonish us what his Infinite Goodness was pleased to Suffer for our sakes for when we shall see him face to face we shall not by the outward Admonition of Temporal things but by the Contemplation of the very thing it self shall understand how much we are obliged to give Thanks to the Author of our Salvation CI. But in what I say I would not have it thought That the Lord's Body and Blood is not received by the Faithful in the Sacramental Mysteries for Faith receives not that which the Eye beholds but what it self believes It is Spiritual Meat and Spiritual Drink spiritually feeding the Soul and affording a Life of eternal Satisfaction as our Saviour himself commending this Mystery speaks (a) John. 6.63 It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing CII Thus in Obedience to your Majesties Command I though a very inconsiderable Person have adventured to dispute touching Points of no small Moment not following any presumptuous Opinion of my own but having a constant regard to the Authority of the Ancients If your Majesty shall approve what I have said as Catholick ascribe it to the merit of your own Faith which laying aside your Royal Glory and Magnificence condescended to enquire after the Truth of so mean a Person And if what I have said please you not impute it to my own Weakness which renders me incapable of explaining this Point so well as I desired FINIS AN APPENDIX TO RATRAM OR BERTRAM In which Monsieur Boileau's French Version of that Author and his Notes upon him are Considered and his unfair Dealings in both Detected LONDON Printed in the Year MDCLXXXVIII AN APPENDIX TO RATRAM OR BERTRAM c. ABout Three Months after I had first Publish'd this small Tract I was acquainted by a Friend that it was newly Printed at Paris with a quite contrary design viz. To shew there the Sentiments of Ratram touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist were exactly conformable to the Faith of the Roman Church This News made me very desirous to see the Book but living near an Hundred Miles from London it was above six Months more ere I could procure it At first view I perceived the Publisher (a) James Boileau Doctor in Divinity of the College of Sorbon and Dean of the Metropolitan Church of Sens. was a Person of no small Figure in the French Church and that he had several other Doctors of the Sorbon to avouch (b) See the Approbation at the end That there is nothing either in his Version or Notes but what is agreeable to the Text of that Ancient Writer But upon further perusal I soon found that Monsieur Boileau had rather given us his own Paraphrase than the Author's Words in French that his design was not so much a Translation as the Conversion of Bertram and that he had made almost as great and wonderful a change in his Doctrine as that which the Romanists pretend to be wrought in the Eucharist it self I confess his Undertaking seemed both useful and seasonable and well deserving encouragement for if he proceed successful in it in the present juncture it must needs much facilitate the Conversions in hand And unless some such way can be found out to bring over the Old Hereticks who for a Thousand Years together after CHRIST taught that The Bread and Wine remain after Consecration and that It is not the Natural Body of our Saviour which is orally received in the Holy Sacrament The poor Hugonots will still be of Opinion That they ought not to distrust the Judgment of their Senses confirmed by Scripture and Antiquity or to resign their Vnderstandings to any Church Authority on Earth But the misery of it is that the Doctor hath not been more generous in his Undertaking than he is unfortunate in his performance For tho' the Abjurations of the new Converts cannot be more against their private Sense than Dr. Boileau's Exposition is against the Sense of this Author yet as they recant their forced Subscriptions whenever they can escape out of France so Bertram when permitted to speak his own Words in Latine contradicts whatever this Translator hath forced him against his mind to say in French. But how ill soever he hath treated the Author in French we must acknowledg our selves very much obliged to him for giving us the Latin Text (c) See his Preface p. 18. according to F. Mabillons correct Copy of the Lobes Manuscript We thank him heartily for it and it is no small piece of Justice he hath done us to shew the World that the former Printed Copies were not corrupted by us as some have pretended That the Variations from them are inconsiderable generally in the order of the Syntax or the use of some other word of like signification and where the Doctor himself thinks the variations
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
its Glorified State. And Christ hath no other Real Body but his Glorified Body In the state of Humiliation when he was Scourged Buffeted and Crucified the Body of our Saviour was visible and palpable and was a true Body with all the sensible Appearances of such a Body yet I am of opinion that M. Boileau will scarce adventure to say that our Saviour's Body was then Impassible Incorruptible or Immortal Whereas if the word Veritas be taken in its genuine and common Sense the Consequence is undeniable For to the Truth of a Proposition it is requisite that the Praedicate do really agree to the Subject and that the Subject be in Truth of Nature what it is affirmed to be And whatever the Subject is not in Reality that is either falsly or improperly affirmed of it I hope this may suffice to shew that Ratram did not use the Term in M. Boileau's sense which is as much as I am obliged to prove But for the further manifestation of his Extravagance in imposing that signification upon it I shall proceed to let you see how contrary it is to the usage of the word Verity in other Ecclesiastical Writers of his own and Elder times I shall give you an Instance or two out of Tertullian who in answering those Hereticks who objected against the Reality of the Incarnation the words of St. Paul Rom. viii 3. God sending his Son in the LIKENESS of sinful Flesh c. thus expresseth himself (a) Non quod Similitudinem Carnis acceperit quasi IMAGINEM Corporis non VERITATEM Sed Similitudinem peccatricis carnis vult intelligi c. Tertul. de Carne Christi c. 16. Not that he assumed the LIKENESS of FLESH as if it were the IMAGE of a Body and not the VERITY i. e. a Real Body Again Answering an Objection of Marcion who said That if the Image of God the Soul sinned in Man the Guilt would affect God himself He saith (b) Porro IMAGO VERITATI haud usque quaque adaequabitur aliud enim est secundum VERITATEM esse aliud IPSAM VERITATEM esse Adv. Marcion l. 2. c. 9. The IMAGE must not be in all respects made equal with the VERITY it is one thing to be made after the TRUTH i. e. in imitation of it and another thing to be the VERY TRUTH it self Again He proves that Christ had a Real Body because the Sacrament was a Figure of it For there could be no Figure unless there were a TRUE Body Irenaeus doth not only use the word in the same sense but establisheth an Essential difference between the Image and Verity (c) Typus enim Imago secundum materiam secundum Substantiam aliquories a VERITATE diversus est secundum autem habitum lineamentum debet servare similitudinem Iren. adv Haer. l. 2. c. 40. A Type and Image saith he is sometimes in Matter and Substance different from the VERITY or TRUTH but it ought to resemble the Shape and Lineaments thereof They differ Substantially St. Cyprian also useth the Term in the same sense where making the deliverance of the First-born in Egypt whose Door-posts were sprinkled with the Blood of the Paschal Lamb a Type of our Salvation by the Cross and Passion of our Lord he saith (d) Quod ante occiso agno praecedit in imagine impletur in Christo secuta postmodum Veritate Cypr. ad Demetrian p. 194. Edit Oxon. That Salvation which antiently in the slaying of the Paschal Lamb went before in the way of an IMAGE is fulfilled in Christ the TRUTH which followed after St. Ambrose frequently useth VERITAS for the Reality speaking of boaring the Ear of the Jewish Servants and the Circumcision of their Flesh c. (e) SIGNA sunt ista non VERITAS Sed ille intelligit qui cor suum Spiritali Circumcisione castificat c. Ambr. in Ps 118. Oct. 13. These things are SIGNS and not the TRUTH which was Sanctification as he tells immediately And in what sense the word Verity must be taken when we find it opposed to Signs he elsewhere teacheth speaking of Abraham's Circumcision (f) Abraham Signum accepit Circumcisionis Vtique SIGNVM non IPSA RES sed ait rius rei est hoc est non VERITAS sed indicium VERITATIS de Abraham l. 1. in Gen. c. 17. The Apostle Paul said that Abraham received the Sign of Circumcision now the SIGN is not the THING IT SELF but the Representation of another Thing that is not the TRUTH but an Indication of the TRUTH where he not only opposeth the TRUTH to a SIGN but also expounds it to be the REALITY So Gaudentius Bishop of Brescia contemporary with St. Ambrose speaking of the Paschal Lamb as a Type of Christ's Death saith (g) Figura erat non Proprietas Dominicae Passionis FIGVRA etenim non est VERITAS sed imitatio VERITATIS Gaudent Brix Serm. 2. in Exod. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 2. Edit Par. 1610. It was a FIGURE of our Lord's Passion and not the PROPRIETY now a FIGURE is not the TRUTH or REALITY but an Imitation of the TRUTH Here he makes a Figure and the REALITY to be Inconsistent in their very Natures I might produce several Passages of St. Austine to the same effect but shall content my self with one or two (h) Hujus Sacrificii Caro Sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas SIMILITVDINVM promittebatur in Passione Christi per IPSAM VERITATEM reddebatur Post ascensum Christi per SACRAMENTVM MEMORIAE celebratur August contra Faustum Manich. l. xx c. 21. Having cited those words of the Psalmist Sacrificium laudis glorificabit me c. He addeth The Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice was promised by Typical Victims before the coming of Christ it was given in VERY TRUTH or Reality in the Passion of Christ and is celebrated in the SACRAMENT which is the MEMORIAL thereof after the Ascension of Christ This is a remarkable Passage not only as it gives us the true sense of the word verity but as it declares the Holy Eucharist to be an Historical Type of our Saviours Oblation on the Cross as the Jewish Sacrifices were Prophetical Types thereof but neither one nor the other his Flesh and Blood in Reality The other place is cited by Gratian whose Decretum the (i) Sed animum hic advertat Sanctitas tua Nam Decretalium Sexti Clementinarum Extravagantium tantum supra Meminimus ac non item Decreti quod minime mirum videri debet Est enim Perniciosus liber Authoritatem tuam valde imminuit c. Concil quorundam Episc de stabilienda Romana Eccles fol. 5. Bishops met at Bononia in their Advice to Pope Julius III. had reason upon account of this and many other Passages of the Antient Fathers and Councils no way favourable to Popery extant in that Collection to call a Pernicious Book The words occur not in the Works of St.
is not immediately false where the Praedicate is a Metaphor or Metonymy and doth not in its first and native signification agree to the subject for unless the Trope be too obscure it conveys the Speakers true meaning into the mind of such as hear him Now in this sence (a) Non utique mentitur c. sect 35. supra cur nemo tam ineptus est ut nos ita loquentes arguat esse mentitos c. St. Augustine cited by our Author saith he tells no Lye who giveth the Name of the thing itself to the Sign and Sacrament of it and that this manner of speaking was perfectly understood And I may add it was very familiar among the Jews and is Authorised by a multitude of Scripture Examples Now in this sence Ratramnus in some places affirms that the consecrated Elements are truly Christ's Body and Blood and this without the least contradiction to himself though in the other sence he more frequently denies it And a due regard to these two sences of Verity or Truth will clear the obscurity of which the Romanists accuse our Author in many Passages of this Work. There is another term of the same importance Manifestation viz. Manifestation but our Adversaries pretend it is a Key of the whole Work because Ratramnus defines Truth to be rei manifestae demonstratio and charge the (a) Mabilonius A.B. Sec. IV P. 2. Praef. n. 101. French Translator of falsifying the Author because he renders manifestae manifesta participatione real and really They say whatever is manifest is real but the word real doth not express the full notion of manifest which further includes evidence many things being real which are not manifest And this is true But yet Bertram's sence of the word must be judged by his own use of it which will appear by inspecting the several places of the Book where it occurs and I must needs say that I cannot make sence of him if he mean not as the French Translator hath rendred him In the state of the question where he explains Verity by that which appears manifestationis luce in a manifest light or naked and open his meaning in that Question or rather the meaning of those against whom he writes and whose error the first part of this Discourse is intended to rectifie cannot be whether the Sacrament was the Body of Christ appearing in its own shape to our bodily Eye For that Cardinal Perron or Mr. Arnaud do not pretend the Stercorarists or whoever else Bertram opposeth to have believed but that the accidents of Bread and Wine affected or were subjected in the natural Body and Blood of Christ Now as to the matter of the Manifest appearance of Christ's Body it is all one whether the accidents of Bread and Wine be subjected in the Body and Blood of Christ or subsist without a subject for the bodily Eye doth not behold the Body of Christ the more or less manifestly for that nor doth it at all manifestly behold Christ's Body unless it see him in the form of a Man. And therefore if they meant any thing it must be whether the sensible Object in the Sacrament were Christ's very Body though under the figure of the Sacramental Elements But to clear the point we need only compare the two Prayers in the close of Bertram's Discourse on the second Question and we shall find that what in one Prayer they beg of God to receive by a manifest participation in the other they pray to be made really partakers of and in the same Collect manifest participation is opposed to Receiving in a Sacramental Image Now there is nothing more naturally opposed to an Image than the very thing whose Image it is or to a Sacrament than the res Sacramenti the real Object signified and exhibited under it The Reader will find the word bears the same sence in those few other places where Ratramnus useth it which are all near the end of the Book Another controverted Term is Species Species which hath two sences in this Book It is most commonly used to signifie the kind and specifical nature of any thing and is always so taken where it is set in opposition to a Figure or Sacrament or where the Author is declaring the nature of the consecrated Elements Sometimes it signifies the appearance or likeness of a thing so it is taken when it is opposed to Truth as in the Post-Communion Prayer cited by Ratramnus and in his Inferences from it Besides these the Romanists have another acceptation of the word making it to signifie the sensible qualities of the consecrated Elements subsisting without their substance in which sence I positively affirm that Species is no where used in this Treatise And herein the Authors of the (a) Index Expurg Belg. in Bertramo tametsi non diffitear Bertramum tunc temporis nescivisse exacte accidentia ista absque omni substantia sua subsistere c. Belgick Index will bear me out who acknowledge that Bertram did not exastly know how Accidents could subsist out of their Subjects which subtil Truth latter Ages have learnt out of the Scripture As Species ordinarily signifies Nature Species Visibilis so the addition of Visibilis alters not its signification For Ratramnus doth not speak of those qualities which immediately affect the sence abstracted from their Subject And I know nothing in Reason nor yet in the Holy Scriptures which are the Rule of our Faith that can inforce us to believe that our Senses are not as true Judges of what the Mouth receiveth in the Sacrament as they are of the nature of any other Object whatsoever and may as easily discern whether it be Bread or Flesh as they can distinguish a Man from a Tree Our Author frequently mentions the Divine Word Divine Word by whose power the Sacred Elements are Spiritually changed into Christ's Body Now when he thus speaks we must not imagine that he means a natural change of the Substance of the thing consecrated by the efficacy of the words of consecration but a Spiritual change effected by the Power and Spirit of Christ who is God the Word as he explains himself The last Term that needs explaining Spiriutal Body is Christ's Spiritual Body this he affirms the Sacrament to be in many places Now by a Spiritual Body we are not to understand the natural Body of Christ but existing after the manner of a Spirit or as our Adversaries love to speak not according to its proper existence that is to say it is Christ's Natural Body but neither visible nor local nor extended this is not Bertram's sence of Christ's Spiritual Body but that the thing so called is Figuratively and Mystically Christ's Body and that it Spiritually communicates to the Faithful Christ with all the benefits of his Death I may also add that Bertram uses great variety of Phrases to express that which we call the outward sign in the Sacrament that
Sacrament made him weary of his Abby is F. Mabillon's conjecture and not mine And if so we have reason to believe that the Doctrine of Ratramnus had rather the Princes countenance and the stronger party in the Convent And it will yet seem more probable when we consider that Odo afterwards Bishop of Beauvais a great Friend of Ratramnus was made Abbot in the room of Paschasius What the Doctrine of Paschasius was I shall now briefly shew He saith * Pasch Radb de Corp. Sang. Dom. c. 1. Licet Figura Panis Vini hic sit omnino nihil aliud quam Caro Christi Sanguis post consecrationem credenda sunt Et ut miâ—abilius loquar non alia plane quam quae nata est de Maria passa in Cruce resurrexit de Sepulchro That although in the Sacrament there be the Figure of Bread and Wine yet we must believe it after consecration to be nothing else but the Body and Blood of Christ. And that you may know in what sence he understands it to be Christ's Body and Blood he adds And to say somewhat yet more wonderful It is no other Flesh than that which was born of Mary suffered on the Cross and rose again from the Grave He illustrates this Mystery further by intimating that whosoever will not believe Christs natural Body in the Sacrament under the shape of Bread that man would not have believed Christ himself to have been God if he had seen him hanging upon the Cross in the form of a Servant And shelters himself against all the Absurdities that could be objected against this Opinion as the Papists still do under God's Omnipotence laying down this Principle as the foundation of all his Discourse That the nature of all Creatures is obedient to the Will of God who can change them into what he pleaseth He renders these two Reasons why the miraculous change is not manifest to sense by any alteration of the visible form or tast of what is received viz. * Sic debuit hoc mysterium temperari ut arcana Secretorum celarentur infidis meritum cresceret de virtute Fidei c. 13. ubi plura ejusmodi cceurrunt That there may be some exercise for Faith and that Pagans might not have subject to blaspheme the Mysteries of our Religion Yet notwithstanding this no man who believes the Word of God saith he can doubt but by Consecration it is made Christ's Body and Blood in Verity or Truth of Nature And he alledgeth stories of the miraculous appearance of Christ's Flesh in its proper form for the cure of doubting as a further confirmation of his carnal Doctrine These are the sentiments of Paschasius Radbertus and differ little from those of the Roman Church at present which I shall deduce from the Authentick Acts of that Church especially the Council of Trent 1. In the Year 1059. there was a Council assembled at Rome by Pope Nicolaus the II in which a form of Recantation was drawn up for Berengarius wherein he was required to declare * Apud Gratianum de Consecratione Dist 2. c. 42. Ego Berengarius c. That Bread and Wine after Consecration are not only the Sacrament Sign and Figure but the very Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which is not only Sacramentally but Sensibly and Truly handled and broken by the Priests hands and ground by the Teeth of the Faithful And this being the form of a Recantation ought to be esteemed an accurate account of the Doctrine of the Church yet they are somewhat ashamed of it as may appear by the Gloss upon Gratian who hath put it into the body of the Canon Law. But the Council of Trents difinitions are more Authentick which hath determined I. If any one shall deny that in the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is contained really and substantially the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently whole Christ But shall say that it is therein contained only as in a Sign or Figure or Virtually let him be accursed II. If any one shall say that in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of Bread and Wine together with the Body or Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and shall deny that singular or wonderful conversion of the whole substance of Bread into his Body and of the whole substance of 1. Concil Trid. sess 13. can 1. 2. Conc. Trid. Ibid. c. 2. Wine into his Blood there remaining only the species i. e. Accidents of Bread and Wine which conversion the Catholick Church very aptly calls Transubstantiation let him be accursed i. e. By faith and not orally III. If any man shall say that in the Eucharist Christ is exhibited and eaten only Spiritually and not Sacramentally and Really let him be accursed These are the definitions of the Church of Rome in this matter and now let us see whether the Doctrine of Ratramnus in this Book be agreeable to these Canons I might make short work of it by alledging all those Authors who either represent him as a Heretick or his Book as forged or Heretical and in so doing I should muster an Army of the most Eminent Doctors of the Roman Church with two or three Popes in the Head of them viz. Pius the IV. by whose Authority was compiled the Expurgatory Index in which this Book was first forbid Sixtus V. who inlarged the Roman Index and Clement the VIII by whose order it was Revised and published They are all competent 3. Conc. Trid. Ibid. can 8. cap. 8. Witnesses that his Doctrine is not agreeable to the present Faith of the Roman Church And our Authors * Vide Indic Belgic in Bertramo Excogitato commento kind Doway Friends are forced to Exercise their Wits for some handsome invention to make him a Roman-Catholick and at last they cannot bring him fairly off but are forced to change his words directly to a contrary sense and instead of visibly write invisibly and according to the substance of the Creatures must be interpreted according to the outward species or accidents of the Sacrament c. Which is not to explain an Author but to corrupt him and instead of interpreting his words to put their own words into his Mouth And after all they acknowledge that there are some other things which it were not either amiss or imprudent wholly to expunge in regard the loss of those passages will not spoil the sense nor will they be easily missed But I shall not build altogether upon their confessions in regard others who have the ingenuity to acknowledge the Author Orthodox and the work Catholick have also the confidence to deny our claim to Bertram's Authority who is as they pretend though obscure yet their own Therefore I shall shew in his own words that his sentiments in this matter are directly contrary to Paschasius
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
inwardly contains another For what doth outwardly appear but the substance of Wine Tast it there is the relish of Wine smell it there is the scent of Wine behold it there is the colour of Wine But if you consider it inwardly then it is not the Liquor of Wine but the Liquor of Christ's Blood which is Tasted Seen and Smelt Since these things are undeniable 't is evident that the Bread and Wine are Figuratively the Body and Blood of Christ As to outward appearance there is neither the Likeness of Flesh to be seen in that Bread nor the Liquor of Blood in that Wine and yet after the mystical Consecration they are no longer called Bread and Wine but the Body and Blood of Christ XI Another Argument from the nature of Faith. If according to the Opinion of some Men here is nothing Figuratively taken but the whole Matter is real then Faith operates nothing here is nothing Spiritual done but the whole is to be understood altogether corporally And seeing * Heb. 11.1 Faith is according to the Apostle the Evidence of things that appear not that is not of Substances which are seen but of such as are not seen we here shall receive nothing by Faith because we judge of the whole matter by our bodily Senses And nothing is more absurd than to take Bread for Flesh or to say that Wine is Blood Nor can that be any longer a Mystery in which there is no Secret no hidden thing contained XII And how can that be stiled Christ's Body and Blood There must be a Spiritual change for there is no Physical change wrought in the Sacrament in which there is not any change known to be made For every change is either from not being to being or from being to not being or else †That is from one quality to another from one being into another But in this Sacrament if the thing be considered in simplicity and verity and nothing else be believed but what is seen we know of no change at all made For there is no change from not being to being No Generation as in the production of things Since such did not exist before but past from a state of Non-entity into Being Whereas here Bread and Wine were real Beings before they became the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood. Nor is here a passage from being Nor Corruption to not being as there is in things decayed and corrupted For whatever perisheth once did subsist and that cannot perish that never was Now it is certain that there is no change of this kind made for 't is well known that the Nature of the Creatures remains in truth the very same that they were before XIII And as for that sort of change Nor Alteration whereby one thing is rendred another which is seen in things liable to vary in their qualities as for example when a thing that was before black is made white it is plain that this change is not made here For we can perceive no alteration here either as to touch colour or taste Therefore if nothing be changed the Elements are nothing but what they were before And yet they are another thing for the Bread is made the Body and the Wine is made the Blood of Christ For he himself hath said * Matth. 26.26 Take eat this is my Body And likewise speaking of the Cup he saith †Mark 14.24 Take and drink this is my Blood of the New Testament which shall be shed fon you XIV I would now enquire of them who will take nothing Figuratively but will have the whole matter plainly and really transacted In what respect is this change made so that the things are not now what they were before to wit Bread and Wine but the Body and Blood of Christ For as to the Nature of the Creature and the form of the visible things both to wit the Bread and Wine have nothing changed in them And if they have undergone no change they are nothing but what they were before XV. Your Highness sees They who will admit no figure in the Sacrament contradict themselves Illustrious Prince the tendency of their opinion who think thus They deny what they seem to affirm and plainly overthrow what they believe For they faithfully confess the Body and Blood of Christ and in so doing no doubt they profess that the Elements are not what they were before And if they now are other than they were before they have admitted some change This inference being undeniable let them now tell us in what respect they are changed For we see nothing corporally changed in them Therefore they must needs acknowledge either that they are changed in some other respect than that of their Bodies and in this respect they are what we see they are not in truth but somewhat else which we discern them not to be in their proper Essence or if they will not acknowledge this they will be compelled to deny that they are Christ's Body and Blood which is abominable not only to speak but even to think XVI But since they do confess them to be the Body and Blood of Christ which they could not have been but by a change for the better nor is this change wrought Corporally but Spiritually It must necessarily be said to be wrought Figuratively Because under the Vail of material Bread and material Wine the Spiritual Body and Spiritual Blood of Christ do exist Not that there are together existing two natures so different as a Body and Spirit But one and the same thing in one respect hath the nature of Bread and Wine and in another respect is the Body and Blood of Christ For both as they are Corporally handled are in their nature Corporeal Creatures but according to their Virtue and what they are Spiritually made they are Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ XVII Let us consider the Font of holy Baptism He Illustrates the matter by comparing the two Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Body which is not undeservedly stiled the Fountain of Life because it regenerates those who descend into it to the Newness of a better Life and makes those who were dead in Sins alive unto Righteousness Is it the visible Element of Water which hath this efficacy Verily unless it had obtained a Sanctifying virtue it could by no means wash away the stain of our Sins And if it had not a quickning Power it could not at all give Life to the Dead The Dead I mean not as to their Bodies but their Souls Yet if in that Fountain you consider nothing but what the bodily Sense beholdeth you see only a fluid Element of a corruptible Nature and capable of washing the Body only But the Power of the Holy Ghost came upon it by the Priests Consecration it obtained thereby an efficacy to wash not the Bodies only but also the Souls of Men and by a Spitual virtue to
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
he reproach our private Spirits with sensing the five little Words of our Saviour any Man that ever looked into Controversie can tell him that the private Spirits of his Church have with a much more extravagant Wantonness sensed those Words contradicting one another almost in the sense of every Word and whilst they condemn us for admitting one Figure Authorised by Scripture Examples and the Authority of the Fathers in which we all agree they are forced without any such Authority to admit several Quarrelling with one another about the sense of almost every Word See Albertin de Euchar. lib. 1. c. 9 10 11. Bishop Morton of the Eucharist Book the Second Edition 1635. If this be the Unity which Mr. Sclater so much Applauds let him enjoy it without our Envy As for M. Boileau's part he hath sensed this Author at such a rate that using the same Liberty a Man might make a Calvinist of Paschasius a Roman Catholick of Barengarius an Arian of Athanasius And since Master Sclater (f) Consensus Veterum p. 2. offers the Hint by telling of a thoughtful Gentleman no doubt who held it worth while to enquire whether the Alcoran might not have its motives of Credibility I shall add that upon the same Priviledge of perverting the natural sense of Words which M. Boileau makes use of he might Reconcile Mahomet with Christ and make Gospel of the Alcoran FINIS An Account of the several Editions of Bertram 1. AT Cologne A. D. 1532. in Octavo Father Cellot saith That this was Printed at Basil not Cologne but I know not why we may not believe it to have been Printed at Cologne in regard Hermannus was then Archbishop who favoured the Reformation and though he did not at that time publickly declare yet he might secretly encourge it 2. At Geneva A. D. 1541. in Octavo Wherein the Publisher hath taken upon him to correct the Author's Latin as to put Servator for Salvator c. For which reason I have corrected nothing in Bertram's Text by the Authority of this Edition nor noted his variations 3. In the Micropresbyticon Printed at Basil 1550. Fol. we find Bertram p. 513. 4. A Second Edition at Cologne with Paschasius Radbertus whom the Publisher mistook for Rabanus Maurus and some other Pieces on that Argument Octavo A. D. 1551. 5. At the end of a Diallacticon which is said to be written by Bishop Poinet Printed at Geneva 1557. is Bertram's Book Printed after the former Edition at Geneva 6. Feuguereus a Frenchman and Professor of Divinity at Leiden Published it with his Opuscula in Octavo Lugd. Bat. 1579. 7. In the Catalogus Testium Veritatis printed at Geneva 1608. in Folio it is inserted after the Cologne Impression Lib. 10. 8. Lomierus hath Published this Book with Notes which I have not seen but have my Information from the Catalogue of Books Prohibited newly by the French Clergy 9. There are two Editions in French and Latin the latter in the Year 1672. The Latin Text of this Edition being most accurate is that which I followed in the first Edition save in manifest false Prints or where F. Mabillon's M. S. hath directed a better Reading 10. Dr. Boileau Dean of Sens hath Published our Author in French and Latin from F. Mabillon's Copy Octavo Paris 1686. 11. In English it was Printed A. D. 1549. which Translation was made either by Bishop Ridley or his Advice and is accurate enough but the Language obsolete 12. In Scotland it was Printed at Aberdeen A. D. 1622. in Octavo 13. A. D. 1623. Sir Humphrey Lynd Published the Translation newly Reprinted Casaubon told Archbishop Vsher that he saw a Manuscript of it in possession of Mr. Gillot a Senator of Paris Perhaps it was the same which I find in Thuanus his Library which F. Mabillon saith is not a true Copy That Father however acknowledges that there is an excellent Old Manuscript of it in the Lobe's Library in the Low Countries upon the Sambre in the Diocess of Cambray and that he found another M. S. in a Cistercian Monastery in Germany called Salem Weiler written above 700. years since All the Printed Editions I have seen and compared except the first Cologne that of Lomierus and the Scotch Impression and have noted all material Variations except false Prints and the arbitrary Variations of the Geneva Copy but have followed the Text of D. Boileau who tells us that he hath Printed after an accurate Copy of the Lobe's M.S. and I have distinguished the Text into Sections or Paragraphs according to his Partition that the Reader may without trouble find our References to the Text of the Author in either his Edition or mine ERRATA In the Preface PAge 2. Margin Line 2. Read Octavo p. 9. l. 21. r. as antient as p. 18. marg l. 12. r. ubi p. 30. marg l. 2. r. Ratramni p. 32. mar l. 17. r. humanae jure p. 79. mar l. 6. r. vestra l. 7. r. Prostratis p. 109. l. 24. r. unlikely In the Book Page 133. l. 13. dele the Body p. 134. mar l. 4. dele non p. 136. l. 9. r. aspiciat p. 138. l. 14. r. ut pote cum p. 142. l. 15. r. monstratur i. 24. secundum p. 144. l. 15. r. consideretur l. 21. ex non esse p. 146. l. 4. r. quod non fuit p. 156. l. r. patres p. 160. l. 14. r. atque potat p. 164. l. 13. r. hoc non corporco p. 165. mar add Ps 78.25 p. 169. l. 6. r. Corporis l. 18. propinquante marg r. Resurrexit it aliis p. 180. l. 12. r. pro Paulus lege Apostolus mar l. 1. r. Haec p. 186. l. 20. dele planissime p. 188. mar l. 3. r. Dispensationem p. 194. mar a r. in Impressis Domini b Ibid. cap. 9. c Quod in editis p. 218. l. 2. r. qui p. 226. l. 21. dele Paulum p. 228. l. 13. r. sequente eos petra p. 229. mar r. Joh. 6.50 p. 244. l. 18. r. habuere futurorum sic hoc p. 252. l. 3. r. Membrum Corporis Christi p. 254. l. 17. r. Quoniam In the Appendix Page 275. l. 6. for there r. that p. 276. l. 22. r. proved p. 319. mar l. 4. r. concessu S. Sedis p. 328. l. 2. r. can bear p. 330. l. 4. blot out Substance of p. 333. l. 20. r. the Bread and Wine daily Consecrated p. 356. l. 10. r. in the corporeal p. 359. l. 23. r. these words p. 371. l. 1. r. we there see p. 373. l. 18. r. but that p. 386. mar l. 1. r. que p. 329. l. 6. r. say that p. 426. mar l. 9 r. Species p. 468. l. â— for that read the. A Catalogue of some Books Sold by Thomas Boomer at the Chirurgeons Arms in Fleetstreet near Temple-Bar 1. FOrty Sermons by the Right Reverend Father in God Ralph Brownrig late Lord Bishop of Exeter 2. A Compleat History of England from the first Entrance of the Romans under the Conduct of Julius Caesar unto the end of the Reign of King Henry III. comprehending the Roman Saxon Danish and Norman Affairs and Transactions in this Nation during that time Wherein is shewed the Original of our English Laws the Differences and Disagreements between the Secular and Ecclesiastick Powers The true Rise and Grounds of the Contentions and Wars between the Romans and our Antient Kings And likewise an Account of our Foreign Wars with France the Conquest of Ireland and the Actions between the English Scots and Welch during the same time All delivered in plain Matter of Fact without any Reflections or Remarks by Robert Brady Doctor of Physick 3. The Parable of the Pilgrim Written to a Friend by Simon Patrick D D. Dean of Peterborough the 6th Edition corrected 4. Mellificium Chirurgiae or the Marrow of Chirurgery an Anatomical Treatise Institutions of Physick with Hippocrates Aphorisms largely Commented upon The Marrow of Physick shewing the Causes Signs and Cures of most Diseases incident to Humane Bodies Choice Experienced Receipts for the Cure of several Distempers The fourth Edition enlarged with many Additions and purged from many Faults that escaped in the former Impressions Illustrated in its several parts with 12. Brass Cuts by James Cook of Warwick Practitioner in Physick and Chyrurgery 5. Certain Sermons and Homilies appointed to be Read in Churches in the time of Q. Elizabeth of Famous Memory and now Reprinted for the Use of Private Families in two Parts in 12s