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
delights the Palate What Is to taste the Lord to perceive any Corporeal Object Wherefore he invites them to make Tryal by their Spiritual Faculty of Tasting and not think of any thing Corporeal either in that Drink or Bread but to understand every thing Spiritually For the Lord is a Spirit and blessed is the Man that trusteth in him LIX And afterwards Christ is in the Sacrament because it is the Body of Christ yet it is not therefore Bodily Food but Spiritual What could be more plainly clearly and more divinely said For he saith in that Sacrament Christ is but he doth not say that Bread and that Wine is Christ which should he have said he would have made Christ corruptible and mortal which God forbid he should For it is certain that whatsoever is corporeally seen or tasted in that Food is liable to corruption LX. He adds Because it is Christ's Body You will reply upon me Look here he plainly acknowledges this Bread and Wine to be Christ's Body But have patience and mark what he subjoyns Yet this is not bodily Food but spiritual Use not therefore thy bodily Sense for it is no Judge in this Matter It is the Body of Christ indeed yet not Corporal but Spiritual It is the Blood of Christ yet not Corporal but Spiritual So that nothing is here to be understood Corporally but Spiritually It is the Body of Christ but not Corporally It is the Blood of Christ but not Corporally LXI And afterwards Wherefore the Apostle saith he speaking of the Type thereof saith That our Fathers did eat Spiritual Meat and drank Spiritual Drink For the Body of God is Spiritual The Body of Christ is the Body of a Divine Spirit as we read in the Lamentations * The Place St. Ambrose cites is Lam. 4.20 where the LXX read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the vulgar Latine Christus Dominus but our English Translation renders it truly The Lord 's Anointed By which Expositors understand not Jesus Christ but either Josiah or as some think Zedekiah Christ the Lord is the Spirit before our Face LXII He very clearly teaches how we are to understand the Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood For having said our Fathers did eat Spiritual Meat and drank Spiritual Drink when no body doubts that the Manna which they did eat and the Water which they drank were Corporeal He adds concerning the Mystery which we now celebrate in the Church determining in what Sense it is Christ's Body For the Body of God is a Spiritual Body Verily Christ is God and the Body which he took of the Virgin Mary which Suffered was Buried and Rose again was his true Body that is it remained such as might be seen and felt but the Body which is called the Mystery of God is not Corporeal but Spiritual and if Spiritual then it can neither be seen nor yet felt And for this reason St. Ambrose proceeds to say The Body of Christ is the Body of a Divine Spirit Now a Divine Spirit is no Corporeal Corruptible or palpable Being But that Body which is celebrated in the Church according to its visible Nature is both Corruptible and such as may be felt LXIII In what respect then is it called the Body of a Divine Spirit Truly as it is Spiritual that is as it is invisible as it cannot be felt and is therefore incorruptible LXIV Which makes him further add That Christ is a Spirit as we read Christ the Lord is the Spirit before our Face Whereby he plainly shews in what respect it is accounted Christ's Body to wit in as much as the Spirit of Christ is therein that is to say the Power of the Divine Word which doth not only feed but also purifies the Soul. LXV Wherefore our Author goes on Lastly this Meat strengtheneth our Heart and this Drink maketh glad the Heart of Man as the (b) Psal 104.15 Prophet testifies Now doth our Bodily Food strengthen or doth this Bodily Drink make glad the Heart of Man But to shew of what Meat and Drink it is that he speaks he adds emphatically This Meat and this Drink What is this Meat and this Drink Even the Body of Christ the Body of the Divine Spirit and to explain the Matter yet more Christ himself who is a Spirit of whom he saith Christ the Lord is the Spirit before our Face By all which Discourse it evidently appears that in this Meat and Drink nothing is to be corporally understood but all must be Spiritually taken LXVI For the Soul which is in this place signified by the Heart of Man is not fed with bodily Meat or Drink but is nourished by the Word of God and grows thereby Which the same Doctor doth more expresly affirm in his Fifth Book upon the Sacraments saying It is not that Bread which goes into the Body but the Bread of Life Eternal which affords Sustenance to our Souls LXVII And that St. Ambrose spake not this of common Bread but of that Bread which is also Christ's Body is most manifest from the following Passages For he speaks of the Daily Bread which the Faithful pray for LXVIII Adding If it be Daily Bread why dost thou receive it but once in the Year as the Greeks in the East were wont to do Receive that every Day which may every Day do thee good and live so that thou mayest be every Day worthy to receive So that it is plain of what Bread he speaks to wit of the Bread of Christ's Body which sustains our Souls not as it passes into our Bodies but as it is the Bread of Eternal Life LXIX By the Authority of this most Learned Father He Sums up the force of St. Ambr. his Discourse we are taught how vast a difference there is between the Body in which Christ suffered and the Blood which he shed out of his Side as he hung on the Cross and that Body which is daily celebrated by the Faithful in the Mystery of his Passion and that Blood which is received with their Mouths as the Sacrament of that Blood wherewith the whole World was Redeemed For that Bread and Drink are not the Body and Blood of Christ as they are visible but as they Spiritually minister the Sustenance of Life Moreover that Body in which Christ once suffered appeared to be no other thing than really it was for such it really was as it appeared to the eye to the touch the same thing which was Crucified and Buried Likewise the Blood issuing from his Side did not outwardly appear one thing and inwardly contain another So that true Blood flowed from his true Side But now the Blood of Christ which the Faithful drink and that Body which they eat are one thing in their Nature and another in their Signification one thing as they feed the Body Bodily Food and another thing as they feed the Soul viz. the Sustenance of Eternal Life LXX Of which matter St. Hierom in his Comment
signification p. 31. i. e. figuratively and some in propriety A true thing and certain it is that Christ was born of a Maid suffered death of his own accord He is called Bread by signification i. e. figuratively but Christ is not so in true nature neither Bread c. p. 32. Truly the Bread and Wine which through the Mass of the Priest is hallowed sheweth one thing outwardly to human Senses and another thing they inwardly call to believing minds clypâ—aþ Outwardly they appear Bread and Wine both in figure and in taste And they be truly after their hallowing Christ's Body and Blood through Ghostly Mistery p. 33. So the Holy Font-Water which is called the Well-Spring of Life is like in shape to other Water and subject to corruption but the Holy Ghosts might cometh to the corruptible Water through the Priest blessing and it may afterwards wash the Body and Soul from all sin through Ghostly might Behold now we see two things in this one Creature After true nature that Water is corruptible moisture and after Ghostly Mystery hath hallowing might So also if we behold the Holy Housel or Sacrament after bodily sense then we see that it is a Creature corruptible and mutable if we acknowledge therein Ghostly might then understand we that Life is therein and that it giveth immortality to them that eat it with Faith. p. 35. Much difference is betwixt the Body in which Christ suffered and the Body which is hallowed to housel The Body truly in which Christ suffered was born of the Flesh of Mary with Blood with Bones with Skin with Sinews with human Limbs and with a reasonable Soul living And his Ghostly Body which we call the Housel p. 36. is gathered of many Corns without Blood and Bone without Limb and without Soul whatsoever is in that Housel that giveth the substance of Life that is of the Ghostly might and invisible operation And therefore is the Holy Housel called a Mystery because there is one thing in it seen and another thing understood p. 37. Certainly Christ's Body in which he suffered Death and rose again from Death never dieth henceforth but is Eternal and Impassible But that Housel is Temporal not Eternal corruptible and divided into several parts chew'd betwixt the Teeth and sent into the Belly p. 38. This Mystery is a pledge and a * * Hip and not as above getacnunge which is a figure in speech Figure Christ's Body is the Truth itself This Pledge we keep mystically until we be come to the p. 68. Quod dente premitur fauce glutitur quod receptaculo ventris fuscipitur Truth itself then is that Pledge ended Truly it is so as we said before Christ's Body and Blood not Bodily but Ghostly See p. 35. You should not search how it is done but hold in Faith that it is so done p. 43. We said to you erewhile that Christ hallowed Bread and Wine to Housel before his Suffering and said This is my Body and my Blood. He had not suffered as yet he turned through invisible might that Bread to his own Body and that Wine to his own Blood as formerly he did in the Wilderness before that he was born to Men when he turned that Heavenly Meat to his Flesh and that Water flowing from the Rock to his own Blood. That which next follows is a quotation out of St. Augustine which it is very likely that Elfrick took from Bertram and not at first hand from that Father p. 44. Moses and Aaron and many others of that People which pleased God eat that Heavenly Bread and they died not that Everlasting death though they died the common death they saw that the Heavenly Meat viz. Manna was visible and corruptible and they understood somewhat Spiritual by that visible thing and Spiritually received it p. 46. Once Christ suffered in himself and yet nevertheless his suffering is daily renewed through the Mystery of the Holy Housel at the Holy Mass p. 47. We ought also to consider diligently how this Holy Housel is both Christ's Body and the Body of all Faithful Men after Ghostly Mystery as Wise Augustine saith If you will understand of Christ's Body hear the Apostle Paul thus speaking Ye truly be Christ's Body and his Members Now is your Mystery set on God's Table and ye receive your Mystery p. 48. which Mystery ye be yourselves be that which you see on the Altar and receive that which yourselves be And again St. Paul saith We many be one Bread and one Body * * i. e. Cannons Ecclesiastical not the Holy Scripture Holy Books command that Water be mingled with Wine which shall be for Housel because the Water signifieth the People and the Wine Christ's Blood therefore shall not the one without the other be offered at the Holy Mass That Christ may be with us and we with Christ the Head with the Limbs and the Limbs with the Head. p. 51. And after these words our Homilist resumes his former Discourse of the Paschal Lamb. Thus have I at large set down in Parallel the Passages of that Saxon Homily taken out of Bertram The (a) See the Preface of the Homily Sermon was originally Latin which Elfrick translated into Saxon whether he were the Compiler in Latin I cannot be positive But it seems the succeeding Ages would not bear this Doctrine for which reason the Latin is utterly lost either being wilfully made away or the Governors of our Church not thinking it fit to transcribe and propagate what after the condemnation of Berengarius and the promotion of his great Adversary Lanfranc to the Archbishoprick of Canterbury was generally reputed Heresie But through the wonderful good Providence of God the whole is preserved in the Saxon Tongue which few understood By this account of that Homily you learn Two things and a Third Observation I shall add 1. That Bertram's Book was neither forged by Oecolampadius nor yet depraved by Berengarius or Wiclef his Disciples since the most express Passages against the Popish Real Presence are read in that Homily 70 or 80 years before Berengarius made any noise in the World. 2. What I design to insist upon more largely in the last Chapter of this Discourse viz. That Ratramnus or Bertram stood not alone but had others of the same judgment with him in the IX and X Century and that Paschasius his Doctrine had not received as yet the stamp of publick Authority either by any Popes or Councels confirmation 3. Nevertheless this carnal Doctrine of Paschasius did daily get ground in that obscure and ignorant Age next that he lived in as may appear by some Passages in this Homily which I have not recited because they are not in Bertram the absurd consequences of that errour For instance p. 39 and 40 there are two Miracles inserted to prove the Carnal Presence contrary to the scope of the whole Discourse and the one contrary to their
own Doctrine of Christ's Presence (a) This Miracle is found in Paschas Radbert de Corp. Sang. Dom. in Bibl. Patrum Par. 1610. Tom. VI. c. 14. They tell you of a Woman whofe doubts touching the Real Presence were cured at the Prayers of St. Gregory at whose request God caused the Host she was about to receive to appear as though there lay in the dish a joynt of a Finger all Bloody Whereas according to the Popish Doctrine Christ's (b) Concil Trid. Sess 13. Can. 3. whole Body Soul and Divinity is in every bit of the Host and drop of the consecrated Wine and this Miracle if it proves any thing must prove the contrary Again our Homilist in the beginning of p. 47. saith immediatly after those words cited by me out of the 46 page Therefore the Holy Mass is profitable both to the quick and to the dead The propitiatory Sacrifice was by this time set on foot which necessarily supposeth the Corporal Presence of Christ But it is worth observing however that the Adoration of the Sacrament sprang not up till some Ages after it being not mentioned either by Radbertus or Ratramnus or Elfrick in this Homily 3. The Third Opinion maintained by those who do not condemn our Author though they do this Book is that it is not the Work of Ratramnus but of Joannes Scotus And so it may be for ought I have hitherto said in regard he was more Ancient than our Saxon Homilist and equal with Bertram This Opinion was first delivered by the Learned (a) P. de Marca in Epistola Apud Dacherium in Spicil Tom. 2. Peter de Marca and is urged with great confidence by a (b) At the end of Mr. Arnaud's Defence in quarto Par. 1669. Dissert 1. The Author is Mr. Paris Monk of St. Genouefe whose Modesty M. Arnaud tells us caused him to conceal his Name This Dissertator makes a great dust with his Conjectures and would perswade us that Bertram and Ratramnus are not the same Person by reason of the variety of Names given him as I have shewn in the beginning of this Discourse but this is a poor shift for every one knows how differently Writers report the Names of Men who flourish'd in that Age and in those Parts of France and where the Authors make no difference it often happens by the Transcribers mistake One would think the Instance he gives of Cellot's Anonymous Writer who in his first leaf calls the Adversaries of Paschasius Rabanus and Ratramnus and in the next Babanus and Intramus might have suppressed that Objection In the next Section he saith Trithemius and Sigebert make Bertram to have written but one Book of Predestination whereas Ratramnus wrote two and that the two MSS. mentioned by Suffridus Petrus may be false written And I may better say they are not for he names neither more nor elder Copies that make it out As for the precise number of Books Sigebert and more curious Men are not always exact but many times where the Work is small call two Books Ad Carolum librum de Praedestin because one Work a Book so Sigebert saith and not one Book In his Third Section this Monk of St. Genouefe gives us nothing but a taste of his Modesty in taxing the incomparable Vsher of false dealing and telling the World that his Testimony is of no credit concerning a rasure out of a Manuscript he had seen at Cambridge and wonders he hath the confidence to hope that his bare word should be taken for it after his false dealing about Ratramnus his Book of Christ's Birth without telling how the Passage rased was recovered In the last Section he offers toward an Answer to the Reasons that induced Father Cellot to conclude Ratramnus Corbeiensis the Author of those Books which pass under the Name of Bertram I could were it worth while shew the insufficiency of his Answers and would do it but that I have in reserve such Testimonies from F. Mabillon as will baffle all his amusing Conjectures and to which any man of modesty will submit This he offers to prove that Bertram is not Ratramnus To make good the other part of his undertaking and shew that Joannes Scotus is the Author of this Book he suggests Three things 1. That this Book is agreeable to the account that is given of Scotus his Book whose Authority Berengarius used 2. That the style and manner of arguing are Scotus his peculiar way 3. That the Disciples of Berengarius after Scotus his Book was condemned in the Synods at Vercelli and Rome gave it the disguised Name of Bertram to preserve it from the flames His Arguments from the account given of Scotus his Book are well answered by F. Mabillon and all I shall say is what he omits viz. That the Doctrine of Scotus according to the best accounts we can have of it is not agreeable to that of Bertram for if F. Alexander and others are not Mistaken in (a) Quod Sacramenta Altaris non verum Corpus verus Sanguis sit Domini sed tantum memoria veri Corporis Sanguinis ejus de Praed c. 31. Hincmarus his meaning he taught that the Sacrament was only a Memory of Christ's Body and Blood which this Dissertator to give us a Specimen of his Honesty as he did before of his Modesty changes into a naked figure without any sort of Truth and expresly contrary to his Sentiments imputes to Bertram as his Doctrine 2. The style of Bertram and Scotus are not at all alike Scotus is full of Greek words and notions and citations out of the Greek Fathers which Bertram is free from His way of Arguing is not Syllogistical as Bertram's so far as I can observe by his Books De Naturis And his notion Scotus de Divisione Naturae l. 5 N. XX. Item l. 2. n. XI That Christ's glorified Body is absorpt in the Divine Nature and is not local nor visible nor had the same Members after its Resurrection which it had before will quite overthrow many of Bertram's Arguments to prove that in the Sacrament is not exhibited the same Body in which he died and rose again His Third suggestion is a meer Conjecture and a very weak one For if Berengarius his Disciples feigned that Name to preserve the Book from the fire What use did they preserve it for What service did it ever do them Who ever mentions any of them that alledged Bertram's Authority How comes it to pass that no Copies of it were preserved in the Southern Parts of France where the Albigenses and Waldenses Berengarius Disciples have abounded in all times ever since It is much they should not save one Copy of Bertram But since he is Conjecturing Why may not I offer a Conjecture or two in this matter 1. Why might not Bertram's Book through mistake both with Berengarius and his Adversaries pass under the Name of Scotus It is not impossible but I
Sacrament made him weary of his Abby is F. Mabillon's conjecture and not mine And if so we have reason to believe that the Doctrine of Ratramnus had rather the Princes countenance and the stronger party in the Convent And it will yet seem more probable when we consider that Odo afterwards Bishop of Beauvais a great Friend of Ratramnus was made Abbot in the room of Paschasius What the Doctrine of Paschasius was I shall now briefly shew He saith * Pasch Radb de Corp. Sang. Dom. c. 1. Licet Figura Panis Vini hic sit omnino nihil aliud quam Caro Christi Sanguis post consecrationem credenda sunt Et ut miâ—abilius loquar non alia plane quam quae nata est de Maria passa in Cruce resurrexit de Sepulchro That although in the Sacrament there be the Figure of Bread and Wine yet we must believe it after consecration to be nothing else but the Body and Blood of Christ. And that you may know in what sence he understands it to be Christ's Body and Blood he adds And to say somewhat yet more wonderful It is no other Flesh than that which was born of Mary suffered on the Cross and rose again from the Grave He illustrates this Mystery further by intimating that whosoever will not believe Christs natural Body in the Sacrament under the shape of Bread that man would not have believed Christ himself to have been God if he had seen him hanging upon the Cross in the form of a Servant And shelters himself against all the Absurdities that could be objected against this Opinion as the Papists still do under God's Omnipotence laying down this Principle as the foundation of all his Discourse That the nature of all Creatures is obedient to the Will of God who can change them into what he pleaseth He renders these two Reasons why the miraculous change is not manifest to sense by any alteration of the visible form or tast of what is received viz. * Sic debuit hoc mysterium temperari ut arcana Secretorum celarentur infidis meritum cresceret de virtute Fidei c. 13. ubi plura ejusmodi cceurrunt That there may be some exercise for Faith and that Pagans might not have subject to blaspheme the Mysteries of our Religion Yet notwithstanding this no man who believes the Word of God saith he can doubt but by Consecration it is made Christ's Body and Blood in Verity or Truth of Nature And he alledgeth stories of the miraculous appearance of Christ's Flesh in its proper form for the cure of doubting as a further confirmation of his carnal Doctrine These are the sentiments of Paschasius Radbertus and differ little from those of the Roman Church at present which I shall deduce from the Authentick Acts of that Church especially the Council of Trent 1. In the Year 1059. there was a Council assembled at Rome by Pope Nicolaus the II in which a form of Recantation was drawn up for Berengarius wherein he was required to declare * Apud Gratianum de Consecratione Dist 2. c. 42. Ego Berengarius c. That Bread and Wine after Consecration are not only the Sacrament Sign and Figure but the very Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which is not only Sacramentally but Sensibly and Truly handled and broken by the Priests hands and ground by the Teeth of the Faithful And this being the form of a Recantation ought to be esteemed an accurate account of the Doctrine of the Church yet they are somewhat ashamed of it as may appear by the Gloss upon Gratian who hath put it into the body of the Canon Law. But the Council of Trents difinitions are more Authentick which hath determined I. If any one shall deny that in the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is contained really and substantially the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently whole Christ But shall say that it is therein contained only as in a Sign or Figure or Virtually let him be accursed II. If any one shall say that in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of Bread and Wine together with the Body or Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and shall deny that singular or wonderful conversion of the whole substance of Bread into his Body and of the whole substance of 1. Concil Trid. sess 13. can 1. 2. Conc. Trid. Ibid. c. 2. Wine into his Blood there remaining only the species i. e. Accidents of Bread and Wine which conversion the Catholick Church very aptly calls Transubstantiation let him be accursed i. e. By faith and not orally III. If any man shall say that in the Eucharist Christ is exhibited and eaten only Spiritually and not Sacramentally and Really let him be accursed These are the definitions of the Church of Rome in this matter and now let us see whether the Doctrine of Ratramnus in this Book be agreeable to these Canons I might make short work of it by alledging all those Authors who either represent him as a Heretick or his Book as forged or Heretical and in so doing I should muster an Army of the most Eminent Doctors of the Roman Church with two or three Popes in the Head of them viz. Pius the IV. by whose Authority was compiled the Expurgatory Index in which this Book was first forbid Sixtus V. who inlarged the Roman Index and Clement the VIII by whose order it was Revised and published They are all competent 3. Conc. Trid. Ibid. can 8. cap. 8. Witnesses that his Doctrine is not agreeable to the present Faith of the Roman Church And our Authors * Vide Indic Belgic in Bertramo Excogitato commento kind Doway Friends are forced to Exercise their Wits for some handsome invention to make him a Roman-Catholick and at last they cannot bring him fairly off but are forced to change his words directly to a contrary sense and instead of visibly write invisibly and according to the substance of the Creatures must be interpreted according to the outward species or accidents of the Sacrament c. Which is not to explain an Author but to corrupt him and instead of interpreting his words to put their own words into his Mouth And after all they acknowledge that there are some other things which it were not either amiss or imprudent wholly to expunge in regard the loss of those passages will not spoil the sense nor will they be easily missed But I shall not build altogether upon their confessions in regard others who have the ingenuity to acknowledge the Author Orthodox and the work Catholick have also the confidence to deny our claim to Bertram's Authority who is as they pretend though obscure yet their own Therefore I shall shew in his own words that his sentiments in this matter are directly contrary to Paschasius
Radbertus and to the Council of Trent in three particulars 1. He asserts that what is orally received is not the true and natural Body of Christ 2. He asserts that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration 3. That what is orally received feeds the body and that Christ is eaten Spiritually and not Orally 1. It is very plain from the determination of the second Question that Bertram expresly contradicts Paschasius for the words of the Question are taken out of his book and Bertram denies flatly what Paschasius affirms viz. That in the Sacrament we receive the same Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin Crucified and rose again He urges a multitude of Authorities out of the Fathers to confirm his own judgment herein and in short but pithy expositions sheweth how they are pertinent to the business In obviating an objection from the Testimony of St. Ambrose he tells us That the sensible object is Christs body and blood not in nature or kind but virtually He observes that St. Ambrose distinguisheth between the Sacrament of Christs Flesh and the Verity of Christs Flesh affirming the latter to be that Flesh which was born of the Virgin and the Holy Eucharist to be the Sacrament of that true Flesh in which he was Crucified mystically representing the former Again upon an objection that St. Ambrose calls it the body of Christ he answers That it is the body and blood of Christ not corporally but Spiritually He shews that what is orally received in the Sacrament is not Christ's Natural body because Christs natural body is incorruptible whereas that which we receive in the Holy Eucharist is corruptible visible and to be felt He farther proves a great difference between Christs Natural and Sacramental Body and Blood in this that his Natural Body really was what it appeared to our senses whereas the Eucharist is one thing in nature and appearance and another thing in signification Likewise expounding St. Hieroms Testimony he saith Christs natural body had all the organical parts of an humane body and was quickened with a reasonable soul whereas his body in the Sacrament hath neither He makes the body of Christ in the Sacrament to be only an Image or Pledge but the Natural body of Christ to be the Truth signified And in the first part he proves that the words of Christ Instituting this Sacrament are Figurative and that the thing orally received or the Symbols had the name of the things signified thereby it being usual to give Signs or Sacraments the name of the very thing represented under them And this he proves from St. Augustine It must be acknowledged that Bertram sometimes saith that it is truly Christs body and blood but mark how he explains himself he saith they are not so as to their visible nature but by the power of the Divine Word i. e. not corporally but spiritually And he adds the visible creature feeds the body but the virtue and efficacy of the Divine Word feeds and sanctifies the soul of the Faithful So that when he affirms the Sacrament to be truly Christs body he means truly in opposition to falshood not truly as that word is opposed to Figuratively But F. Mabillon and F. Alexander make Bertram and Paschasius to say the same thing and tell us that the former doth not deny the Truth of Christs natural body in the Sacrament which he as well as Paschasius holds but only that it is there propria specie i. e. in its proper shape and visible form or in its natural existence I must now requite the candour of F. Mabillon to Archbishop Vsher and impute this Opinion of his to the prejudice of Education For it s very evident that what Ratramnus labours to prove is an essential difference between the Sacrament received by the Faithful and Christs body as great a difference as between a body and a spirit between a corruptible and an incorruptible thing between the Image and the Original Truth between Figure and Verity And it is as plain that he admits these sensible qualities to be clear proofs of an essential difference and also allows our outward senses to be proper Judges in the case appealing to our eyes our taste and smell * Sect. 99. He shews that our Saviours body after its Resurrection was visible and palpable and cites Luke 24.39 Compare this with what he saith Sect. 72. where he sheweth the difference between Christs Natural and Spiritual Body as our Saviour did to the outward senses to prove the Verity of his body after his Resurrection Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self Handle me and see for a Spirit hath not FLESH and BONES as you SEE me to have So that in his Opinion we have the same evidence that the Sacramental Elements after Consecration are not Christs natural body in which he suffered which the Disciples had that the body in which he appeared to them after his Resurrection was the same body in which he was Crucified and buried 2. Ratramnus contradicts the Council of Trent in affirming the substance of Bread and Wine to remain after Consecration which those Fathers deny with an Anathema to all that affirm it He tells us expounding a citation out of St. Ambrose As to the substance of the Creatures what they were before Consecration they remain after it Bread and Wine they were before and after Consecration we see they continue beings of the same kind or nature F. Mabillon conceives Ratramnus to assert Transubstantiation in using the words turn conversion and that it is made Christs Body invisibly by the powerful operation of the Holy Ghost That the Bread and Wine after Consecration are not what they were before That they are truly by the Mystery turned into the substance of his body and blood c. which last is the most plausible sentence he quotes But I would fain know whether when he denies it to be a natural change and affirms it to be a Spiritual and which is all one an invisible change also that the substance of Wine is seen after Consecration and that by Consecration the Wine is made the Sacrament of Christs blood that it is made Christs Blood divini significatione Mysterii by the signification of the Divine Mystery That there was in the Manna and Water a spiritual power of the Word viz. Christ which fed the Souls of the believing Israelites That the Psalmist teacheth us both what the Father 's received in the Heavenly Manna and what the Faithful ought to believe in the Mystery of Christs body in both certainly Christ is signified And in express terms that as he could before his Passion turn the Bread and Wine into his body which was to suffer c. So before his Incarnation in the Wilderness he turned the Manna and Water into his body and blood And that as the Bread is Christs body so is it the body of the Faithful People and that if the
consecrated Wine were corporally converted into Christs blood the Water mixt with it must be corporally converted in the blood of the Faithful People I say after all this I would fain know whether it be possible to impose this sense upon Ratramnus I must more than half Transcribe the Book should I collect all Passages which confute F. Mabillion's Notion of the change which Ratramnus owns His sense is very clear to any man who shuts not his Eyes where he enumerates the three several kinds of Physical or Natural Changes and proves that the Sacramental Change which Consecration makes is none of these * Sect. 12. 13 14 15. Not Generation for no new being is produced Not corruption for the Bread and Wine are not destroyed but remain after Consecration in truth of Nature what they were before Not alteration for the same sensible qualities still appear Wherefore since Consecration makes a change and it is not a Natural but a Spiritual change he concludes it is wrought †Sect. 16. Figuratively or Mystically and that there are not together in the Sacrament two different things a Body and a Spirit but that it is one and the same thing which in one respect viz. Naturally is Bread and Wine and in another respect viz. of its signification and efficacy is Christs Body and Blood. Or as he saith presently they are in their nature corporeal Creatures but according to their virtue or efficacy they are Spiritually made Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ And this Spiritual virtue feeding the Soul and ministring to it the sustenance of Eternal Life is that which Bertram means when he saith that it is mystically changed into the substance of his Body and Blood for he calls this virtue Substantiam vitae Aeternae and as he calls our spiritual nourishment the Bread of Eternal Life and the substance of Eternal Life so in the place cited by F. Mabillon he useth the word substance in the same sense viz. for food or sustenance and he elsewhere calls it the Bread of Christs Body and presently after explaining himself calls it the Bread of Eternal Life * Manifestum est de quo pane loquitur de pane videlicet Corporis Christi qui non ex eo quod vadit in corpus sed ex eo quod panis sit vitae aeternae c. Sect. 68. He means by the substance of Christs Body in that place what he here calls the Bread of Christs Body and Sect. 83. Esca illa Corporis Domini Potus ille Sanguinis ejus are terms equivalent to Substantia in the place cited by F. Mabillon If F. Mabillon had observed those two excellent Rules for understanding the sense of Old Authors which he quotes out of Facundus viz. not to interpret them by the chink of words but their intention and scope and to explain dubious and obscure passages by plain ones He could not have concluded him to hold a carnal Presence and Transubstantiation But we are not to wonder that the Romanists attempt to reconcile Bertram with Transubstantiation though he wrote expresly against it when we remember that †Ad calcem libri cui Titulus Deus Natura Gratia. Quarto Ludg. 1634. Franc a sancta Clara about 50 years since had the confidence to attempt the expounding the 39 Articles of our Church so as to make them bear what he calls a Catholick sense though they are many of them levelled by the Compilers point blank against the Errors of the Roman Church 3 To these I may add what by consequence destroyeth Transubstantiation and Christs carnal Presence in the Sacrament I mean he frequently affirms That what the mouth receiveth feeds and nourisheth the body and that it is what Faith only receiveth that nourisheth the Soul and affords the sustenance of Eternal Life I know our Adversaries tell us those Accidents have as much nourishing virtue as other substances So the Authors of the Belgick Index * Index Expurg Belg. in Bertramo answer the Berengarian experiment of some who have lived only upon the Holy Sacrament Sure they must be very gross Accidents if they fill the belly But what if the Trent Faith that the Accidents of Bread and Wine remain without their substances be built upon a mistaken Hypothesis in Philosophy What if there be no such thing in Nature as pure Accidents What if Colours Tasts and Scents are nothing else but matter in different positions lights or motions and little parts of the substance it self sallying out of the body and making impressions apon the Organs of Sense Which Hypothesis is embraced by the most curious Philosophers of our Age who have exploded the former what then becomes of the Species or Accidents imagined to subsist in the Air To close this Digression I shall add * Bell. explic Doct. Christ De Sanctissima Eucharist Quicunque hanc statuam videbat ille speciem figuramque uxoris Loth videbat quae tamen uxor Loth amplius non fuit sed Sal sub specie mulieris delitescens Bellarmines Illustration of a body under species not properly its own He tells his Catechumen Lots Wife was turned into a Pillar of Salt and yet the species and likeness of a Woman remained She was no longer Lots Wife but Salt hid under the Species or outward form of a Woman Thus do Errours and Absurdities multiply without end I have said enough to shew that Bertram expresly contradicts the Doctrine of Transubstantiation but I must add a word or two in Answer to the Evasions of the Romanists Cardinal Perron tells us that the Adversaries whom Ratramnus encounters were the Stercoranists a sort of Hereticks that rose up in the IX Century and (a) Vterque Stercoranistarum Haeresin quae illo tempore orta est confutavit uterque Catholicam veritatem asseruit sed Radbertus Transubstantiationis veritatem clarius expressit Maug Tom. 2. Diss c. 17. p. 134. Mauguin followeth him with divers others They are said to Believe that Christ's Body is corruptible passible and subject to Digestion and the Draught and that the Accidents were Hypostatically united to Christ's Body But we read of no such Errours censured by any Council in that Age we do not find any Person of that Time branding any Body with that infamous hard Name The Persons whom some late Writers have aaccused as Authors of that Heresie viz. Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz and Heribaldus Bishop of Auxerre lived and died with the repute of Learned Orthodox and Holy Men and are not accused by any of their own Time of those foul Doctrines The first I can learn of the Name is that Humbertus Bishop of Sylva Candida calls Nicetas Stercoranist And Algerus likewise calls the Greeks so for holding that the Sacrament broke an Ecclesiastical Fast which is nothing to the Gallicane Church and the IX Century If (a) Vide Labbeum de script Eccles Tom. 1. p. 484. Cardinal Humbert drew up Berengarius his
Recantation he was the veriest Stercoranist who called Stercoranist first and Pope Nicolaus II. with the whole Council that imposed that Abjuration upon him were Stercoranists to some purpose who taught him (b) Of the Stircoranists an Imaginary Sect first discovered by Cardinal Perron see Conferences between a Romish Priest a Fanatick Chaplain and a Divine of the Church of of England p. 63. And Mr. L' Arroque in his Hist of the Eucharist Book II. ch 14. That Christ's Body is truly and sensibly handled and broken by the Priests Hands and ground by the Teeth of the Faithful And it is very unlikely that Bertram writ against such an Heresie when admitting him to have been of the same Faith with the Church of Rome touching Christ's Presence in the Sacrament he must have been a Stercoranist himself who asserts that what the Mouth receives is ground by the Teeth swallowed down the Throat and descends into the Belly nourishing the Body like common Food But (a) Mabillon Praef. ad sec IV. p. 2. nu 93. F. Mabillon waves this Pretence of the Stercoranists and makes Bertram to have through mistake opposed an Errour he thought Haymo guilty of viz. That the consecrated Bread and Cup are not signs of Christ's Body and Blood. I confess the words cited by him I can scarce understand but if that piece of Haymo be genuine by the citation he takes from him in the end of the same Paragraph in which he asserts That though the Taste and Figure of Bread and Wine remain yet the nature of the Substance is wholly turned into Christ's Body and Blood I see no reason why Bertram might not write against Paschasius and Haymo too Though in truth I do not imagine him to have confuted the Book of Paschasius but only his Notion in answer to the two Questions propounded to the King. Who were the Adversaries of Paschasius whose Doctrine is owned to be the Catholick Faith now held by the Roman Church he himself is best able to tell us and he informs us (a) Paschasius in Epist ad Frudegardum That they were such as denied the Presence of Christ's Flesh in the Sacrament but held an invisible power and efficacy in and with the Elements because say they there is no Body but what is visible and palpable which are the Sentiments of Ratramnus as will evidently appear to any unbyass'd Reader But to deprive us of all pretence to the Authority of Bertram they falsly impute to us the utter denial of the Verity of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament which we deny no otherwise than Bertram doth And to vindicate the Reformed Church of England in this point I shall propound her Doctrine out of her Liturgy Articles and Catechism In the Catechism we learn That the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lord's Supper In the 28 Article we profess That to them who worthily receive the Lord's Supper the Bread whith we break is the Communion of the Body of Christ and likewise the Cup of Blessing is the partaking of the Blood of Christ. In the Prayer before Consecration we beseech God that we may so eat the Flesh of Christ and drink his Blood that our sinful Bodies may be made clean by his Body and our Souls washed through his most precious Blood. In the Consecration Prayer we desire to be made partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood. And in the Post-Communion we give God thanks for vouchsafing to feed us with the spiritual food of Christ's most blessed Body and Blood. It is not the Verity of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament that our Church denies but the rash and peremptory determination of the manner of his Presence by the Roman Church 'T is a Corporal and Carnal Presence and Transubstantiation which we deny This our Church declares against in the Rubrick about Kneeling at the Communion asserting that we Kneel not (a) At the end of the Communion Service to adore any corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. That the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain in their very natural Substances after Consecration Also that the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one Our (b) Art. 28. Church declares that Transubstantiation cannot be proved by Holy Writ but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion to many Superstitions That Christ's Body is given taken and eaten in the Supper only in an Heavenly and Spiritual manner And that the means whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith only These are Authentick Testimonies of the Doctrine of our Church out of her publick Acts. I might add others of very great Authority out of the Apology for our Church written by the Learned Jewel together with its Defence by the Author Bishop (a) Eliensis Apolog. contra Bellarm. p. 11. Andrews against Bellarmine the Testimony of King James in (b) Casaubonus nomine Jacobi Regis in Epistola ad Card. Perronum p. 48. 51. ubi exscribit verba Eliensis Casaubon's Epistle to Cardinal Perron (c) Hooker Eccles Policy lib. 5. sect 67. Hooker Bishop (d) Montacutius in Antidiatrib contra Bulenger p. 143. Montague against Bulengerus c. but for brevity's sake I refer the Reader to the Books themselves And also for a Vindication of the Forreign Reformed Churches in this matter I desire the Reader to consult their Confessions and the Citations collected by Bishop (e) Hist Transub c. 2. Cosins out of their Confessions and their most Eminent Writers Both we and they assert the Verity of Christ's Body and Blood as far as the nature of a Sacrament will admit or is necessary to answer the ends for which that Holy Mystery was instituted by our Saviour We own a real communication of Christ's Body and Blood in that way which the Soul is only capable of receiving it and benefit by it We acknowledge the Verity of Christ's Body in the same sence that Bertram doth and deny the same Errors which the Church of Rome hath since imposed upon all of her Communion for Articles of Faith which Bertram rejected though since that time they are encreased in bulk and formed into a more Artificial Systeme Most if not all of these determinations of our Church are to be found in this little Book if not in express terms yet in such expressions as necessarily import them And perhaps the judgment of Bertram was more weighed by our Reformers in this Point than any of our Neighbour Churches Bishop (a) In Praef. libri de Coena Domini Latine excusi Genev. 1556. Ridley who had a great hand in compiling the Liturgy and Articles in King Edward VI. his Reign had such an esteem of
though (a) Bib. Patrum Tom. 6. Par. 1610. Col. 226 227. Florus Deacon of the Church of Lyons accord not with Scotus in his Sentiments touching Predestination yet he agrees with him in contradicting the carnal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament for in his Exposition of the Mass he saith That when the Creature of Bread and Wine is by the ineffable sanctification of the Spirit translated into the SACRAMENT of Christ's Body Christ is eaten That he is eaten by parts in the Sacrament and remains whole in Heaven and in the Faithful Receiver's heart And again All that is done in the Oblation of the Lord's Body and Blood is a Mystery there is one thing seen and another understood that which is seen hath a Corporal nature that which is understood hath a Spiritual fruit And in the Manuscript (a) In Homiliario MS. Eccles Lugd. apud Mabillon A. B. Sec. IV. Par. 2. Praefat. nu 80. Homilies which F. Mabillon concludes are his expounding the words of our Saviour instituting the Sacrament he saith commenting on This is my Body the Body that spake was one thing the Body which was given was another The Body which spake was substantial that Body which was given was Mystical for the Body of our Lord died was buried rose again and ascended into heaven but that Body which was delivered to the Apostles in the Sacrament is daily consecrated by the Priests hands * Apud Hittorpium De rebus Eccles c. 16. Walafridus Strabo in the same Century teacheth That Christ in his last Supper with his Disciples just before he was betrayed after the Solemnity of the Ancient Passeover delivered the Sacraments of his own Body and Blood to his Disciples in the substance of Bread and Wine †Apud Albertinum de Euchar. lib. 2. pag. 934. Hoc est corpus meum id est in Sacramento Christian Druthmarus a Monk of Corbey and contemporary both with Bertram and Paschasius in his Comment on St. Matthew expounding the words of Institution saith That Christ gave his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body to the end that being mindful of this Action they should always do this in a Figure and not forget what he was about to do for them This is my Body that is Sacramentally or in a Sacrament or Sign And a little before he saith Christ did Spiritually change Bread into his Body and Wine into his Blood which is the Phrase of Bertram a Monk in the same Cloyster with him To these may be added * Apud L' Arroque in Hist Euchar. lib. 2. c. 13. ex Dacherii Spicileg Tom. 6. Ahyto Bishop of Basil in the beginning of this Century whose words cited by Mr. L' Arroque in his History of the Eucharist are these The Priest ought to know what the Sacrament of Baptism and Confirmation is and what the Mystery of the Body and Blood of the Lord is how a visible Creature is seen in those Mysteries and nevertheless invisible Salvation or Grace is thereby communicated for the salvation of the Soul the which is contained in Faith only Mr. L' Arroque well observes that his words relate to Baptism and Confirmation as well as the Lord's Supper he distinguisheth in both the sign from the thing signified and asserts alike in all three that there is a visible Creature communicating Invisible or Spiritual Grace which is received by Faith only Moreover the Question moved by Heribaldus to Rabanus which he answers and upon that score both those Learned and Holy Bishops have been traduced as Stercoranists evidently shews the Sentiments of Heribaldus to have been contrary to those of Paschasius on this Argument For he never could have moved the Question if he had not believed the external part of the Sacrament to be corporal Food as Ratramnus doth The Judgment of Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz whom Baronius stiles the brightest Star of Germany and as Trithemius says who had not his fellow in Italy or Germany agrees with that of Ratramnus and appears in several of his writings He teacheth * Raban de institut Cleric lib. 1. c. 31. That our Lord chose to have the Sacraments of his Body and Blood received by the mouth of the Faithful and reduced to Nourishment on purpose that by the visible Body the Spiritual effect might be shewn For as Material food outwardly nourisheth and gives vigor to the body so doth the Word of God inwardly nourish and strengthen the Soul. Again The Sacrament is one thing and the virtue of the Sacrament is another for the Sacrament is received with the mouth but the inner man is fed with the virtue of the Sacrament In his †Ad Calcem Reginon Prum editi per Baluzium habetur Epistola haec Rabani unde Heribaldum vide c. 33. Quidam nuper de ipso Sacramento corporis Sanguinis Domini non rite sentientes dixerunt hoc ipsum Corpus Sanguinem Domini quod de Maria Virgine natum est in quo ipse Dominus passus est in cruce resurrexit de Sepulchro idem esse quod sumitur de Altari cui Errori c. Penitential he makes the Sacrament subject to all the affections of common food and tells of some of late viz. Paschasius and his followers who had entertained false Sentiments touching the Sacrament of the Lords Body and Blood saying That this very Body of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary in which our Lord suffered on the Cross and rose again from the Grave is the same which we receive from the Altar against which error writing to Egilus the Abbot we have according to our ability declared what we are truly to believe concerning the Lords very Body From which Passage many things of moment may be collected 1. That Paschasius was written against in his life-time and not long after his propounding his Doctrine publickly by sending his Book together with an Epistle to Carolus Calvus For Rabanus died before Paschasius and * In praefat ad Rabani Epist n. 17. Baluzius makes it out very well that he wrote this Answer to the Queries of Heribaldus A. D. 853. In which year Egilus mentioned by him was made Abbot of Promie and the question of the validity of Orders conferred by Ebbo Archbishop of Rhemes after his Deposition was discussed in the Synod at Soissons 2. We learn from this Passage that Rabamus judged the Doctrine of Paschasius to be a Novel Error which he would not have done had there been any colour of Antient Tradition or Authority for it 3. That F. Cellot is mistaken in charging his Anonymous Writer with slandering Rabanus as also in saying that what Rabanus wrote on this Argument he wrote in his youth falsly presuming that Egilus to whom he wrote was Abbot of Fulda and immediate Predecessor to Rabanus in the Government of that Monastry where as it was another Egilus made Abbot of Promie A. D. 853. when Rabanus was
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
take away their Spiritual filth XVIII Behold how in one and the same Element are seen two things contrary to each other a thing Corruptible giving Incorruption and a thing without Life giving Life It is manifest then that in the Font there is both somewhat which the bodily sense perceiveth which is therefore mutable and corruptible and somewhat which the Eye of Faith only beholds and therefore is neither Corruptible nor Mortal If you enquire what washes the outside it is the Element but if you consider what purgeth the inside it is a quickning power a Sanctifying power a power conferring Immortality So then in its own nature it is a Corruptible Liquor but in the Mystery 't is a Healing Power XIX Thus also the Body and Blood of Christ considered as to the outside only is a creature subject to change and Corruption But if you ponder the efficacy of the Mystery it is Life conferring Immortality on such as partake thereof Therefore they are not the same things which are seen and which are believed For the things seen feed a Corruptible Body being corruptible themselves But those which are believed feed immortal Souls being themselves immortal XX. The Apostle also writing to the Corinthians saith * 1 Cor. 10.2 3. Know ye not This is further illustrated by the Baptism of the Fathers in the Sea and Cloud and by the Manna and Spiritual Rock which afforded Meat and Drink to the Fathers how that all our Fathers were under the Cloud and all passed through the Sea and were all Baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea and did all eat the same Spiritual Meat and did all Drink the same Spiritual Drirk for they drank of that Spiritual Rock that followed them And that Rock was Christ We see both the Sea and the Cloud bore a resemblance of Baptism and that the Fathers of the Old Testament were Baptized in them viz. the Cloud and the Sea. Now could the Sea as a visible Element have the power of Baptizing Or could the Cloud as a condensation of the Air Sanctifie the People And yet we dare not say but that the Apostle who spake in Christ did truly affirm that our Fathers were Baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea. XXI And although that Baptism was not the same with the Christian Baptism now Celebrated in the Church yet that it was Baptism and that our Fathers were therewith Baptized no Man in his Wits will deny None but a man that would presume expresly to contradict the Words of the Apostle Therefore the Sea and Cloud did sanctifie and cleanse not as they were meer bodily Substances but as they did invisibly contain the sanctifying Power of the Holy Ghost For there was in them both a visible Form appearing to the bodily Eyes not in Image but in Truth and also a spiritual Virtue shining within which was not discernable by the bodily Eyes but by those of the Mind XXII Likewise the Manna which was given the People from Heaven and the Water flowing out of the Rock were corporeal Substances and were both meat and Drink for the nourishment of the Peoples Bodies Nevertheless the Apostle calls even that Manna and that Water spiritual Meat and spiritual Drink Why so Because there was in those bodily Substances a spiritual Power of the Word which rather feed and gave Drink to the minds than the Bodies of the Faithful And whereas that Meat and Drink prefigured the future Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ which the Church now Celebrates St. Paul nevertheless affirms That our Fathers did eat the same Spiritual Meat and drank the same Spiritual Drink XXIII Perhaps you will ask In what sense the Fathers eat and drank the same spiritual Meat and Drink with us What same Even the very self-same Food which the Faithful now eat and drink in the Church Nor may we think them different since it is one and the same Christ who then in the Wilderness fed the People that were Baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea with his own Flesh and made them to drink his own Blood and who now in the Church feeds the Faithful with the Bread of his Body and makes them to drink the Liquor of his Blood. XXIV The Apostle intending to intimate thus much when he had said that our Fathers did eat the same Spiritual Meat and drank the same Spiritual Drink he adds And they all drank of that Spiritual Rock which followed them and that Rock was Christ To the end we might understand that in the Wilderness Christ was in the Spiritual Rock and gave the Liquor of his Blood to the People who afterwards * That is under the Gospel in our times exhibited his Body born of a Virgin and Crucified for the Salvation of such as believe out of which he shed streams of Blood whereof we are made to drink and not only redeemed therewith XXV Truly it is wonderful because it is incomprehensible and inestimable He had not yet assumed Man's Nature he had not yet tasted of Death for the Salvation of the World he had not yet redeemed us with his Blood whenas our Fathers in the Wilderness even then in their Spiritual Meat and Invisible Drink did eat his Body and drink his Blood as the Apostle testifies saying That our Fathers did eat the same spiritual Meat and drank of the same spiritual Drink Now we must not enquire how that could be but must believe that it was so For he who now in the Church doth by his Almighty Power spiritually change Bread and Wine into the Flesh of his own Body and the Liquor of his own Blood he also did invisibly make the Manna given from Heaven his own Body and the Water issuing from the Rock his own Blood. XXVI Which David understanding spake by the Holy Ghost saying (a) Psal 27.25 Man did eat Angels Food For it is ridiculous to imagine That the corporeal Manna given to the Fathers doth feed the Heavenly Host or that they use such Diet who are satiated with Feasting on the Divine Word The Psalmist or rather the Holy * Mat. 26.26 27 28. Luke 22.19 20. Ghost speaking of the Psalmist teacheth us both what our Fathers received in that Heavenly Manna and what the Faithful ought to believe in the Mystery of Christ's Body In both certainly Christ is signified who both feeds the Souls of the Faithful and is the Food of Angels And both he doth and is by a spiritual Relish not by becoming bodily Food but by virtue of the spiritual Word XXVII We are taught also by the Evangelist He argues from the Institution of this Sacrament before our Lord's Passion That our Lord Jesus Christ before he Suffered took Bread and when he had given Thanks he gave it to his Disciples saying This is my Body which is given for you do this in remembrance of me Likewise the Cup after he had supped saying This Cup is
our Lord's Passion or Resurrection is celebrated are called by the name of those Days because they have some Resemblance of those very Days in which our Saviour once suffered and rose again XXXVIII Hence we say to Day or to Morrow or next Day is the Passion or Resurrection of our Lord whereas the very Days in which those things were done are long past So we say the Lord is offered when the Sacraments of his Passion are celebrated Whereas he was but once offered in his own Person for the Salvation of the World as the Apostle saith (a) 1 Pet. 2.21 Christ hath suffered for us leaving you an Example that you should follow his steps Not that Christ suffers every day in his own Person This he did but once but he hath left us an Example which is every day presented to the Faithful in the Mystery of the Lord's Body and Blood So that whosoever cometh thereunto must understand that he ought to have a fellowship with him in his Sufferings the Image whereof he expects to receive in the Holy Mysteries according to that of the Wise-man (a) Prov. 23.1 2. If thou comest to the Table of a Great man consider diligently what is set before thee knowing that thou thy self must prepare the like To come to this Great-man's Table is to be made a Partaker of the Divine Sacrifice To consider what is set before thee is to understand the Lord's Body and Blood of which whosoever is partaker ought to prepare the like that is to imitate him by dying with him whose Death he commemorates not only in believing but also in eating XXXIX So St. Paul to the Hebrews (a) Heb. 7.26 27. Such an High Priest became us who is holy harmless undefiled separate from sinners and made higher than the Heavens who needeth not as those daily to offer up Sacrifice first for his own Sins and then for the Peoples For this the Lord Jesus Christ did once when he offered himself What he did once he now every day repeats For he once offered himself for the Sins of the People yet the same Oblation is every day celebrated by the Faithful but in a Mystery So that what the Lord Jesus Christ once offering himself really did the same is every day done in Remembrance of his Passion by the Celebration of the Mysteries or Sacraments XL. Nor yet is it falsly said That in those Mysteries the Lord is offered or suffereth because they have a Resemblance of his Death and Passion whereof they are Representations whereupon they are called The Lord's Body and the Lord's Blood because they take the Names of those things whereof they are the Sacrament For this reason St. Isidore in his Book of Etymologies saith thus Sacrificium the Sacrifice is so called from Sacrum Factum a sacred Action because it is consecrated by mystical Prayer in Memory of the Lord's Passion for us Whence by his Command we call it the Body and Blood of Christ which though made of the Fruits of the Earth is sanctified and made a Sacrament by the invisible Operation of the Spirit of God. Which Sacrament of the Bread and Cup the Greeks call the Eucharist that is in Latine bona Gratia good Grace And what is better than the Body and Blood of Christ * These words which lie between two little Stars are not in the Printed Editions of St. Isidore I wish they were not purposely omitted by the Publishers of his Works or rather expunged anciently by the Enemies of Berengarius Now Bread and Wine are therefore compared to the Body and Blood of Christ because as the Substance of this visible Bread and Wine feed and inebriate the outward man so the Word of God which is the living Bread doth refresh the Souls of the Faithful by the receiving thereof * These words which lie between two little Stars are not in the Printed Editions of St. Isidore I wish they were not purposely omitted by the Publishers of his Works or rather expunged anciently by the Enemies of Berengarius XLI Likewise this Catholick Doctor teaches That the holy Mystery of the Lord's Passion should be celebrated in Remembrance of the Lord 's Suffering for us In saying whereof he shews that the Lord suffered but once but the Memory of it is represented in sacred and solemn Rites XLII So that the Bread which is offered though made of the Fruits of the Earth when Consecrated is changed into Christ's Body as also the Wine which flowed from the Vine is by Sacramental Consecration made the Blood of Christ not visibly indeed but as this Doctor speaks by the invisible Operation of the Spirit of God. XLIII And they are called the Blood and Body of Christ because they are understood to be not what they outwardly appear but what they are inwardly made by the invisible Operation of the Holy Ghost And that this invisible Operation renders them much a different thing from what they appear to our Eyes he St. Isidore observes when he saith That the Bread and Wine are therefore compared to the Lord's Body and Blood because as the Substance of material Bread and Wine doth nourish the outward Man so the Word of God which is the Bread of Life doth refresh the Souls of the Faithful in partaking thereof XLIV In saying this we most plainly confess That in the Sacrament of the Lord's Body and Blood whatsoever is outwardly received serves only for the Refreshment of the Body But the Word of God who is the invisible Bread being invisibly in the Sacrament doth in an invisible manner nourish and quicken the Souls of the Faithful by their partaking thereof XLV Wherefore again the same Doctor saith There is a Sacrament in any divine Office when the thing is so managed that there is somewhat understood which must be spiritually taken In saying thus he shews that every Sacrament or Mystery of Religion contains in it some secret thing And that there is one thing that visibly appears and another thing to be Spiritually understood XLVI And soon after shewing what are the Sacraments which the Faithful should celebrate he saith And these Sacraments are Baptism Chrism or Confirmation and the Body and Blood of Christ Which are called Sacraments because under the Coverture of bodily things the Power of God doth in a secret way work the Salvation or Grace conferred by them And from these secret and sacred Vertues they are called Sacraments And in the following words he saith It is called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Mystery because it contains a secret or hidden Dispensation XLVII What do we learn hence but that the Body and Blood of Christ are therefore called Mysteries because they contain a secret and hidden Dispensation That is it is one thing which they outwardly make Shew of and another thing which they operate inwardly and invisibly XLVIII And for this Reason they are called Sacraments because under the Covert of bodily Things a
divine Power doth secretly dispense Salvation or Grace to them that faithfully receive them XLIX By all that hath been hitherto said it appears that the Body and Blood of Christ which are received by the Mouths of the Faithful in the Church are Figures in respect of their visible Nature but in respect of the invisible Substance that is the Power of the Word of God they are truly Christ's Body and Blood. Wherefore as they are visible Creatures they feed the Body but as they have the vertue of a more powerful Substance they do both feed and sanctifie the Souls of the Faithful L. We must now consider the Second Question The Second Question and see (a) Which Paschasius Radbertus affirms and Ratramnus denies as also did Rabanus Maurus c. whether that very Body which was born of Mary which Suffered was Dead and Buried and which sits at the Right Hand of the Father be the same which is daily received in the Church by the Mouths of the Faithful in the Sacramental Mysteries LI. Let us enquire what is the Judgment of St. Ambrose in this point He argues from a testimony of St. Ambrose For he saith in his First Book of the Sacraments Truly it is wonderful that God rained down Manna to the Fathers and they were fed every day with Heavenly Food whereupon 't is said that Man did eat Angels Bread and yet they who did eat that Bread all died in the Wilderness But that Food which thou receivest that living Bread which came down from Heaven ministers the Substance of Eternal Life and whosoever eats thereof shall never die and this is the Body of Christ LII See in what sense this Doctor saith That the Body of Christ is that Food which the Faithful receive in the Church For he saith That Living Bread which comes down from Heaven ministers the Substance of Eternal Life Doth it as it is seen as it is corporally received chewed with the Teeth as it is swallowed down the Throat and received into the Belly minister the Substance of Eternal Life In this respect it only feeds the Mortal Flesh it doth not minister Incorruption nor can it be truly said That whosoever eats thereof shall never die For what the Body receives is corruptible nor can it preserve the Body so that it shall never die for what is it self subject to corruption cannot give Immortality Therefore there is in that Bread a certain Principle of Life which doth not appear to our bodily Eyes but is seen by those of Faith which also is that Living Bread which came down from Heaven and concerning which it is truly said that whosoever eats thereof shall never die and which is Christ's Body LIII And afterwards speaking of the Almighty Power of Christ he saith thus Therefore the Word of Christ which could produce things that were not out of nothing cannot it change the things that actually exist into that which they were not Is it not a greater Work to create things at first than to alter their Natures LIV. St. Ambrose saith That in this Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ there is a Change made and wonderfully because it is Divine Ineffable and indeed Incomprehensible I desire to know of them who will by no means admit any thing of an inward secret Virtue but will Judge of the whole matter as it appears to outward Sense in what respect this Change is made As for the substance of the Creatures what they were before Consecration the same they remain after it Bread and Wine they were before and after Consecration we see they continue Beings of the same Nature and Kind So that it is changed Internally by the mighty Power of the Holy Ghost and this is the mighty Object which Faith beholds which feâ—ds the Soul and ministers the substance of Eternal Life LV. And again it follows Why dost thou here require the Order of Nature in the mystery of Christ's Body when our Lord God himself was contrary to the Order of Nature born of a Virgin LVI Now perhaps An Objection obviated some one at the hearing of this may start up and say That it is the Body of Christ which we behold and his Blood that we drink yet we must not enquire how it becomes so but only believe stedfastly that it is so Thou seemest to think aright but yet if thou didst carefully observe the Importance of thy Words when thou sayest That thou faithfully believest it to be the Body and Blood of Christ thou would'st understand that what thou believest thou dost not see For if thou sawest it thou would'st say I see and not I believe that it is the Body and Blood of Christ Whereas now because Faith discerns the whole matter whatever it is and the Bodily Eye perceives nothing of it thou must understand that those things which are seen are the Body and Blood of Christ not in Kind or Nature but Virtually For which Reason he saith That the Order of Nature is not to be considered but the Power of Christ must be adored which changes what he will how he will into what he will creating what had no Being and changing the Creature into what it was not before And the same Author adds Doubtless it was the true Flesh of Christ which was Crucified and Buried (a) Or it may be rendred The Sacrament of that true Flesh therefore this is really the Sacrament of that Flesh The Lord Jesus himself saith This is my Body LVII How warily Another Argument from St. Ambrose and wisely doth he distinguish Speaking of the Flesh of Christ which was Crucified and Buried or in which Christ was Crucified and Buried he saith It is the true Flesh of Christ But of that which is taken in the Sacrament he saith It 's therefore truly the Sacrament of that Flesh distinguishing between the Sacrament of his Flesh and the Verity of his Flesh or his true Flesh in as much as he saith in that true Flesh which he took of the Virgin he was Crucified and Buried whereas he saith the Mystery now celebrated in the Church is the Sacrament of that true Flesh in which he was Crucified expresly teaching the Faithful that that Flesh in which Christ was Crucified and Buried is not a Mystery but true and natural whereas that Flesh which mystically represents the former is not Flesh in kind or Naturally but Sacramentally For in its Kind or Nature it is Bread but Sacramentally it is the true Body of Christ as the Lord Jesus saith This is my Body LVIII And in the following words The Holy Ghost hath in another place by the Prophet declared to thee what it is that we eat and drink saying * Psal 34.8 Taste and see that the Lord is good blessed is the man that trusteth in him Doth the Bread and Wine eaten and drunk corporally shew how sweet the Lord is Whatsoever is an Object of Tasting is corporeal and
on St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians writes thus St. Hierom on the Ephes c. 1. The Flesh and Blood of Christ is taken in two Senses in the one it 's that Spiritual and Divine of which he saith My Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed In the other it is that Flesh which was Crucified and that Blood which was let out by the Soldier 's Spear LXXI This Doctor distinguishes and makes no small difference between the two acceptations of Christs Body and Blood. Christ ' s Body is taken in two Senses For whilst he stiles that Body and Blood of Christ Spiritual which is daily received by the Faithful and that Flesh which was Crucified and that Blood which was let out by the Soldier 's Spear is not said to be either Spiritual or Divine he manifestly insinuates that these differ from each other as much as Corporeal and Spiritual Visible and Invisible Humane and Divine Now things that differ are not the same And in the Opinion of this Author viz. St. Hierom That Spiritual Flesh which the Faithful receive with their Mouths and that Spiritual Blood which is daily given to Believers to drink differ from that Flesh which was Crucified and that Blood which was let out by the Souldier's Spear Therefore they are not the same LXXII For that Flesh which was crucified He sheweth the Difference of his Natural and Spiritual Body was made of the Virgin 's Flesh consisting of Bones and Nerves distinguish'd by its Lineaments into several Members of a humane Body animated with a reasonable Soul having proper Life and agreeable Motions But that Spiritual Body which spiritually feeds the faithful People as to its external Nature is made of several Grains of Wheat by the Baker's hand hath neither Sinews nor Bones nor distinction of Members nor is it animated by any reasonable Substance nor can it exercise any vital Motion But that whatever it is which gives the Substance of Life is the Efficacy of a spiritual Power of an invisible and divine Virtue And that which appears outwardly is quite another thing than that which is believed in the Mystery Moreover the Flesh of Christ which was crucified did not outwardly appear any other thing than what inwardly it was For it was the true Flesh of a true Man a true Body in the shape of a true Body LXXIII It is further to be considered The Sacramental Bread a figure of the People as well as of Christ's Body That in that Bread not only the Body of Christ but also the Body of the People believing in him is figured and therefore it is made of many grains of Wheat as the Body of faithful People is made up of many Believers by the Word of Christ LXXIV For which reason as in the Sacrament that Bread is understood to be Christ's Body so in the same Sacrament his Members the People that believe in Christ are also signified And as that Bread is said to be the Body of the Faithful not corporally but spiritually so must it necessarily be understood to be the Body of Christ not corporally but spiritually As is also the Water mixt with the Wine LXXV So with the Wine which is called Christ's Blood (a) Both the Greek and Latine Church used to mix Water with Wine in the Eucharist but held it not essential to the Sacrament Water is commanded to be mixt nor is one allowed to be offered without the other because neither is the People without Christ nor Christ without the People As the Head cannot be without the Body nor the Body without the Head. Lastly Water in that Sacrament represents the People Now if the Wine consecrated by the Minister's Office were corporally changed into Christ's Blood the Water also which is mixed therewith must necessarily be corporally changed into the Blood of the faithful People For where there is but one Consecration there is consequently but one Operation and where there is the like Reason there is the like Mystery But we see no corporeal Change in the Water neither is there any corporeal Change in the Wine The Representation of the Body of the People in the Water is altogether spiritual therefore the Representation of the Blood of Christ in the Wine must also of necessity be altogether spiritual LXXVI Again The Sacrament not incorruptible therefore not Christ's natural Body Things that differ from each other are not the same The Body of Christ that died and rose again and being made immortal * Rom. 6.6 dieth no more nor hath Death any more Dominion over it is eternal now and no longer passible But that which is celebrated in the Church is temporal not eternal corruptible not exempt from Corruption in our Way not in our heavenly Country Therefore they differ and are not the same And if they are not the same how are they said to be the true Body and true Blood of Christ LXXVII For if it be Christ's Body if it be truly said that it is Christ's Body then it is Christ's Body in verity of Nature and if so then it is incorruptible impassible and by consequence eternal And therefore this Body of Christ which is celebrated in the Church must necessarily be incorruptible and eternal Now it cannot be denied but that thing is corrupted which is broken into pieces and distributed piece-meal to be received and being ground by the Teeth passeth into the Body But it is one thing that is outwardly done and another that is received by Faith. That which our bodily Sense perceives is corruptible that which Faith believes is incorruptible Wherefore that which outwardly appears is not the thing it self but the Image of it but that which the Mind perceives and understands is the very thing it self LXXVIII Whereupon St. A large Citation out of St. Augustine Augustine in his Exposition of St. John's Gospel speaking of the Body and Blood of Christ saith thus Moses did eat Manna and both Aaron and Phineas did eat and many others who pleased God and died did eat thereof How so Because they did spiritually understand their visible Food they did hunger spiritually and taste spiritually and were spiritually filled And we at this day receive visible Food but the Sacrament is one thing and the vertue of the Sacrament is another And afterwards This is the Bread that cometh down from Heaven The Manna signified this Bread the Altar of God signified the same These were Sacraments differing in the Signs but agreeing in the thing signified Hear what St. Paul saith (a) 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3. Brethren I would not have you ignorant that our Fathers were all under the Cloud and all passed through the Sea and were all baptized into Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea and did all eat the same spiritual Meat and drank the same spiritual Drink The same spiritual but other corporal Food They did eat Manna we quite another thing But yet
they did eat the same spiritual Meat with us He adds And they drank the same spiritual Drink They drank one thing and we another but (a) In its visible Nature only as to what outwardly appeared which by a spiritual vertue signified and same thing How was it the same Drink They drank faith he of that spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ. Thence had they Bread whence they had Drink The Rock was Christ in a Type but the true Christ was the Word incarnate LXXIX Again (b) John 6.63 This is the Bread which came down from Heaven whosoever eats thereof shall never die which must be understood of him who eats the Vertue of the Sacrament not the meer visible Sacrament him who eats inwardly not outwardly who feeds on it in his Heart not who presseth it with his Teeth LXXX Again in what follows quoting our Saviour's Words he saith Doth this offend you that I said I give you my Flesh to eat and my Blood to drink What if you shall see the Son of Man ascending where he was before What means this Here he resolves that which troubled them here he expounds the Difficulty at which they were offended For they thought he would have given them his Body but he tells them that he should ascend in his Body entire into Heaven When you shall see the Son of Man ascend where he was before certainly then you will see that he did not give his Body in the way which you imagine then you will understand that the Grace of God is not eaten by Morsels He saith It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing LXXXI And after many other Passages he adds Whosoever saith the same Apostle hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of his Therefore it is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing (a) John 6.63 The words which I have spoken unto you are Spirit and life What means he by saying they are Spirit and Life That they must be Spiritually understood If thou understandest them Spiritually they are Spirit and Life if thou understandest them Carnally even so also they are Spirit and Life but not to thee LXXXII By the Authority of this Doctor treating on the Words of our Lord touching the Sacrament of his own Body and Blood we are plainly taught That those words of our Lord are to be spiritually and not carnally understood as he himself saith The words which I speak unto you are Spirit and Life That is his Words concerning eating his Flesh drinking his Blood. He had spoken those things at which his Disciples were offended Therefore that they might not be offended their Divine Master calleth them back from the Flesh to the Spirit from Objects of the outward Sense (a) That is to spiritual Objects to the understanding of things invisible LXXXIII So then we see that food of the Lord's Body that drink of his blood are in some respect truly his Body and his Blood that is in the same respect in which they are Spirit and Life LXXXIV Again those things which are one and the same are comprehended under the same Definition We say of the true Body of Christ that he is very God and very Man God begotten of God the Father before the World began and Man born of the Virgin Mary in the end of the World. But since these things cannot be said of the Body of Christ which is mystically celebrated in the Church we know that it is only in some particular manner the Body of Christ which manner is Figurative and in the way of an Image so that the Verity is the Thing it self LXXXV He argues from a Prayer in his time used after the H. Communion In the Prayer used after the Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood to which the People say Amen the Priest speaks thus (a) This Prayer is not found in the present Roman Mass-book We who have now received the Pledge of eternal Life most humbly beseech thee to grant that we may be (a) Or Really manifestly made partakers of that which here we receive under an Image or Sacrament LXXXVI A Pledge and Image are the Pledge and Image of somewhat else that is they do not respect themselves but another thing It is the Pledge of that thing for which it is given the Image of the thing it represents They signifie the thing of which they are the Pledge or Image but are not the very thing it self whence it appears that this Body and Blood of Christ are the Pledge and Image of something to come which is now only represented but shall hereafter be (b) Or Really plainly exhibited Now if it only signifie at present what shall be hereafter really exhibited then it is one thing which is now celebrated and another which shall hereafter be manifested LXXXVII Wherefore it is indeed the Body and Blood of Christ which the Church celebrates but in the way of a Pledge or an Image The truth we shall then have when the Pledge or Image shall cease and the very thing it self shall appear LXXXVIII And in another Prayer He argues from another Collect. (a) This is extant in the ordinary Mass-Book Let thy Sacrament work in us O Lord we beseech thee those things which they contain that we may really be made partakers of those things which now we celebrate in a figure He saith that these things are celebrated in a Figure not in Truth that is by way of Representation and not the (b) Or Real Presence Manifestation of the Thing it self Now the Figure and the Truth are very different things Therefore that Body and Blood of Christ which is celebrated in the Church differs from the Body and Blood of Christ which is glorified That Body is the Pledge or Figure but this the very Truth it self the former we celebrate till we come to the latter and when we come to the latter the former shall be done way LXXXIX It is apparent therefore that they differ vastly as much as the Pledge and that whereof it is the Pledge as much as the Image and the Thing whose Image it is as much as the Figure and Truth We see then how vast a difference there is between the Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood which the Faithful now receive in the Church and that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary which suffered was buried rose again ascended into Heaven and sitteth at the Right-hand of God. For that Body which is celebrated here in our way must be spiritually received for Faith believes somewhat that it seeth not and it spiritually feeds the Soul makes glad the Heart and confers Eternal Life and Incorruption if we attend not to that which feeds the Body which is chewed with our Teeth and ground to pieces but to that which is spiritually received by Faith. Now that Body in which Christ suffered and rose again was his own
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
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
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.
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
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