this Author and Work that he doth in his Paper given in to Queen Maries Commissioners at Oxford besides his own Answers and Confirmations insist upon whatever Bertram wrote on this Argument as a further proof of his Doctrine professing that he doth not see how any Godly Man can gain-say his Arguments and that it was this Book that put him first upon examining the old Opinion concerning the Presence of Christ's very Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament by the Scriptures and Elder Fathers of the Churcb and converted him from the Errours of the Church of Rome in that point And Dr. (a) Dr. Burnet's Hist of the Reform p. II. Book I. p 107. Burnet tells us the same adding That Ridley having read Bertram and concluding Transubstantiation to be none of the Ancient Doctrines of the Church but lately brought in and not fully received till after Bertram 's Age communicated the matter with Cranmer and they set themselves to examine it with more than ordinary care Thus he in the account he gives of the Disputation concerning the Real Presence A. D. 1549. which is the year in which the first Common-Prayer-Book of King Edward VI. was published at which time also Bertram was Printed in English by order of Bishop Ridley So that a Reverend and Learned Divine of our Church b had reason in asserting the Doctrine of Bertram was the very same Doctrine which (a) Several Conferences between a Popish Priest c. p. 61. the Church of England embraced as most consonant to Scripture and the Fathers Which is not what our Adversaries would put upon us that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a naked Commemoration of our Saviour's Death and a meer Sign of his Body and Blood but an efficacious Mystery accompanied with such a Divine and Spiritual Power as renders the consecrated Elements truly tho' Mystically Christ's Body and Blood and communicates to us the real Fruits and saving Benefits of his bitter Passion And this is the Doctrine of Bertram in both parts of this Work. CHAP. VI. That Ratramnus was not singular in his Opinion but had several other Great Men in his own and the following Age of the same Judgment with him in this Point BUt after all that I have said if Ratramnus tho' never so Learned or Orthodox were singular in his Sentiments touching Christ's Presence in the holy Eucharist we can make little of his Authority If the general Belief of the Church in his Time were contrary it only sheweth that one Eminent Divine had some Heterodox Opinions Let us therefore examine the Writers of his own Age and the next after him and see whether he or Paschasius delivered the current sence of the Church I shall not stand to examine the Belief of the more Ancient and Pure Times of Christianity but refer my Reader to Albertinus Archbishop Vsher and Bishop Cosins for an account of it I shall confine myself to the IX and X Centuries in which we shall find several of the most Eminent Doctors and Writers of the Church of the same Judgment with Ratramnus and some who were offended at the Doctrine of Paschasius And indeed there are manifest Tokens in his Book but more evident Proofs in his Epistle to Frudegardus that his Doctrine did not pass without contradiction in his own life time When he delivers his Paradox he prepares his Reader for some wondrous Doctrine And so strange was that new Doctrine of his that if the (a) Anonym de Euch. ad finem Sec IV. p. 2. Anonymous Writer published by F. Mabillon be Rabanus his Epistle to Egilo this Great and Learned Bishop professeth That he never heard or read it before and he much wondred that St. Ambrose should be quoted for it and more that Paschasius should assert it But F. Mabillon offers it only by way of conjecture modestly submitting it to the Judgment of Learned Men whether that Tract against Radbertus be the Epistle of Rabanus or not And I conceive there are better reasons to perswade us that it is not than those he offers to prove that it is As that it bears not the Name of Rabanus though himself mention his writing on that Subject to Egilo That it is not in an Epistolary Form Egilo is not so much as named nor doth any address to a second person appear throughout it but it is plainly a Polemical piece To which I may add that in the Anonymous piece there occurs an odd distinction of the same Body Naturaliter and Specialiter and yet in expounding the Doctrine of the Sacrament to Heribaldus it is not used by Rabanus though that Epistle to Egilo were first written But whoever he were that wrote it he was in all likelyhood an Author of the same Time and treats Paschasius very coursly and severely It is not likely that it was written while he was Abbot since the Author flouts him and in an Ironical way calls him Pontificem Among the Writers of the IX Century I shall number (a) Inter scriptores de Divinis Officiis Ed. per Hittorpium Par. 1610. col 303. Charles the Great though perhaps the Epistle to Alcuin was written somewhat before wherein he affirms that Christ supping with his Disciples brake Bread and gave it them with the Cup for a FIGVRE of his Body and Blood and exhibited a Sacrament highly advantagious to us As Venerable Bede before him speaks He gave in the Supper to his Disciples a FIGVRE of his Holy Body and Blood which notion consists not with the carnal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament (a) Apud L' Arroque Hist Euch. l. 2. c. 13. Theodulphus Aurelianensis near the beginning of this Century saith that by the visible offering of the Priest and the invisible consecration of the Holy Ghost Bread and Wine pass into the Dignity not the Substance of the Body and Blood of our Lord. As Jesus Christ is figured by the Wine so are the Faithful People by Water Amalarius (b) Amalarius Fortunatus Ibidem In Praefat. Col. 307. l. 1. c. 24. Fortunatus in the Preface of his Books of Divine Offices makes the Sacramental Bread and Wine to represent the Body and Blood of Christ and the Oblation to resemble Christ's own offering of himself on the Cross as the Priest doth the Person of Christ And elsewhere he saith that the Sacraments of Christ's Body are secundum quendum modum after some sort Christ's Body which is like Bertram's secundum quid not absolutely and properly but in some respect the Body of Christ and Amalarius cites that Passage of St. Augustine which Bertram alledged to render a reason why the Sacramental Signs have the name of the Thing signified What the Doctrine of Joannes Scotus was is hard to say only in the general 't is agreed that it was contrary to that of Paschasius though perhaps he erred on the other extreme making it a naked empty Figure or Memory of our Saviour's Death And
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-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
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
his most Holy Passion He adds That nothing could be found out more proper to signifie the Vnity between the Head and Members than those SPECIES For as the Bread consisting of many Grains is by Water reduced into one Body and as the Wine is pressed out of many Grapes Thus also is the Body of Christ made up of the Vnited Multitude of Saints Observe that in the words immediately preceding our Author stiles these Species the Substance of Bread and Wine and in the following words describing the way in which they are made and thereby adapted to signifie the Union between Christ and his Members he calls them simply Bread and Wine The same Author (a) Vnde Eutychianus XXVIII Sedis Pomanae Praesul constituit fruges super altare tantum Fabae Vvae benedici Alias autem diversarum SPECIES rerum statutum est ubilibet benedici a sacerdotibus c. Ibid. cap. 18. Fruges Species pro Synonymis habuit Walafridus useth the word Species for the Fruits of the Earth and cites for it a forged Decretal Epistle under the name of Pope Eutychian which orders all other Species that is Fruits of the Earth except what by the Apostles constitutions may be offered on the Altar to be brought home to the Priest to receive Benediction and the Species allowed to be Blessed on the Altar are Beans and Grapes And Regino citing that Canon of the Apostles to which Walafridus or rather the pretended Eutychian referreth gives it this Title (b) Quae Species ad altare non ad Sacrificium sed ad Benedictionem simplicem debent offerri Regino de Discip Eccles l. 1. c. 64. ex Can. 4. Apost What Species ought to be offered at the Altar not for Sacrifice but for simple Benediction and the Canon mentions (c) Praeter novas Spicas Vvas Oleum Thymiama id est incensum Can. 5. Reliqua poma omnia ad domum Episcopi vel Presbyteri dirigantur c. Ears of new Corn Grapes Oyl and Incense Now in these Instances none can doubt but by Species the Specifick Nature the Substance is to be understood and not the Sensible Qualities of the Particulars mentioned In the very same sense Arnobius Junior (d) Non solum Speciem frumenti sed Vini Olei administrans Arnob. in Ps 104. useth the Term speaking of God's bounty to the Israelites Whom he furnished not only with the Species of Corn but also with those of Wine and Oyl And it appears that the Unconsecrated Elements were stiled Species from a Prayer in the Gothick Missal to be used after the Sanctus which is before Consecration (e) Vt Dominus Deus Noster SPECIEM istam suo ministerio CONSECRANDAM coelestis gratiae inspiratione sanctificet Missale Gothicum p. 375. Collectio post Sanctus in Codd Sacramentorum editis per Thomasium Quarto Romae 1680. Most dear Brethren let us pray that our Lord and God would Sanctifie by the Inspiration of his Heavenly Grace this SPECIES which is TO BE Consecrated c. Now here Species must necessarily import the Substance for our Adversaries themselves do not pretend that the substance of Bread and Wine cease before Consecration But in regard M. Boileau will have it that Ratram learn'd this use of the word from St. Ambrose and particularly from his Books De Sacramentis I shall crave leave a little more largely to expose the falshood and indecent confidence of that Assertion That the Instance produced by M. Boileau is Impertinent and Mistaken I have already shewn and shall now make some Instances to disprove his pretence intirely In the Book De Initiandis which more plausibly pretends to the Authority of St. Ambrose than the six Books of the Sacraments which follow it we have manifest Examples of the use of the word Species for the Specifick Nature or Substance (f) SPECIEM autem pro VERITATE legimus de Christo Specie inventus ut Homo dâ— Patre Deo Neque Speciem ejus vidistis Ambr. de iis qui Myst initiantur c. 4. He tells us That the word Species is sometimes used to signifie the truth and not the bare resemblance as when it is said of Christ that he was found in Specie in fashion as a Man and of God the Father neither have ye at any time seen his Species it 's plain that this Author understands by Species in the first place Christ's true Humane Nature and in the latter the Divine Substance or Essence (g) Gravior est enim ferri Species quam aquarum liquor cap. 9. For the Species of Iron is heavier than the Liquor of Water Here Species ferri implieth the substance of Iron And the Author who some Ages after St. Ambrose enlarged this Tract into six Sermons (h) The fourth of these is among St. Austins Sermons de Verbis Dom. Serm. 28. which have long passed for so many Books of that Father on the Sacraments but plainly appear both by the beginnings and conclusions to be Homilies I say that Author expounds Species by Matter or Substance saying of Iron (i) Est enim Materies gravior quam aquarum est Elementum de Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. For it is a more weighty Substance than the Element of Water Again (k) Ante Benedictionem Verborum coelestium species nominatur post Consecrationem Corpus Christi significatur De initiandis c. 9. Before Consecration the Species is named after Consecration the Body of Christ (l) De Consecr dist 3. c. 69. Gratian cites the words thus Before Consecration another Species is named and the Gloss (m) Alia Species i. e. alterius rei Species id est substantia fuit Glossa expounds the word Species by Substance as the Homilist (n) Panis iste PANIS est ante verba Sacramentorum c. l. 4. c. 4. Dixi vobis quod ante verba Christi quod offertur PANIS dicatur c. Ibid. l. 5. c. 4. doth by Bread twice Also our Ambrosiaster in his comparison between the Supernatural Effect of Baptism and the Miracle wrought by the Prophet Elisha when he made Iron to swim saith That (o) Vbi Baptizatus fuerit non tanquam ferrum sed tanquam jam levior fructuosi ligni Species levatur de Sacram. l. 2. c. 4. before Baptism every Man sinks like Iron but when Baptised he riseth like the lighter Species of fruitful Wood. In this place who doubts but he intended the Substance and not the appearance of Wood In the third Book he saith The (p) Hesterno die de fonte Baptismatis disputavimus cujus Species veluti quaedam Sepulchri forma est de Sacra l. 3. c. 1. Species of the Font is of the form of a Grave where doubtless he meaneth the very Font-stone or if not then its Figure united with the Stone Again He starts an Objection (q) Forte dicis Speciem Sanguinis non video Sed habet
Similitudinem Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti ita etiam similitudinem preciosi sanguinis bibis de Sacra l. 4. c. 4. I see not the Species of Blood to which he answers but what thou seest hath a Resemblance of it For as thou hast received the similitude of his Death I presume he means in Baptism so thou drinkest the similitude of his Blood. Now the word Species being opposed to Similitude it is doubtless used for the Reality not for the Appearance And so indeed he Expounds himself objecting the same thing in these words (r) Quomodo vera Caro quomodo verus Sanguis Qui similitudinem video non video Sanguinis veritatem de Sacram. l. 6. c. 1. I see only a Similitude I see not the Verity of Blood. As I remember the word Species occurs but once more in these Books and in that (ſ) De Sacram. l. 2. c. 3. place it unquestionably signifieth a Figure or Type in which sense we find it also used in the Book (t) Cap. 9. De Initiandis and by Ratram too But I know not any advantage our Adversaries can make of this Were it necessary I could produce many Instances out of St. Ambrose to prove that Species imports the Nature or Substance As when he saith of the Pillar which directed the Marches of the Israelites (u) Illa autem columna nubis specie quidem praecedebat filio Israel Mysterio autem significabat Dominum Jesum c. Amb. in Psal 118. Oct. 5. The Pillar went before in the Species of a Cloud but it Mystically signified the Lord Jesus c. Who ever doubted it to be a Real Cloud Again speaking of the Water turned into Wine by our Saviour he saith (w) Vt rogatus ad Nuptias aquae Substantiam in Vini Speciem commutaret Ambr. op t. 5. Serm. 15. ex Edit Par. 1632. That our Lord turned the substance of Water into the Species of Wine That is no doubt into the Specifick Nature as well as the sensible Appearance of Wine But I shall trouble you with no more when I have produced one Instance of the use of this Term out of Paschasius Radbertus if he really did alleadg the Miracles which we now read in his Work to prove the Carnal Presence He makes Plegils a Saxon Priest to pray that God would discover to him What the (x) Quae foret Species latitans sub forma Panis Vini Pasc Radb de C. S. D. c. 14. Species was which lay hid under the form of Bread and Wine In which place according to the Romanists themselves Species must import the Natural substance of our Lord's Body and not the sensible Qualities only And I do not remember that Paschase who useth the word Species for the sensible Qualities of Bread doth any where intimate its substance to be destroyed I know in Berengarius his time it was taken for granted that he did But I am of opinion that this Notion was a refining upon the Doctrin of Paschase and the first Author in which I meet the word Species in the Popish sense is Algerus who disputing against Impanation saith (y) Quum in utero sumpserit Speciem vel formam cum substantia In altari vero Speciem vel formam Panis mutata non permanente substantia Alger de Sacr. l. 1. c. 6. That Christ doth not take on him the Species or Form of Bread in the Sacrament as He took the Species or Form of Flesh in the Virgin Womb For there he took the Species or Form together with the Substance but upon the Altar he assumes the Species or Form of Bread the substance not remaining but being changed I am confident the word Species was never used in the sense of the present Roman Church before the Eleventh Century and that not before the Disputes against Berengarius whose Adversaries were the first who advanced the Notion now currant I have the more largely insisted on these two Terms Veritas and Species in regard the Confutation of M. Boileau's Exposition of them doth effectually Rescue Ratram out of his hands and evince that there is no colour of Reason for him to claim the Authority of this Book for the support of Transubstantiation The other Terms remaining in Dispute I shall dispatch more briefly for in Truth I need only relate M. Boileau's Exposition of them to satisfie any Impartial Reader who is tollerably skilled in the Latin Tongue that the sense which he gives them is very unnatural and absurd I took notice elsewhere (z) Dissert Ch. IV. p. 73. how great Variety of Phrases are made use of in this little Tract to express what we call the outward Signs in the Sacrament and by which we understand as in Baptism the Substance of water so in the H. Eucharist the Substance of Bread and Wine But M. Boileau expounds them all of the sensible Qualities of the H. Elements without their Substance 1. The Adjective Visible which is sometimes joyned with Bread sometimes with Species sometimes with Creature Sacrament Food is by our Translatour so rendred as though it did signifie Apparent in opposition to Real The Visible Substance of Bread is by him made to imply so much of Bread as appears to the Eye viz. Figure and Colour The Visible Creature and Visible Sacrament is with him no more of them than falls under our Senses viz. the outward Appearance Now if this be the true Sense of the Word many passages of Ratram and other Authors are egregious Nonsense for Example S. Augustin (a) Citatus à Ratramno n. 78 79. calleth the Manna Visible Food and in a few lines after saith that in the Sacrament we now receive Visible Food which in the next Paragraph he calls the Visible Sacrament If by the Visible Food or Sacrament we must with the Romanists understand only (b) La Substance Visible cèst a dire ce qui paroist aux yeux de ce pain n. 40. Selonla creature visible et qui tombe soüs les sens n. 49. ce que le Sacrament a de visible n. 79. nourriture visible qui tombe sous les sens n. 78. so much as falleth under our senses viz. the sensible Qualities we must then understand by the Visible Food which the Fathers eat and understood Spiritually only the sensible Accidents of the Manna and believe that more than a million of persons for forty years together lived upon roundness whiteness and sweetness and other like Accidents of Manna Quod credat Judaeus Apella At this rate of expounding who knows but Ratram did with Basilides and Saturninus deny that Christ had true Flesh a Real Humane Body for he saith it was visible and palpable by which possibly he might mean that our Saviour's Body had only the Qualities which are proper to affect the Eye or the Touch without the natural Substance of a true Humane Body Should that old Heresie revive its Proselytes might as
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
take away their Spiritual filth XVIII Behold how in one and the same Element are seen two things contrary to each other a thing Corruptible giving Incorruption and a thing without Life giving Life It is manifest then that in the Font there is both somewhat which the bodily sense perceiveth which is therefore mutable and corruptible and somewhat which the Eye of Faith only beholds and therefore is neither Corruptible nor Mortal If you enquire what washes the outside it is the Element but if you consider what purgeth the inside it is a quickning power a Sanctifying power a power conferring Immortality So then in its own nature it is a Corruptible Liquor but in the Mystery 't is a Healing Power XIX Thus also the Body and Blood of Christ considered as to the outside only is a creature subject to change and Corruption But if you ponder the efficacy of the Mystery it is Life conferring Immortality on such as partake thereof Therefore they are not the same things which are seen and which are believed For the things seen feed a Corruptible Body being corruptible themselves But those which are believed feed immortal Souls being themselves immortal XX. The Apostle also writing to the Corinthians saith * 1 Cor. 10.2 3. Know ye not This is further illustrated by the Baptism of the Fathers in the Sea and Cloud and by the Manna and Spiritual Rock which afforded Meat and Drink to the Fathers how that all our Fathers were under the Cloud and all passed through the Sea and were all Baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea and did all eat the same Spiritual Meat and did all Drink the same Spiritual Drirk for they drank of that Spiritual Rock that followed them And that Rock was Christ We see both the Sea and the Cloud bore a resemblance of Baptism and that the Fathers of the Old Testament were Baptized in them viz. the Cloud and the Sea. Now could the Sea as a visible Element have the power of Baptizing Or could the Cloud as a condensation of the Air Sanctifie the People And yet we dare not say but that the Apostle who spake in Christ did truly affirm that our Fathers were Baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea. XXI And although that Baptism was not the same with the Christian Baptism now Celebrated in the Church yet that it was Baptism and that our Fathers were therewith Baptized no Man in his Wits will deny None but a man that would presume expresly to contradict the Words of the Apostle Therefore the Sea and Cloud did sanctifie and cleanse not as they were meer bodily Substances but as they did invisibly contain the sanctifying Power of the Holy Ghost For there was in them both a visible Form appearing to the bodily Eyes not in Image but in Truth and also a spiritual Virtue shining within which was not discernable by the bodily Eyes but by those of the Mind XXII Likewise the Manna which was given the People from Heaven and the Water flowing out of the Rock were corporeal Substances and were both meat and Drink for the nourishment of the Peoples Bodies Nevertheless the Apostle calls even that Manna and that Water spiritual Meat and spiritual Drink Why so Because there was in those bodily Substances a spiritual Power of the Word which rather feed and gave Drink to the minds than the Bodies of the Faithful And whereas that Meat and Drink prefigured the future Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ which the Church now Celebrates St. Paul nevertheless affirms That our Fathers did eat the same Spiritual Meat and drank the same Spiritual Drink XXIII Perhaps you will ask In what sense the Fathers eat and drank the same spiritual Meat and Drink with us What same Even the very self-same Food which the Faithful now eat and drink in the Church Nor may we think them different since it is one and the same Christ who then in the Wilderness fed the People that were Baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea with his own Flesh and made them to drink his own Blood and who now in the Church feeds the Faithful with the Bread of his Body and makes them to drink the Liquor of his Blood. XXIV The Apostle intending to intimate thus much when he had said that our Fathers did eat the same Spiritual Meat and drank the same Spiritual Drink he adds And they all drank of that Spiritual Rock which followed them and that Rock was Christ To the end we might understand that in the Wilderness Christ was in the Spiritual Rock and gave the Liquor of his Blood to the People who afterwards * That is under the Gospel in our times exhibited his Body born of a Virgin and Crucified for the Salvation of such as believe out of which he shed streams of Blood whereof we are made to drink and not only redeemed therewith XXV Truly it is wonderful because it is incomprehensible and inestimable He had not yet assumed Man's Nature he had not yet tasted of Death for the Salvation of the World he had not yet redeemed us with his Blood whenas our Fathers in the Wilderness even then in their Spiritual Meat and Invisible Drink did eat his Body and drink his Blood as the Apostle testifies saying That our Fathers did eat the same spiritual Meat and drank of the same spiritual Drink Now we must not enquire how that could be but must believe that it was so For he who now in the Church doth by his Almighty Power spiritually change Bread and Wine into the Flesh of his own Body and the Liquor of his own Blood he also did invisibly make the Manna given from Heaven his own Body and the Water issuing from the Rock his own Blood. XXVI Which David understanding spake by the Holy Ghost saying (a) Psal 27.25 Man did eat Angels Food For it is ridiculous to imagine That the corporeal Manna given to the Fathers doth feed the Heavenly Host or that they use such Diet who are satiated with Feasting on the Divine Word The Psalmist or rather the Holy * Mat. 26.26 27 28. Luke 22.19 20. Ghost speaking of the Psalmist teacheth us both what our Fathers received in that Heavenly Manna and what the Faithful ought to believe in the Mystery of Christ's Body In both certainly Christ is signified who both feeds the Souls of the Faithful and is the Food of Angels And both he doth and is by a spiritual Relish not by becoming bodily Food but by virtue of the spiritual Word XXVII We are taught also by the Evangelist He argues from the Institution of this Sacrament before our Lord's Passion That our Lord Jesus Christ before he Suffered took Bread and when he had given Thanks he gave it to his Disciples saying This is my Body which is given for you do this in remembrance of me Likewise the Cup after he had supped saying This Cup is
the New Testament in my Blood which shall be shed for you You see Christ had not yet Suffered and yet nevertheless he celebrated the Mystery of his own Body and Blood. XXVIII For I am confident no Christian doubts but that Bread was made the Body of Christ which he gave to his Disciples saying This is my Body which is given for you or but the Cup contains the Blood of Christ of which he also saith This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which shall be shed for you Wherefore as a little before his Passion he could change the Substance of Bread and the Creature of Wine into his own Body which was to Suffer and his own Blood which was to be shed so also could he in the Wilderness change Manna and Water out of the Rock into his Body and Blood though it were a long time after ere that Body was to be Crucified for us or that Blood to be shed to wash us XXIX Here also we ought to consider how those Words of our Saviour are to be understood He expounds Joh. 6.53 wherein he saith * John 6.53 Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you have not Life in you For he doth not say that his Flesh which hung on the Cross should be cut in pieces and eaten by his Disciples or that his Blood which he was to shed for the Redemption of the World should be given his Disciples to drink For it had been a Crime for his Disciples to have eaten his Flesh and drunk his Blood in the sense that the unbelieving Jews then understood him XXX Wherefore in the following words he saith to his Disciples who did not disbelieve that Saying of Christ though they did not yet penetrate the true Meaning of it * John 6.53 Doth this offend you What if ye shall see the Son of Man ascending up where he was before As though he should say Think not that you must eat my Flesh and drink my Blood corporally divided into small pieces for when after my Resurrection you shall see me ascend into the Heavens with my Body entire and all my Blood Then you shall understand that the Faithful must eat †John 6.69 my Flesh not in the manner which these Unbelievers imagine but that indeed Believers must receive it Bread and Wine being mystically turned into the substance of my Body and Blood. XXXI And after * John. 6.66 It 's the Spirit saith he that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing He saith The Flesh profiteth nothing taken as those Infidels understood him but otherwise it giveth Life as it is taken mystically by the Faithful And why so He himself shews when he saith It is the Spirit that quickneth Therefore in this Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ there is a spiritual Operation which giveth Life without which Operation the Mysteries profit nothing because they may indeed feed the Body but cannot feed the Soul. XXXII Now there ariseth a Question moved by many who say that these things are done not in a Figure but in Truth but in so saying they plainly contradict the Writings of the Fathers XXXIII St. Augustine St. Augustine quoted an eminent Doctor of the Church in his Third Book De Doctrina Christiana writes thus Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man saith our Saviour and drink his Blood you shall not have Life in you He seems to command a flagitious Crime Therefore the Words are a FIGURE requiring us to communicate in our Lord's Passion and faithfully * In the printed Edition of St. Augustine and Bertram we read sweetly and profitably to lay up to lay up this in our Memory that his Flesh was Crucified and Wounded for us XXXIV We see this Doctor saith that the Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood is celebrated by the Faithful under a FIGURE For he saith To receive his Flesh and Blood carnally is not an Act of Religion but of Villany For which Cause they in the Gospel who took our Saviour's Words not Spiritually but Carnally departed from him and followed him no more XXXV Likewise in his Epistle to Boniface a Bishop among other things he saith thus We often speak in this manner when Easter is near we say to Morrow or the next day is the Lord's Passion although he Suffered many Years since and Suffered but once Likewise we say on the Lord's Day This day our Lord rose again when yet so many years are passed since he rose again Why is no Man so foolish as to charge us with Lying when we speak thus But because we call these Days after the likeness of those Days in which these things were really done So that the Day is called such a Day which in truth is not that very Day but only like it in Revolution of Time and by reason of the Celebration of the Sacrament that is said to be done this Day which was not done this very Day but in Old Times Was not Christ offered up once only in his own Person and yet in the Sacrament he is offered for the People not only every Easter but every Day Nor doth that Man tell a Lye who being asked shall answer that he is offered For if Sacraments had not some Resemblance of those things of which they are the Sacraments they would not be Sacraments at all And from that Resemblance they commonly take the Names of the Things themselves Whereas the Sacrament of Christ's Body is in some sort the Body of Christ and the Sacrament of Christ's Blood is in some sort the Blood of Christ so the (a) The Sacrament of the Faith i. e. Baptism as appears by the following words in St. Austin in his 23. Epistle which is here cited Sacrament of the Faith is the Faith. XXXVI We see St. Augustine saith that Sacraments are one thing and the things of which they are the Sacraments are another thing Now the Body in which Christ suffered and the Blood which issued out of his Side are Things but the Mysteries of these things he saith are Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ which are celebrated in Remembrance of our Lord's Passion not only every Year at the great Solemnity of Easter but every day of the Year XXXVII And whereas there was but one Body of the Lord in which he suffered once and one Blood which was shed for the Salvation of the World yet the Sacraments of these have assumed the Names of the very things so that they are called the Body and Blood of Christ And yet are so called by reason of the Resemblance they bear to the things which they signifie As they stile these respective Days which are annually celebrated the Passion and Resurrection of our Lord whereas in truth he suffered and rose again but once in his own Person nor can the very Days return any more being long since past Nevertheless the Days in which the Memory of
and that (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore not in verity of Nature in spiritual Mystery they are truly Christs Body and Blood that is Sacramentally or in Signification Again he Illustrates the matter by comparing the change made by Consecration in the Eucharist with a twofold change made in Baptism neither of which is a substantial change 1 (c) Fol. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Inwardly changed With the change made in the Person Baptised who is inwardly changed not in Nature or Substance either of Soul or Body but morally 2 (d) gelice on hiÆ¿oðrum Æ¿aeterum i. e. Common Water a corruptible Liquor So the Eucharist With the change wrought in the Baptismal Water whose Substance as well as the sensible Accidents is confessed to remain and which by Consecration only acquires a Sanctifying Virtue And as he saith of the Water that in Verity of Nature it is a corruptible Liquor So (e) Hit is on gecynd brosniendlic hlaf and brosniendlic Æ¿in In Nature corruptible and therefore common Bread and Wine gesepenlican hiÆ¿e agenes gecyndes Fol. 34. which is of the same importance with Substantiae suae Species in Ratr. de Pred l. 2. p. 88. On gecynd is Substantialiter for so it is Translated by Aelfric where Bertram saith That Christ is neither Bread â—or a Vine Substantialiter n. 8. saith he of the Holy Eucharist it is in kind or nature Corruptible Bread and Wine distinguishing between the Invisible or Spiritual Virtue of it and the visible Species of its proper Nature This latter expression confounds the Popish Notion of Species conjoining the sensible Accidents with the Substance upon which Aelfric immediately addeth It is in kind or nature corruptible Bread and Wine but through the power of the Divine Word it is truly Christ's Body and Blood yet not corporally but spiritually The Saxon Word (f) gecynd signifying kind or nature cannot be perverted as the Latin Species is because though perhaps it may sometimes signifie the Natural Qualities of a thing yet it never signifies the Image or Resemblance of a thing and much less the sensible Qualities without their Subject Again he makes (g) Fol. 36. and Fol. 44. He bad them not to eat the Body ðe he mid befanten Æ¿aes in which he was apprehended but he meant the Holy Housel or Eucharist the Sacrament not to be Christ's Body wherein he Suffered nor his Blood shed on the Cross but to be his Body and Blood as the Manna and Rock in the Wilderness were And how is that (h) Fol. 40. Nas se stan lichamlice Crist ac he getacnode Crist. Not Corporally i. e. Not in Substance or truth of Nature Not Corporally Christ but it signified or was a Type of Christ Again reciting the words of our Saviour spoken to his Disciples Aelfric expounds THIS as signifying Bread which whoever doth cannot understand those words literally by the confession of our Adversaries (i) Etaþ Æ¿isne hlaf hit is min lichama This occurs twice in the Homily Fol. 28. and in Aelfrics latter Epistle Fol. 68. Eat THIS BREAD IT is my Body Which also Ratram in effect doth in those places which M. Boileau with little reason brags of for they make against him where he saith The Bread and Cup which is called and IS the Body and Blood of Christ For if Bread and the Cup be the Subject they cannot be affirmed to be the Body and Blood of our Saviour which was Born of the Virgin For Bread and Wine were not Born of the Virgin. Nor were they in rerum natura when our Saviour's Body was broken and his Blood shed for us on the Cross and consequently could not be that very Body And therefore of two absurd Opinions Transubstantiation seem'd a less absurdity than Consubstantiation and accordingly the Romanists being sensible of it rejected (k) Which appears to have been the Notion of Rupertus and others who held a Corporal Presence see the Preface to a Determination of Joan. Parisiensis Impanation and asserted a Miraculous Conversion whereby the substance of Bread is destroyed Now this Ratram in several places affirms viz. That Bread is Christ's Body but then teacheth us elsewhere in what sense he affirms it is so Figuratively it is so Spiritually which is the same The like also doth Aelfric with great Caution more than once adding nevertheless not so Corporally but Spiritually that is by a Figure In the same sense as the great City where our Lord was Crucified is said to be Spiritually called Sodom and Egypt Rev. 11.8 which all confess to be Figurative To this I shall add as a further evidence of our Saxon Ancestors belief that the Elements remain in their first substance that the Translator (l) Os þysum eorþlican Æ¿ine Mat. 26.29 of St. Matthew's Gospel calleth the Consecrated Wine Earthly Wine which was a voluntary Gloss to the use whereof the (m) De genimine vitis the Vulgar Latine gave him no Invitation and the same words are by Translators of the other Evangelists rendred literally The Fathers understand our Saviour to speak of the Consecrated Wine which this Translator would never have called Earthly Wine if he or the Saxon Church had believed it to be the Natural Blood of Christ or not believed the substance of Wine to remain after Consecration 4. Aelfric all along so expresseth himself that any Man may see he did not hold the Substance of Christ's Body and Blood to be in the Sacrament but only the Virtue and Efficacy thereof This is Ratram's express Doctrine and reflected on with displeasure by Paschase (n) Miror quid velint nunc quidam dicere non in re esse veritatem Carnis Christi vel Sanguinis sed in Sacramento Virtutem Carnis non Carnem virtutem Sanguinis non Sanguinem Figuram non Veritatem who professeth to wonder what some Persons meant who said that the Eucharist was not in reality Christ's true Flesh and Blood but Sacramentally the Virtue of his Flesh not Flesh the Virtue of Blood not Blood a Figure not the Truth Accordingly Aelfric when there is occasion to make an Antithesis of the Visible Sign to the Res Sacramenti doth not oppose an Invisible Substance or a Spiritual Body to the Visible Sacrament but only an Invisible Power or Virtue As in Baptism the Sanctifying Virtue to the Corruptible Liquor So in the Lord's Supper he opposeth a Spiritual Virtue to the Sensible Object which he calls a Corruptible Creature adding that there is a vast difference between the Invisible Virtue of the Holy Eucharist and the Visible shape of its proper Nature And speaking of some Mens receiving a bigger piece of the Consecrated Bread and others a less he saith the (o) Ac hit biþ ðeah phpaeder aeften gast lure miht on aelcum daele eall Fol. 36. whole Virtue not Substance of Christ's Body is as much in the one as the other and the Virtue being entire
able to resolve us I shall only add That had our Saxon Ancestors believed the Housel to be Christ's Natural and true Flesh it is incredible that their Canons should enjoyn fresh Consecrations every Week or Fortnight at longest to prevent such Accidents and that if (c) Canones sub Edgaro apud Spelman Concil Tom. I. vide Canon 38. p. gif hit forheaden sy þat his man brucan ne maege þonne sorbaern hit man on claenum fire I know the Roman Missal in some cases injoyns Burning but not till the Species be wholly corrupted when in the Judgment of the Schoolmen Christ's Body and Blood are retired the Housel grew stale and nauseous it should be burnt in a clear Fire and the Ashes buried under the Altar I say it is incredible that they should order it to be burnt if they believed it the very Body of our Saviour I shall trouble the Reader with nothing further till I come to shew how absurdly Mr. Boileau in his Remarks senseth some terms of Ratram whose true meaning the Saxon words used as equivalent in this Homily will very much illustrate III. My third Reason to shew that Mr. Boileau hath not given us a true account of the Sentiments and Design of Ratram is because his Arguments prove a great deal more than that there is a Figure in the Sacrament or that the Accidents are not the Sensible Truth of Christ's Body The very first Inference he makes is this (d) Claret quia Panis ille Vinumque FIGURATE Christi Corpus Sanguis EXISTIT n. 10. Hence it is evident that this Bread and Wine are Figuratively Christ's Body and Blood which is a great deal more than that there is a Figure in the Sacrament 1. He saith positively that this Bread and this Wine not the Sensible Qualities of them are Christ's Body and Blood. 2. He saith they are Figuratively not simply and in propriety of Nature Christ's Body and Blood. These words Mr. Boileau hath fraudulently Translated IN A FIGURE Again When he hath proved that there is no Physical change upon Consecration neither Generation nor Corruption nor Alteration he thence infers (e) Necesse est jam ut FIGURATE facta esse dicatur scil commutatio n. 16. that of necessity it must be Figuratively changed which is somewhat more than Mr. Boileau will acknowledge to have been in dispute between him and his Adversaries For it determines the Nature of the change to be Figurative and if so the Elements are not Substantially turned into Christ's Body and Blood as the Church of Rome hath defined That a Figurative change infers no Substantial change in Ratram's Judgment we may observe in his Explication of the words Figure and Verity where having said that Christ was by a Figure called Bread and a Vine he tells us however (f) Nam SUBSTANTIALITER nec Panis Christus nec Vitis Christus nec Palmites Apostoli Quapropter hic FIGURA n. 8. that Christ is not Substantially either Bread or a Vine c. And this is in express Terms the Heresie which Chifflet's Anonymous Writer chargeth Berengarius with advancing contrary to the Catholick Faith. He tells us (g) Asserens Panem Vinum in Sacrificio Domini non VERE ESSENTIALITER sed FIGURATE tantum CONVERTI in Corpus Sanguinem Dominicum Concil To. IX col 1050. Edit Labbei that Berengarius taught that the Consecrated Bread and Wine was not Truly and Essentially but only in a Figurative manner turned into Christ's Body and Blood. This Author is said to have written A. D. 1088. in which year Berengarius died and if he misrepresent not his Sentiments and understood what was then esteemed the Catholick Faith we have great reason to believe that had Bertram stood a Trial before the same Judges with Berengarius he would have fallen under the same Condemnation Mr. Boileau hopes to excuse him from asserting in the forementioned Expression that which he takes to be the Doctrine of Berengarius and the Reformed Churches by this shift Saith he (h) Remarks p. 219. II ne dit pas qu'ils sont seulement en Figure le Corpus de J. C. Ratram doth not teach that the Holy Eucharist is ONLY IN A FIGURE Christ's Body But this will not serve the turn For 1. If he intend by adding the word ONLY to make the Asserters of a Figurative change to exclude any Spiritual Efficacy or Grace annexed to this Sacrament and to own no more than empty Signs he grossly abuseth the Reformed Religion as may be seen by our Confessions No sober Protestant ever affirmed it nor did Berengarius who with Ratram owned a Divine Virtue therein conferring Grace (i) Sacramentum quidem transitorium est Virtus vero quae per ipsum operatur Gratia quae insinuatur aeterna Bereng in Ep. ad Ricardum Conc. Tom. XI col 1062. Which words with those that follow are ascribed to Paschase in the Bibl. Patrum Edit Par. 1610. Tom. VI. col 296. the order of the Sentences differs but the words are the same The Sacrament saith he is Transitory but the Virtue that worketh thereby and the Grace conferred is eternal Yet this Declaration did not satisfie the Councils of the XI Century nor did it please Paschase as hath been shewn and the Council of (k) Sed dixerit tantummodo esse in eo ut in Signo vel Figura aut Virtute Anathema sit Conc. Trid. Sess XIII Can. I. Trent hath Anathematized all such as acknowledge not Christ personally present in the Sacrament but only in Sign in Figure or Virtue 2. Ratram doth in effect say That the Consecrated Elements are ONLY in Figure and Virtue Christ's Body and Blood because he denies them to be Corporally or in Nature changed or to be Christ's Body born of the Virgin c. and affirms them to be the Figures Pledges Images Sacraments of Christs true and natural Flesh and Blood which are indeed more express Exclusives than the Conjunction ONLY I shall not here call Mr. Boileau to an account for his sly and fraudulent Translation of the word (l) En Figure instead of en maniere Figurative or par une Figure n. Figurate in a Figure in stead of by a Figure to insinuate that Ratram held Christ's natural Body to be invisibly under the Forms or remaining Accidents of Bread and Wine but remember him of it in another place Again The Parallel which Ratram makes between the Holy Eucharist and Baptism manifestly shews his intention to prove somewhat more than barely that there is a Figure in the Sacrament For the Analogy between the two Sacraments lieth in this as Material Water in Baptism without any Physical change hath through the Blessing annexed to that Institution by our Saviour a Spiritual Efficacy and Sanctifying Virtue which worketh a real effect on the Soul which resembleth the cleansing effect of common Water So in the Holy Eucharist Material Bread and Wine do by the same means obtain
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
Water or Oil or an Ordinary House without denying Water Oyl or the Building to exist my longer And in this sense (p) Cyril Catech. Mystag 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. St. Cyril of Jerusalem saith As the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are not meer or common Bread and Wine so after the Invocation of the Holy Ghost the Chrism is not common Oyl And in like manner Catech. 1. He compares the Sacramental Bread and Wine with Meats offered to Idols teaching That as the former by the Invocation of the Holy Trinity of common Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Christ so the Meats offered to Idols are in their nature common Meat i. e. Lawful but by Invocation of Devils they are rendred profane or unlawful Which infers no destruction of the Old Substance but only the introducing of a new Quality or relation to the impure Daemons which rendred the Meat prophane or unclean So that to be made what a thing was not before infers not necessarily that it ceaseth to be what it was before it is sufficient that it receiveth some new perfection or additional Dignity Again N. LVI Intellige quod (q) Les choses qui y tombent sous le sens ne sont pas le Corps le sang de J. C. dans leur espece ou apparence visible mais qu'ils y sont par la Vertu du Verbe non in Specie sed in Virtute Corpus Sanguis Christi existant quae cernuntur Know assuredly that the things which fall under the Senses are not Christs Body and Blood in their Species or Visible Appearance but that they viz. Christs Body and Blood are there by the Vertue of the Word Ratram saith That the Visible Elements are Christ's Body and Blood not in Nature but in Virtue which is a distinction understood by every Freshman but Mr. Boileau makes him to say That which destroyeth the Antithesis which insinuates an unheard of distinction of Appearance and Virtue and which is not a proper Answer to the Objection started upon the Authority of St. Ambrose Mark you say Ratram's Adversaries This Father teacheth (r) Hic jam surgit Auditor dicit Corpus Christi esse quod cernitur Sanguinem qui bibitur c. that what is seen on the Lords Table and orally received is the Body and Blood of Christ To this Ratram answers by a distinction and sheweth in what sense the Holy Elements are Christ's Body and Blood and in what sense they are not so viz. In their Species or Nature they are not Christ's Body and Blood but in their Virtue and Efficacy It was not his business to affirm the presence of Christs Body and Blood but to give an account in what sense St. Ambrose affirmed the Consecrated Elements to be Christs Body and Blood. Again N. LXXVII (s) Car si ce Corps est celuy de J.C. s' il est ainsi appellè veritablement parce qu'il est le Corps du J. C. il est le Corps de J. C. dans la Verite c'est a dire de la maniere dont il se comporte dont il paroist a nos yeux c. Si enim Corpus Christi est hoc dicitur vere quia Corpus Christi est in Veritate Corpus Christi est si in veritate Corpus Christi est c. If this Body which is celebrated in the Church be Christ's and it be so called truly because it is the Body of Christ then it is the Body of Christ in Truth that is as it sheweth it self to the Eye if so c. It was cunningly done to make Non-sense of an Argument which truly translated would have quite spoiled the whole design of M. Boileau's Version and Remarks He could not be ignorant that dicitur vere quia c. ought to have been rendred if it be truly i. e. properly affirmed that it is Christ's Body And that he argueth that it is not in propriety of Speech affirmed to be Christ's Body because it is not so in Truth of Nature in regard Christ's Natural Body is Incorruptible Impassible and Eternal whereas the Sacrament is undeniably corrupted being broken in pieces chewed small by the Teeth digested and turned into the Substance of the Receivers Body But to trouble my self and the Reader with no more particulars of his false dealings I shall give you an entire Paragraph exactly translated from his French which I desire may be compared with the Authors Latin. N. LVII Quam diligenter quam prudenter facta distinctio De carne Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepulta est id est secundum (t) C'est a dire dans l'apparence sensible de la quelle J. C. a eie crucifie enseveli quam Christus crucifixus est sepultus ait Vera itaque Caro Christi de illa quae sumitur in Sacramento Vere ergo carnis illius Sacramentum est Distinguens Sacramentum Carnis a Veritate Carnis Quatenus in Veritate Carnis quam sumpserat de Virgine diceret eum crucifixum sepultum quod vero nunc agitur in Ecclesia Mysterium verae illius carnis in qua crucifixus est diceret esse Sacramentum Patenter Fideles instituens quod illa Caro secundum quam crucifixus est Christus Sepultus non sit Mysterium sed Veritas Naturae haec vero Caro quae nunc similitudinem illius in Mysterio continet non fit Specie Caro sed Sacramento Siquidem in Specie Panis est in Sacramento verum Christi Corpus sicut ipse clamat Dominus Jesus Hoc est Corpus meum Now observe with what prudence St. Ambrose establisheth this distinction He saith of the Flesh which was crucified and buried that is according to which Christ was crucified and buried (t) C'est a dire dans l'apparence sensible de la quelle J. C. a eie crucifie enseveli that is to say in the sensible appearance whereof Jesus Christ was crucified and buried It is the True Flesh of Jesus Christ But of that receivd in the Sacrament he saith it is truly the Sacrament of that Flesh distinguishing of his Flesh from the Sensible Verity of his Flesh meaning that according to the Sensible Verity of his Flesh Christ was crucified and buried and that the Mystery celebrated in the Church is the Sacrament of that True and Sensible Flesh in which he was crucified And thereby plainly teaching the Faithful that this Sensible in and according to which Christ was Crucified and Buried is no Mystery but the (u) Mais la verite de la nature avec toutes ses dimensions au lieu que cette chair qui en contient l'Image dans le Myst cre n' est pas la chair selon l'apparence selon ce qui tombe sous le sens mais dans le Sacrament Puis que selon les apparences sensibles ce que
Appearance In other Authors it implieth the Creature also the kind or sort of Creatures in conformity to the use of the word in the Roman Laws or the Natural Substance Gaudentius (p) Recte etiam Vini Specie tum sanguis ejus exprimitur quia cum ipse in Evangelio dicit Ego sum Vitis Vera satis declarat sanguinem suum esse omne Vinum quod in Figura Passionis ejus offertur Gaudent Brix ad Neophyl Serm. 2. Bibl. Pat. tom 2. Edit Par. 1610. saith Likewise is our Saviour's Blood fitly set forth by the Species or Creature of Wine because that he himself in his Gospel by saying I am the true Vine doth sufficiently declare that all the Wine which is offered in the Figure or Sacrament of his Passion is his Blood. Here Species Vini and Vinum are the same and signifie the Natural substance of Wine and not the meer Appearances and sensible Qualities thereof Salvian (q) Speciem servantes naturam relinquentes lib. 1. de Gub. useth the word Species for the Natural Substance of Water in the place already produced upon another occasion Isidore of Sevil saith (r) Post Speciem Maris Terrae formata duo Luminaria magna legis Isid Hisp de Ordine Creat c. 5. After the Species of Sea and Earth you read that two great Luminaries were Created Species there signifieth the Creatures of Sea and Earth What St. Austin (Å¿) Aug. Serm. ad Infantes apud Fulgent de Bapt. Aethiopis meant by the Visible Species in the Sacrament which he opposeth to the Spiritual Fruit in a Passage cited and expounded by Bertram who addeth that the Visible Species feedeth the Body may be best learn'd from himself in the same Sermon where he hath these words (t) Sicut enim ut sit Species Visibilis panis multa grana in unum consperguntur tanquam illud fiat quod de Fidelibus ait Scriptura Sancta Erat illis anima Cor unum in Deum Sic de vino fratres recolite unde sit unum Grana multa pendent ad botrum sed liquor granorum in unitate confunditur Ita Dominus Jesus Christus NOS significavit NOS ad SE pertinere voluit Mysterium Pacis Vnitatis nostrae in sua mensa consecravit As to the making the Visible Species of Bread many Grains of Corn are moulded into one Mass as it is said of the Faithful in the Holy Scripture that they had one Soul and one Heart so my Brethren consider how the Wine is made one Body Many Grapes hang on the Bunch but the Juice of those Grapes is pressed together into one Body of Liquor Thus our Lord Jesus Christ hath signified US viz. the Body of Believers and would that we should belong to him that is as Members of the Mystical Body whereof he is Head and hath consecrated the Mystery of our Peace and Unity on his own Table There are several things to be Remarked from this Passage 1. That he saith the visible species of Bread is made up of many Corns moulded together and made up into one Lump Now this cannot be said of the Accidents but of the Substance of Bread made up into one Loaf before Consecration For in another place (u) Quod cum per manus hominum ad illam Visibilem Speciem perducitur non Sanctificatur ut sit tam magnum Sacramentum c. de Trin. l. 3. c. 4. he useth the same Expression with relation to Vnconsecrated Bread Which saith he after it is by the hands of Men brought to that Visible Species is not Sanctified and made so great a Sacrament but by the Invisible Operation of God's Spirit 2. When he comes to speak of the Sacramental Wine he doth not call it the Visible Species of Wine but simply Wine which is an Argument that by the visible Species of Bread he meant real Bread. 3. St. Austin makes the visible Species of Bread to be a Figure of the Unity of the Faithful among themselves as also of their Union with Christ their Head. Now the meer Appearances of Bread and Wine have no resemblance of many Members compacted into one Body the Figure Colour or Taste of the Consecrated Elements suggest not the least hint of the Union of the several Members of Christ's Mystical Body whereas their Natural Substances are very apt and lively Representations thereof 4. Bertram (w) N. 94. Exterius quod videtur speciem habet corpoream quae pascit corpus expounding St. Austin ascribeth an effect to the Corporeal Species which cannot be wrought by the Sensible Appearances severed from their Subject he saith They feed the Body which is Nourished only by substantial Food digested and turned into its own Substance Now how meer Accidents can be converted into Chyle and Blood and become substantial Flesh is inconceivable whereas how this may be effected by true Bread and Wine it is very easie to apprehend Caesarius (x) Etiam in hoc ipso quod innumerosis tritici granis confici novimus unitatem constat assignari populorum Sic enim frumentum solita purgantis solicitudine praeparatum in candidam Speciem molarum labore perficitur ac per aquam ignem in unius panis Substantiam congregatur Sic variae gentes diversaeque nationes in unam fidem convenientes unum de se Christi Corpus efficiunt Caesar Arel Hom. 7. de Pasch in Bibl. Patr. Tom. 2. Par. 1610. Bishop of Arles hath a Passage very like this of St. Austin Also in that the Bread is made of innumerable Grains of Wheat its certain that it signifieth the Unity of the People For thus Wheat carefully made clean and prepared is by the Mill brought to a white Species and by Water and Fire united into the substance of one Loaf Thus also various People and divers Nations agreeing in one Faith make up of themselves one Body of Christ Doubtless the Species spoken of by this Father is not the bare Appearance but the Substance of Meal And before where he speaks of the (y) In eadem Homilia Species of Manna he must be understood of the thing it self It is evident that Walafridus Strabo had this place of St. Austin in his eye when having said (z) Post Paschae Veteris solemnia Corporis Sanguinis sui SACRAMENTA in Panis Vini SVBSTANTIA eisdem Discipulis Tradidit Nihil ergo Congruentius his SPECIEBVS ad significandam Capitis atque Membrorum unitatem potuit inveniri Quia videlicet sicut Panis de multis Granis aquae coagulo in unum corpus redigitur Vinum ex multis acinis exprimitur Sic Corpus Christi ex multitudine sanctorum coadunata completur de â—eb Eccles cap. 16. That after the Solemnity of the Old Passeover our Saviour delivered to the same Disciples the SACRAMENT of his Body and Blood in the SVBSTANCE of Bread and Wine and taught them to Celebrate it in remembrance of
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