BERTRAM OR RATRAM Concerning the BODY and BLOOD OF THE LORD, In LATIN; With a New English Translation.  
To which is Prefixed, An Historical Dissertation touching the Author and this Work.  
The Second Edition Corrected, and Enlarged with an APPENDIX: WHEREIN Monsieur Boileau's French Version, and Notes upon BERTRAM are Considered, and his Unfair Deal in both Detected.  
LONDON, Printed by H. Clark, for Thomas Boomer, at the Chirurgeons-Arms in Fleetstreet, near Temple-Bar, 1688.   

Imprimatur,  
Liber Ratramni de Corpore & Sanguine Domini cum Versione Anglica & Praefatione secundum hoc Exemplar ab Interprete recognitum cum Appendice.  
Oct. 6. 1687. H. Maurice, Rmo. in Christa P. D. Willielmo Archiepiscopo Cant. a Sacris.   

Amplissimo Viro,  
Generis, Eruditions & Virtutis  
Omnigenae Ornamentis  
Praenobili,  
HENRICO COVENTRY  
Armigero,  
Serenissimo Regi JACOBO II.  
uti pridem  
Fratri Charissimo CAROLO II.  
A Privatis Consiliis:  
Cui etiam Optimo Principi  
Ob Fidem Patri & Sibi, nec non  
S. Matri Ecclesiae Anglicanae,  
In adversis fortiter servatam,  
Ob munera in S. Palatio honorifica  
Egregie defuncta.  
Ob res arduas variis apud exteros  
Legationibus  
Summa Fidelitate, Singulari Prudentia,  
Parique felicitate  
Gestas  
Apprime Charus extitit  
Secretariusque Primicerius;  
Hoc Opusculum  
Ratramni Corbeiensis  
De S. Eucharistia,  
Fidei Veteris Ecclesiae Gallicanae  
Testis luculenti,  
Nec non  
Nostrae vere Catholicae Anglicanae  
Vindicis Eximii,  
una cum Versione Vernacula  
& Dissertatione praemissa  
In Testimonium  
Obsequii & Gratitudinis  
LMQDDDCQ,  
WHSAEPR,  
Editor.   

THE PREFACE.  
IT is now seven Years and more, since I first read over this little Piece of Bertram in Latin, and the Satisfaction I had to see so Learned a Writer expressly confute the Error of Transubstantiation, at its first rise in the Western Church, invited me to a second and third Reading, and the Book not being very common, I entertained thoughts of Reprinting it, both in Latin and English; for remembering where I had seen an English Bertram, Published by Sir Humphrey Lynd, A. D. 1623. I promised myself, that Publishing it in English, would add but little to my trouble, not suspecting that a Translation published by that Learned Gentleman, could have been other than accurate. I therefore got together as many various Editions of the Book as I could, and sent for the English Version, upon sight of which I saw myself disappointed. For there are some Mistakes in rendering the Latin words, two of which may be seen in the Preface. For Instance, catholic Sapere, is Translated to be universally Wise, which should have been rendered to be Orthodox, or Catholic in his Judgement; and again, Non aequanimiter ista perpendens is rendered (though perhaps not quietly and indifferently considering of these things) instead of sadly laying to heart these things, [viz. the Schism on occasion of the new Doctrine of Transubstantiation.] And several other slips of that kind, I observed, which made me guests the Translation could not be the work of the worthy Knight, who recommended it to the Public. But had this been all, a little time and pains might have rectified those Mistakes. That which rendered the Translation unserviceable to me, was the perplexity of the style, through unnecessary Parentheses, and the multiplying of Synonimous words, and in some places by rendering the Author too much word for word, so that it doth not give the Reader a clear apprehension of the Author's sense. And to justify this charge, I need only refer the Reader to the ninth and tenth Pages of the new Impression of Bertram, where he proves that Consecration makes no Physical change in the Bread and Wine; but as he is there Translated, his reasoning is hardly intelligible.  
Yet, I accuse not the Translator of unfaithfulness, but freely acknowledge, that had his skill been equal to his Fidelity, I would have used his Version, and saved myself the trouble of a new one, which I made and transcribed in Septem. 1681.  
Having finished my Translation, I proceeded to collect materials for the Dissertation I intended, which I cast into lose Papers, and desiring a Learned Friend to assist me, with what he knew on that Subject, he put into my hands an Edition I had not before met with, in French and Latin, with a Learned Advertisement prefixed, in which I found the Work designed by me, was already very well performed, so that my Labour might be spared. Thus I laid aside my Papers, and all thoughts of making them public, till about two Months since, and then resumed them, upon the request of some worthy Friends, who judged it necessary, since the Reprinting of the former Translation. Besides, the faults of the Translator, in the new Impression there are great ones committed by the Printer, in the Technical words of the Discourse, particularly in the beginning of the Eleventh Page, he hath printed Verity instead of Variety. At the desire of those Gentlemen I resolved to Review and Print my Translation with the Author's Text, that the Reader might have it in his Power, to judge of my Fidelity therein. And though I see no reason to be proud of my performance, yet I persuade myself this Book will be somewhat more useful, than that which now goes abroad.  
In the Dissertation prefixed, I have Collected all the little Historical Passages I have met with any where, touching our Author and his Works, and perhaps the Reader may think, I insist too long upon some matters of no great moment. But in regard Ratramnus was an extraordinary Man, and no Body, that I know, hath in our Language, given any considerable account of him, and his Writings, I thought it would not be altogether unacceptable to the Reader.  
Though the French Advertisement be exceedingly well done, yet I have had great helps, for the clearing the Antiquity and Authority of that Tract, which the Author of that Advertisement wanted. To mention no other, the most Learned and Ingenuous Father Mabillon (to whom I acknowledge myself obliged for my best Informations) had not then published the Acts of the Benedictines of the IX Century, in which our Author lived. What I design in my Dissertation, the Contents of each Chapter will inform the Reader.  
I shall only add, that my design is not to engage in the Controversy of Transubstantiation, which is so completely handled, and clearly discussed, by the Learned and Reverend Author, of a small Discourse against it, that it is wholly needless for me, or any one else, to write further on that Argument. All I intent, is with Fidelity to relate what I have upon diligent search been able to Collect touching the Author and Work which I Publish, and I hope I have said what may prevail with all Impartial Judges, to admit our Author for a competent Witness of the belief of the Church in his Age, touching Christ's Presence in the Holy Sacrament.   

THE CONTENTS.  

Chap. I. AN Historical Account of the Author and his Writings.  
Chap. II. Of his Treatise concerning Christ's Body and Blood, and the Author cleared of Heresy, and the other Accusations of F. Cellot.  
Chap. III. That this Book is neither wholly forged, nor yet depraved, that Ratramnus is its true Author, and not Joannes Scotus Erigena.  
Chap. IU. Of the true sense of the Author in some controverted Expressions.  
Chap. V That this Treatise expressly confutes the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and is very agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of England.  
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 Judgement with him in this Point.    


CHAP. I. Of the Author's Name, Country and Profession; of his Eminent Learning: With an account of his Works.  
IN regard the Author of this Treatise hath first appeared in Print under the mistaken Name of Bertram, and by that Name is best known even to this day, I conceive it may not be amiss, to see what he is called in the Titles of his own Works, and in the Writings of other Authors, especially those of his own Time.  

(a) Seru. Lupus, Ep. 79.  Servatus Lupus writes to him by the Name of Rotrannus, whom 
(b) Baluz. in notis ad Lupum. Ad Rotrannum Monachum] Corbeiensem.  Baluzius doubts not to have been our Author, and it may be probably collected from the subject of that Epistle. Others call him Ratramus, so his Name appears to have been written by Sigebertus Gemblacensis, from the two Manuscripts mentioned by 
(c) Ad cap. 96. Sigeberti, inter Illustr. Eccl. Scriptores ed. 88 Colon. 1580.  Suffridus Petrus in his Notes upon him. 
(d) Flodoardi Hist. Remens'. l. 3. c. 15. & 28.  Flodoardus, who flourished about an 100 years after our Author, calleth him Ratrannus, but in the Inscriptions of his other Works, some of which I have seen in Manuscript, as also that of this Tract, 
(e) Mabillon Praefat. ad. Acta Bened. secul. 4. p. 2. cap. 1. n. 43.  found by F. Mabillon in the Abbey of Lobez, he is called Ratramnus, so in the 
(f) Ibidem, scribitur Ratranni super posita communi nota literae M vel N unde orta videtur lectio Ratranni.  Catalogue of that Library taken A. D. 1049. as also by 
(g) Hincmarus de Praed. c. 5. & de non trina Deitate.  Hincmarus' Archbishop of Rheims, and 
(h) In Epistola Metrica edita per Cellotium. Append. Opusc. II. Amico fer ovans Ratramno.  Gotteschalcus, both contemporary with him, and by the Anonymous Writer published by 
(i) Hist. Gotteschalci Praedest.  F. Cellot, who is now discovered to be 
(k) Mabillon Praef. ad Acta Ben. secul. 4. p. 2. c. 1. n. 47, 48, 49. ex MS. Gemblac.  Herigerus Abbot of Lobez, who flourished in the end of the Tenth Century, and died in the Year, 1007.  
His true Name was doubtless Ratramnus, which came afterwards to be changed into Bertramus by the error of some Transcriber of Sigebertus, who mistook, as he easily might, the 
(a) The like mistake hath sometimes happened in other Names, as Babanus for Rabanus, in two MSS. of Cellots Anonymous Writer in the Library of St Victor in Paris, when in the preceding Page they call Rabanus; Dissert. sur Jean Scot, Art 2. p. 6. at the end Mr. Arnaud's Defence, in quarto, 1669.  R in his Copy for a B, the letters being not much unlike, and Trithemius, using a Copy of Sigebert so written, hath propagated the mistake, which though of no great moment, yet aught to be rectified, and our Author be called by his true Name.  
Ratramnus was in all probability a Frenchman, and of the Province of Picardy, wherein he became a Monk. He was Educated in the Monastery of Corbey, not New Corbey upon the Weser in Saxony, but the Old Corbey, in the Diocese of Amiens, Founded by Batildis, Wife to Clodovaeus the Second King of France, in the Year 665. This was a very Eminent Monastery of Benedictins, in which the 
(b) Quia in Corbeia Monasterio laudabilis eo tempore Religio Monachorum habebatur. Acta Bened. sec. 4. p. 1. In translat. Viti, c. 5.  Discipline of that Order was strictly kept up, in the Ninth Century, when the Monks elsewhere grew very remiss, and it was 
(c) Mabillonius Corbeiam vocat Celebrem Academiam in Act. Ben. sec. 4. p. 2. In Elogio Historico Joanis Aethelingiensis, c. 5.  a famous Academy, or Seminary of Learned, as well as Religious Men.  
In this Cloister our Author was so happy a Proficient in the Study of Divinity, that he was esteemed well qualified for the Holy Order of Priesthood, and accordingly received it. And after the Death of Bavo, the same Ratramnus, as it is thought, was by Carolus Calvus promoted to the Government of the Monastery of 
(d) Flodoard. Hist. Rhem. l. 3. c. 28. ABP. Usher seems to doubt whether he were the same with our Author Hist. Gotesc. cap. 11. sub finem in margin. But Bishop Cousins Dr. Cave, and Albertinus doubt not but he was.  Orbais, in the Diocese of Soissons.  
Modern Writers, of both the Roman and Reformed Church, have been guilty of mistakes, touching the time wherein Bertram wrote this Book. Some place him in the very beginning of the IX. Century, and suppose this Tract to be written A. D. 800. or 806. or 810. So 
(a) Appar. Sac. T. 1. Betramus, Garetius circa Annum 806. Sir H. Lined in his Preface to Bertram.  Possevine and others. The manifest cause of their mistake, is the Inscription [To Charles the Great Emperor] which they take for the Author's Address to that Prince, and therefore conclude this Tract must needs be written before the Year 
(b) Lambecius in Orig. Hamb. tom. 2. in tab. Chronolog.  814. in which he died. But that 
(c) Act. Ben. sec 4. p. 2. Praef. c. 1. n. 129.  Inscription is not found in the MS. which F. Mabillon met with in the Abbey of Lobez; nor can it be the Author's. For though Carolus Calvus may by some Flatterers be styled the Great, yet the addition of Emperor, will by no means permit us to believe it Genuine, for he was not Emperor till the Year 875. which was above 20 years after Ratramnus wrote this Book. So that what hath passed for the Inscription of the Book, is only the conceit of some late Transcriber.  
But as in the first Volume of his 〈…〉 Apparatus, 
(d) Possevin. Apar. sac. t. 2. Paschasius.  Possevine fixes our Author in the very beginning of the IX. Century, so forgetting himself in the second Volume, he errs as much on the other hand, and giving an account of the Works of Paschasius Radbertus, thrusts Bertram down into the latter end of that Age, and makes him to have written A. D. 886. under Carolus Crassus, and saith, that Paschasius confuted his error in a Book to Placidus. I presume the ground to this conceit was, that by this means, all objections against the Address to Charles the Great Emperor, seem to be solved, in regard of that Prince, his Surname Crassus or Grossus, which is in some sense Magnus, and he was at that time Emperor. But this is a mere fetch, which will not pass now as it might have done 80 or 100 years since, the Author and his time being now much better known.  
No doubt but as Lucas Dacherius tells us 
(e) Literis & fama floruisse Ratramnum Ludovici Pii & Caroli Calvi temporibus fidem faciunt quas protulit elucubrationes. Dacherius spic. t. 1. Lectori nu. 5  he lived in great reputation for Learning in the Reign of Ludovicus Pius, and Charles his Son, as may be easily gathered from the Books written by him on several occasions. His two Books of Predestination were written, as the Precedent 
(f) Mauguin. tom. 2. Disser. Hist. cap. 17.  Mauguin conjectures, A. D. 850. which was the next year after Goteschalcus was degraded and condemned in a Synod at Carisiac. And his Answer to the Objections of the Greeks, could not be well written before the Year 868. in regard the Gallican Prelates were engaged in the work not above two months before the Death of Pope Nicolaus the First, which happened in December, 867. So that presuming Ratramnus to have lived 60 years, his flourishing Time was from 840. to 870.] 
(g) Hincm. Rhem. Op. tom. 2. Opusc. LV. Capitul. cap. 1. tradito Hincmaro Laudun. in Synodo Attiniaci habita, A. D. 870.  Hincmarus in a Work published by him in the Year 870. mentions one Ratramnus Presbyter, than 90 years of Age, but I am apt to believe he was not our Author, for first he seems to have been a Secular Priest. And again, it is very unlikely so Learned a Man should not set up for a Writer till about 60 or 70 years of age, or that he should write so smartly as he doth against the Greek Emperors at 88  
That he was in great Esteem for Learning in his own Age, is past doubt. It is an argument of his known Abilities, that Charles the bald chose to consult him upon points of so great moment, as the Predestination Controversy, and that of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament, which appears by the Prefaces and Conclusions of his Work on both those Subjects. And though 
(a) Feuguer. Opusc. Lugd. Praefat. p. 9, 10. Quod altem ad Calvi Aulam attinet, nullo quod sciam docto uno ornata memoratur.  Feugueraeus in his Preface to Bertram, tells us, that Carolus Calvus had no Learned Men in his Court, as his Grandfather had, Alcuin, Claudius Clemens, and Joannes Scotus, its plain, that herein he is very much mistaken, as indeed he is almost in every thing he saith in that Preface. For Carolus Calvus was a great Patron of Learning and Learned Men: Joannes Scotus lived in his Court, and not in the Court of Charles the Great, and I verily believe that through the Ignorance of some Monk, who had read the Names of those Learned Men who were in favour with Charles the Great, thus recited, Alcuinum Flaccum, Claudium Scotum, or Claudium Clementem Scotum, etc. and mistook Scotum, whereby the Country of Claudius Clemens, who was an Irishman, is designed for the Name of a Man; Joannes Scotus Erigena hath been made a Domestic of Charles the Great, and those other senseless Stories, that he was a Scholar of 
(b) Vinc. Bellovac. Spec. Hist. l. 23. c. 173. apud Nat. Alex. de Jo. Scoto Erig. sec. 9 p. 2. diss. 14. Fueruntque Parisiis fundatores illius studii quatuor Monachi Bedae discipuli. Rabanus & Alcuinus, Claudius & Joannes Scotus.  V Bede, Companion of Alcuin, and an Assistant to him in Founding the University of Paris, have been raised. For Scotus is ordinarily mentioned next after this Claudius on this occasion. But the mistake seems ancient, as Berengarius by a MS. Epistle of his to Richardus, 
* Dacherii Spicil. t. 2. Concil. t. 9 col. 1062.  published by D'Achery, and from him by Labbe in the Councils. Besides Scotus, that King favoured other Learned Men, who have written upon several Arguments by his Command. In the matter of Predestination, he held two several Councils in his own Palace at Carisiac, in the first of which Goteschalcus was Condemned, and in the second the Doctrine of the Catholic Church was stated in four short Determinations, though not in all points according to the Sentiments of some of the most Learned Men in France. He consulted Scotus, 
(a) Vide Seru. Lupi, Ep. 128.  Servatus Lupus, and our Author. And 
(b) 
Denique sunt multi, Domino donante, Magistri  
Haec regione siti, ingenio l●c. plete periti,  
Vnde Palatina plerique morantur in Aula.  Vide Append. Cellotii, Opusc. II.  Goteschalcus, about whom all this Controversy arose in an Epistle to Ratramnus, saith, that there were many Learned Men then about his Court. And no question but he always consulted Men of eminent note. Ratramnus was also in good esteem with Odo, Successor to Paschasius in the Abbey of Corbey, and afterwards Bishop of Beauvais, to whom he dedicates his Book de Anima, and who in all probability nominated him as a fit Person to Answer the Objections of the Greeks against the Latin Church. Nay, F. Cellot acknowledgeth, 
Cellot. Hist. Gottes. l. 3. c. 7. sect. 2.  That Hincmarus himself had such an esteem of him, [long after his writing of the Sacrament and Predestination,] That whn at the desire of Pope Nicolaus I. he sought all France for Learned Men to write against the Greeks, he invited Ratramnus by Name to undertake that service. Nor had Hincmarus, Odo, and the other Gallican Prelates, a better opinion of his Abilities for that Work, than 
(a) Praefat. ad Act. Ben. secul. 4. p. 2. n. 161. Ratramnus vero li●ge plura & potiora prolatis exproprio genio validis ratiociniis quae argumentis & autoritatibus à se adductis lucem ac robur concilient.  F. Mabillon hath of his Performance, who saith, That whoever shall compare the work of Ratramnus with that of Aeneas Parisiensis, will easily discern how much Ratramnus excelled him in Learning and Eloquence, for whereas Aeneas ordinarily produces naked and jejune Testimonies, without any considerable Remarks upon them, Ratramnus alleges many more, and better Authorities, enforcing and illustrating them by solid reasonings of his own. The same good opinion hath Precedent Mauguin of his Performance in his two Books of Predestination, when he calls him, 
(a) Mauguin. tom. 2. in Dissert Hist. c. 17.  Non levis armaturae in Ecclesia Christi militem, No raw Soldier lightly armed, but an undaunted Champion of the Catholic Truth, against Innovators. And much more he adds in his Praise. And though in his writing about the Sacrament, 
(b) Refut. du Mr. Claude, p. 3. c. 5.  Mr. Arnauld is pleased to style him, A fantastical, obscure and empty Divine, whose reasonings are frothy cavils, yet in the Controversies of Predestination, and Grace, both he and his Brethren the Jansenists acknowledge his Abilities his great Reputation for Learning in France, and style him, That Learned Benedictine, etc. I might add, that Servatus Lupus treats him in his Address, as 
(c) Clarissimo suo R. Lupus, Ep. 79.  an intimate and much esteemed Friend, directing his Epistle, To his most dear Rotrannus; and 
(d) Familiares habuit Praestantissimos quosque sui seculi viros, Hincmarum Rem. Rhabanum Mog. Wenilonem Senon: Heriboldum— Ratbertum Corbeiensem, Ratramnum Monachum Corbiensem, etc. Baluz. in notis at titulum [Beati Lupi] p. 340.  Baluzius numbers him among the Famous Men who were the familiar Acquaintance of that Learned Abbot. As also the Testimony of the Chronicon Hirsaugiense, published by Trithemius, That he was a Person well accomplished with all sorts of Literature, and many other proofs of his admirable Learning: But I conceive those already produced, will convince all unprejudiced Persons; and since his other Works have appeared in Print, the Adversaries of his Doctrine, touching the Real Presence, are ashamed to deny him right in this point, and betake themselves to other arts for the evading the force of his Testimony of the Belief of the Church in that Age.  
To close this Section, I shall give a brief account of his Writings, as well those which are not extant, as those we have in Print.  
The first of his Writings extant, is that of the manner of Christ's Birth, or of the Virgin's Delivery. This must have been written before the Year 844. 
(a) Sirmondus in Vita Paschasii Radberti operibus praefixa. Par. 1618.  in which Pascasius Radbertus was made Abbot of Corbey, if 
(b) 
Mabillon in Praef. ad Acta Ben. sec. 4. p. 2. c. 3. nu. 150.  
Monachorum omnium peripsema.   F. Mabillon mistake not when he tells us, that his two Books on that Argument, are a Confutation of Ratramne. For he doth not style himself Abbot, but only the offscouring of all Monks, whereas in his 
(c) Ibidem inter Acta Ben. p. 135.— Humilis & exiguus Radbertus vester, etsi indignus, Abbas & Levita Christi Monachorum omnium peripsema.  Epistle to Carolus Culvus, published by F. Mabillon, he styles himself Abbot. Nor could his Book be written after his Resignation of that Abbey, being dedicated to Theodrada, Abbess of Soissons, and her Nuns, which 
(d) Mabil. ubi supra.  Theodrada died, A. D. 846. and he resigned not till 851.  
The occasion of his writing, was News out of Germany, (as I guess from New Corbey, which had much correspondence with this Corbey in France, of which it was a Colony,) that some in those Parts held strange opinions, touching our Saviour's Birth; as though he came not out of his Mother's Womb, into the World, the same way with other Men. In opposition to that Doctrine, 
(a) Vide Librum Ratramni apud Dacherium Spicil. Tom. 1.  Ratramnus asserts, That Christ was Born as other Men, and his Virgin Mother bore him, as other Women bring forth, to use 
(b) Tertul. de Carne Christi, c. 23.  Tertullian's words, patefacti corporis lege. Those whose opinions he confutes, were perhaps, some of those Novices, for whose use Paschasius had written his Book of the Sacrament, and who had not only imbibed his Doctrine, touching the Carnal Presence of Christ therein, but might have also heard the manner of our Saviour's Birth, without opening his Mother's Womb, alleged to solve an Objection against it, for our Adversaries of the Church of Rome now say, 
(c) Vide Guil. Forbesii Consider. Modest. de Sacr. Euchar. l. 1. c. 2.  that it is no more impossible for one Body to be in two places than for two Bodies to be in one, which they conceive must have happened in our Saviour's Birth, as also in his Resurrection, and coming into his Disciples, the Door being shut. This might provoke Paschasius to write against our Author, as well as Zeal for the Blessed Virgins Integrity.  
And having said thus much on this subject, I cannot wave so fair an opportunity of doing right to the ever memorable Archbishop Usher, whom Lucas Dacherius having published this Work, reproacheth as a Liar, for saying, 
(a) Vsserius in Hist. Gottesc. c. 11.  That Ratramnus in this Work maintaineth the same Doctrine, which he hath delivered in his Book touching the Lord's Body and Blood, whereas he makes no mention of the Eucharist in it. And F. Mabillon, who for his Candour is no less to be honoured than for his great Learning, imputes it to prejudice or mistake.  
But I need not use 
(c) Conringius ad Antiquit. Acad. Supplemento 39 apud Mabillon. ibid.  Conringius his shift to vindicate him, and suppose Dacherius hath suppressed those passages which induced the Learned Primate to say what he did. It is enough to justify him, that 
(d) Apud Dacherium Spicil. Yom. 1. p. 333.  Ratramnus asserts two things, which by consequence oppose Transubstantiation, and establish the contrary Doctrine; 
(b) Mabillon. Act. Ben. Praef. sec. 4. p. 2. c. 3. nu. 153.  and this he notoriously doth, 1. In the very scope and drift of his Book, contradicting an Illustration of that Doctrine by the manner of Christ's Birth. 2. By Denying that Christ (though Omnipresent in his Divinity) can in his Body be in more than one place, so that when he comes to a new place, he leaves the place where he was before. This Opinion in its consequences, maintains the Doctrine of his Book concerning Christ's Body, though not expressly in Terms.  
And this is as much as the Primate saith. And when we consider where the Dispute concerning Christ's Birth began, and that Paschasius defended it, what I have said will appear not improbable. This Book is also in Manuscript in Salisbury Library, and that of Bennet College in Cambridge.  
On what occasion he wrote his two Books of Predestination, I have already related. They are published by Mauguin, and in the new Bibliotheca Patrum, Printed at Lions, 1677. Tom. XV. p. 442.  
He likewise wrote a Book, about the Year 853. to justify an old Hymn which 
(a) 
Teste ipso Hincmaro in libro De non Trina Deitate, operum T. 1. 450.  
Et Mauguin. Dissert. Hist. c. 17. Dehinc post aliquot annos cum Hincmarus in Ecclesia Remensi vetustissimum & receptissimum Hymni Ecclesiastici hunc versiculum Te Trina Deitas unaque poscimus, cantari vetuisset Ipse Ratramnus volumine non modicae quantitatis ad Hildegarium Meldensem Episcopum edito ex libris SS. Hilarii & Augustini de Trinitate veterem Ecclesiae Traditionem confirmavit.   Hincmarus of Rheims had commanded to be altered, and that instead of Te Trina Deitas, they should sing Te Summa Deitas, imagining the former expression to make Three Gods, against which Order of Hincmarus, Ratramnus wrote a large Book, asserting the expression to be Orthodox by the Authority of St. Hilary and St. Augustine, but this piece is lost.  
He wrote another Book 
(b) Teste Mabilioni ebi supr. n. 156. &  de Anima, at the instance of Odo, sometimes Abbot of Corbey, and Bishop of Beauvais against a Monk of the same Convent, who taught that all Men had but one and the same Soul, which Book is extant in Manuscript in the 
(c) Vsserio. Hist. Gottesch. c. 2.  Library of Bennet College in Cambrige, in that of Salisbury Church, and of St. Eligius at Noyon in France, but not Printed.  
About the Year 868. Pope 
(a) Vide Mauguin. T. 2. Dissert. c. 17. Titulus libri sic se habet. Contra opposita Graecorum Imperatorum Romanam Ecclesiam infamantium libri quatuor Rathramni Monachi. Teste Mabillonio.  Nicolaus I. having desired Hincmarus, and the French Bishops, to Consider and Answer the Objections of the Greeks against the Latin Church; and Hincmarus having employed Odo Bishop of Beauvais therein, it is likely he recommended our Author to the Bishops, as a Man fit to underrake such a Work, and accordingly he wrote four Books on that Occasion, published by 
(b) Spicileg. T. 2.  Dacherius.  
He hath also among the 
(c) Vide Felleri Catal. Codd. MSS. Biblioth. Paulinae in Acad. Lipsiensi Duod. 1686. p. 125.  MSS. of Leipsick Library, an Epistle concerning the Cynocephali, Whether they be truly Men and of Adam's Seed, or Bruit Creatures? What moved him to discuss this Question, or how he hath determined it, I know not. The Epistle is directed to one Rimbert a Presbyter (I am apt to think) the same who succeeded Anscharius in the See of Breme, and wrote his Life. For he was born not far from Old Corbey, and bred up by St. Anscharius, and therefore more likely to correspond with Ratramn, than the other Rimbertus Presbyter, who was a Dane, and employed in the Conversion of the Northern Nations.  
If the Epistle were addressed to the former, it must be written in or before the Year 865. when Rimbert was made Archbishop of Breme and Hambrough.  
I mention this Book of the Lord's Body and Blood, in the last place, written by him, as some guess, about the Year 850. or perhaps sooner. Of which I shall say no more at present, in regard it will furnish matter sufficient for several Chapters.   

CHAP. II. Of his Treatise concerning Christ's Body and Blood, and the Author cleared of Heresy, and the other Accusations of F. Cellot.  
THis Treatise of the Body and Blood of the Lord, was first Printed at Colon, A. D. 1532. 
(a) Cellot saith, it was first published from a Copy prepared for the Press by Oecolampadius, who died before it was Printed: That it was not Printed at Colen, but Basil. How truly, I know not.  who was the Publisher, or what Copy he followed, or what became of the Manuscript afterwards, I know not. The Name of Bertram, and the Inscription to Charles the Great, are an unquestionable proof that it was not the Lobes MS. but some other not so ancient, which it is probable fell into bad hands, and is made away.  
The appearance of an Author near 700 years old, and so expressly contradicting their Doctrine, put the Romish Doctors into great confusion. They all saw it was necessary to take some course to deprive the Protestants of the advantage they were likely to make of so material a Witness against them: But they were very much divided in their Opinions, what course would prove most effectual.  
Some have condemned the Author for an Heretic, which is a quick and sure way to invalidate his Testimony in a point of Faith.  
Others have spared the Author, but condemned the Book for Spurious as well as Heretical, or at least as corrupted by the Disciples of Berengarius and Wiclef.  
Others say, that it is not the Work of Ratramne, Monk of Corbey, but of Joannes Scotus Erigena.  
And lastly, their most Learned Writers of this present Age, allow the Book to be Bertrams, and notwithstanding some rash expressions in it, which may bear a Catholic sense, acknowledge the Work as well as its Author to be Orthodox, and say, he doth not oppose the present Doctrine of the Roman Church, being rather for Transubstantiation, than against it.  
Wherefore to vindicate this Work from our Adversaries, who use so many tricks to wrest it out of our hands, I shall endeavour these five things.  
1. To show that Ratramnus was Orthodox, and free from all just imputation of Heresy.  
2. To prove that this Treatise is a genuine piece of the IX. Century, that it hath not been maliciously depraved since those times, and that Ratramnus, and not Joannes Scotus Erigena, is the Author thereof.  
3. To settle the true sense of our Author, in some obscure and controverted terms.  
4. To prove, that the Doctre in delivered in this Book, is contrary to that of Paschasius, and the present Roman Church, but very agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of England.  
5. To show that he was not singular in his Doctrine, but that other Great Men of that and the next Age, were of the same Judgement with him.  
First then, let us consider the charge of Heresy, which some object against him. Turrian saith, That to cite Bertram, is only to show that Calvin 's Heresy is not new. Bellarmine vouchsafes him no place in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, tho' twice he mentions him on the by, and fixes him, A. D. 850. But in his 
(a) Bell. Controu. Tom. 3. de Sacr. Eucharist. l. 1. c. 1. sec. Tertius.  Controversies he numbers him among his Heretics; and with Possevine (who saith notwithstanding the Belgic Index, this Book may not be read but with the Pope's Licence, in order to confute it) makes him to have lived under Carolus Crassus, A. D. 886. So little exactness do these Great Men observe in their Writings, as to Chronology, so little do they mind what they themselves elsewhere say, that an ill-natured Protestant Critic might insult over Possevine and Bellarmine, for slips in Chronology, as often and as justly as 
(b) Phil. Labbe de Script. Eccles. quos possim Onochronos, Ardeliones, Mataeologos, appellat.  Phil. Labbe doth over Gerhard, Hottinger, Maresius, etc.  
But 
(a) Praefat. ad Act. Ben. sec. 14. p. 2. c. 1. n. 125.  F. Mabillon observes other Writers every whit as Learned and Orthodox, absolve him from the charge of Heresy, and he blames those Zealots for giving away an Author to the Heretics, whom their Ancestors always esteemed a Catholic. 
(b) De Script. Eccles. T. 1. p. 53.  Phil. Labbe numbers him among the Catholic Tractators, Radbert, Lanfranc, and Guitmund. And the Authors of the Belgic Index say he was a Catholic Priest.  
And to condemn him upon the Testimony of so incompetent Witnesses, as Turrian, Bellarmine, Possevine, etc. who are notoriously Parties, and lived many hundred years after him, is against all Reason and Equity. Especially when they charge him with no Heretical Opinions save in the matter of the Sacrament, for which he was never condemned in his own Age, and which is the point now in Controversy between us and them.  
That our Author had the honour to be consulted by Carolus Calvus, on very profound Arguments, his familiarity with Lupus Abbot of Ferriers, 
(a) Ex Titulo MS. operis de Anima.  Odo Bishop of Beauvais, and Hildegarius Bishop of Meaux; the trust reposed in him by the French Prelates, who employed him to write an Apology for the Latin Church against the Greeks; to which I may add (if he were the same Person whom Flodoardus mentions as Abbot of Orbais) his Preferment to that Dignity, are somewhat more than strong presumptions that he had the repute of an Orthodox, as well as a Learned Man.  
I know no body that offers to make good this charge in particular instances, but F. Cellot 
(b) Lud. Cellot. Hist. Gottesc. l. 2. c. 19 l. 3. c. 7. in quaestione de Eucharistia monstrabitur Haereticus, etc.  a Jesuit, whose accusations are home, I confess, and represent him as Heterodox, though not convict of Heresy, but he seldom offers in proof any thing, save some bold conjectures, and those often contrary to the sentiments of the most Learned Writers of his own Church.  
1. He makes him Heterodox in the matter of 
(a) Cellot. Hist. Gottesc. l. 2. c. 19 numerat inter causas naufragii miserabilis Monachi, Ratramni Magisterium, l. 3. c. 7. In Praedestinatione ita se Catholicum exibet ut tamen non levem suspicionem sinistrae doctrinae— relinquat.  Predestination, and to have been the Tutor of Gotteschalcus, which I conceive is not sufficiently proved from the Compliments of that Monk, who writes to him, as he had done to Lupus and others, and calls him Friend and Master. That he favoured the sentiments of Gotteschalcus, I deny not, and that he wrote against Hincmarus, but that he was not so rigid in the point as that poor Monk F. Cellot himself confesseth. Lupus was of the same judgement, so was Prudentius Bishop of Troy's, and 
(b) Vide Vsser. Hist. Gottesc. c. 16.  Remigius Archbishop of Lions, who sticks not to censure the punishment of Gotteschalcus as beyond all examples of cruelty, and as unmerciful usage unbecoming Religious Men, and the proceed against him at Carisiac as irregular. Our Author's judgement seems to be no other than St. Augustine's against the Pelagians, and after all F. Cellot's accusations, these Books are newly Printed in the last Edition of the Bibliotheca Patrum at Lions, without the least censure.  
2. He represents him as Heterodox, in the 
* Cellot. Hist. Gottesc. l. 3. c. 7. in explicatione Trinitatis ex errore discipuli, & ipse errare intelligetur.  Doctrine of the Trinity, for opposing the Alteration of Trina Deitas by Hincmarus in an old Hymn, upon pretence that it implied Three God's. But this contest was not about any Article of Faith, for 
(a) 
Trinas' Deitates affirmantem ipse Goteschalcus execratur, apud Hincmarum de non Trina Deit.  
Hymni Sanstorum mentis Strophe Vetus in Natali plurium Martyrum.  
Te Trina Deitas unaque poscimus.  
 culpas abluas, noxia detrahas,  
Des pacem famulis, nos quoque gloriam,  
Per cuncta tibi saecula.   Gotteschalcus and Ratramnus did as little believe Three Gods, as Hincmarus, nor doth he accuse them as Tritheites; the Dispute was about the sense of Trina Deitas, which they denied to import Three Gods, any more than did Trinus Deus, and therefore no Alteration need be made in the old usage of the Church. And in this Controversy, he had the 
(b) Mauguin. Tom. 2. Dissert. c. 45. Religiosi S. Benedicti diu multumque reluctati sunt huic immutationi.  Religious of his own Order on his side, who stoutly resisted the Alteration. And at last, a greater Clerk than Hincmarus, I mean 
(c) 
Teste N. Alexandro, sec. 9 p. 2. Diss. V J. 14. in Hymno Sacris Solemniis ab Angelico Doctore— edito ubique canit, in Festo Corp. Christi in Nocturn.  
Te Trina Deitas unaque poscimus,  
Sic tu nos visita sicut te colimus,  
Per tuas semitas duc nos quo tendimus,  
Ad lucem quam inhabitas.   Thomas Aquinas, composing an Hymn, now used in the Roman Church, inserts this very expression. But, saith 
(d) Hist. Gottesc. l. 5. c. 5.  F. Cellot, he refers Trina to the Persons, not to the Nature. And so (notwithstanding his confident denial) did Ratramnus and Gotteschalcus too. And upon the whole Controversy, Mauguin and Natalis Alexander, allow them to have had the better of Hincmarus in this Dispute.  
3. 
(e) Append. ad Hist. Gottesc. Opusc. 7. in notis passim.  Cellot accuseth him for writing a crafty and heretical Tract against his Abbot Paschasius Radbertus, who had explained the Catholic Doctrine of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament. The Fact I admit, the Crime I deny him guilty of, and shall vindicate him in a proper place.  
4. He makes him of a busy and 
(b) 
Vanum vocat & novandi cupidum,— Ingenium omnium novitatum capax Ratumni, lib. 5. cap. 2. pag. 45.  
Turbae errantis Antesignani Ratramnus & Gotteschalcus, par Novatorum, p. 346. Monachum Corb adversus Metropolitanum & Abbatem suum calcitrantem. Hist. Got. p. 570.   pragmatical Humour, a Novelist, and Rebel against his Superiors, viz. his Abbot and his Archbishop; but how hard this censure is, will appear, when we consider, that he seems not to have engaged in any Controversy save by the Command of his Prince, or some Great Prelate, except in his Book de Nativitate Christi. That his Book of the Sacrament and Predestination, in which he dissents from his Superior, were written by the King's Order, and that in defence of the old Verse, propably at the request of Hildegarius Bishop of Meaux, to whom he dedicated it, and at the request of the Benedictins, who esteemed him the most able Champion of that whole Order, but the Book being lost, we cannot be positive. However, he treats them respectfully enough, confuting their Opinions without reflecting on their Persons, or so much as naming them any where, as I remember. Nor can he justly be styled a Novelist, who only resisted the Innovating humour of others, and supported his own Doctrine by Testimonies out of the Ancient Fathers, and public Offices of the Church.  
There appears nothing in all his Writings favouring of Pride or Faction, and had he been on the other side, I doubt not but F. Cellot would as freely have forgiven him his sentiments touching the Sacrament, as he doth John Scotus, who doth him service against the Jansenists.  
Though Ratramnus seems to have committed one fault, which a Jesuit can hardly forgive, he hath betrayed the Pope's Supremacy in his Apology against the Greeks. He foundeth it not upon any grant from Christ, 
(a) Cellotius Hist. Gottesc. Append. p. 578. citat haec ex Ratramni, l. 4. adversos Graecos. Quarta die Imperator Constantinus privilegium, Romanae Ecclesiae pontifici constituit, ut in toto orbe Romano Sacerdotes ita hunc caput habeant, ut Judices Regem.— Quando quidem sit Romana Civitas omnibus imperii Romani civitatibus honorabilior, & Romanus Pontifex principatum obtineat Sacerdotii super omnes Episcopos, utpote cum sit Civitas haec Domina omnium & illi civitati quisquis praefuerit Episcopus ex antiquitatis constitutione [non Christi] princeps omnium habeatur Ecclesiarum— & paulo post. Quis autem ferat ut Constanopolitanus Patriarcha cunctis praeferatur Ecclesiis, quod nec Antiquitas ei contulit, nec ulla decreta majorum constituunt, nec rationis habetur, vel Ecclesiasticae vel humane jurae fundatum.  but on Ecclesiastical Constitutions, the Grants of Princes, and the Dignity of the City of Rome, the Head and Mistress of all Cities in the Empire, as the Pope hath the Pre-eminence over all Bishops and Churches, which though at the time when our Author wrote, was as much as the Pope himself could wish, yet comes so short of the Papal claims since the Hildebrandine times, that he now passeth at best but for a Trimming Catholic, with F. Cellot and his Friends.  
This I hope will suffice to vindicate Ratramnus both in point of Faith towards God, and of good manners towards his Governors, so that there appears nothing in his Person, to prejudice us against his Doctrine delivered in this Book, which whether it be his or not, and whether it be come pure and undepraved to our hands, I shall inquire in the next Chapter.   

CHAP. III. That this Book is neither wholly forged, nor yet depraved; that Ratramnus is its true Author, and not Joannes Scotus Eregina.  
AMong our Adversaries of the Roman Church, who allow the Author, but condemn his Work, there pass Three several Opinions, and all false.  
1. That it is a 
* 
Sixtus Senens. in Praefat Biblioth. Sanctae. Possevinus in Praefat. Apar. Sac. Breerly.  
Parsons in his three Controvers. p. 2. c. 10. But he makes the forgery committed by the Followers of Berengarius.   late forgery, that it was written by Oecolampadius, and published under the venerable Name of an Author of the IX Century by the Heretics. This Sixtus Senensis, and after him Possevine, with extreme impudence pretend. But for want of good memories, they elsewhere tell us, that the Author of that Book, wrote under Charles the Great, A. D. 810. or the Gross, A. D. 886. and was confuted by Paschasius Radbertus. Sure Sixtus Senensis forgot himself very much, when in the very next Page he accused Oecolampadius for rejecting St. Ambrose his Books of the Sacrament, which are cited by Bertram in this Work. It is withal pleasant to observe, that Bishop Fisher 
(a) Praef. lib. 4. De veritate Corp. & Saug Christi contra Oecolam. Colen. 1527.  against Oecolampadius, names Bertram (among other Catholic Writers of the Sacrament) five years before the first Edition of it, 1532. and I am apt to believe he had read it in Manustript, and was of the same mind with the University of Douai, who think with candid expounding he is Catholic enough: But it were doing too much honour to this shameless calumny, for me to insist longer on its confutation.  
2. Others more plausibly, allow Bertram to have written a Book of this Argument, and that this is the Book, but falling into the hands of Heretics, the disciples of Berengarius and Wiclef, it is come down to us wretchedly corrupted and depraved. This is the Opinion of 
* Espenc. De Ador. Euchar. l. 4. c. 19  Espencaeus, 
† Greg. De Valentia in Thom. Tom. 4. disp. 6. q. 3. punct. 1.  Gregory of Valentia, and many others, particularly the Publishers of the last Bibliotheca Patrum at Lions, who give this reason why they have not inserted it into that Collection, viz. 
‖ Bibliothecae Patrum. Lugd. 1677. T. XV. ad finem libri secundi de Praedest.  Because it is, if not a suspicious piece, yet depraved and adulterated with spurious mixtures.  
This is easily said, but not so easily believed: In whose hands have the Manuscripts been kept, in ours or theirs? Hath not the Popish Interest prevailed all Europe over till the beginning of the XVI. Century? Have not the Popish Clergy had the keeping all famous Libraries, and have they kept them so negligently, that Heretics have had access and opportunity of depraving all the Copies in the World? If they say, their number was small, and it might easily be done, whom are we to thank for that? If they are interpolated, why do they not assign the passages, and by genuine Copies convince the World of so gross an Imposture? But alas! the pretence of Interpolation is very idle, and he that would go about to clear it of what they call Heresy, must do it una litura, and with a single dash expunge the whole Book; for though they may pick out two or three passages that seem to favour them, yet if they read the next sentences before and after, they will plainly see they are nothing to their purpose.  
For my own part, I doubt not, but that this Book is come to our hands as free from corruption as any Book of so great Antiquity, it is manifestly all of one piece; but if it be corrupted, those of the Church of Rome are likely to have been the Interpolators, it being more easy to foist in two or three passages into a Book, than two hundred; and I can, beyond all possibility of contradiction, make out, that those passages which we allege in favour of our Doctrine against Transubstantiation, are near an hundred years older than Berengarius, who was for almost thirty years together baited in one Council after another, and died about the Year 1088. For Aelfrick, Abbot of Malmsbury, in a Homily translated by him into into the Saxon tongue about the year 970. hath taken word for word most of those passages which now sound harsh to Roman Ears: This was observed by the Learned 
(a) Answer to the Jesuits Challenge, ch. 3 of the Real Presence.  Usher, who hath collected several, and I having with care compared Bertram and that Homily, have observed several others, and I conceive it will not not be unacceptable to the Reader to see them set in parallel, which I shall do, following the 
(b) This Homily is extant in the second Tome of the Book of Martyrs. And in Lisle's Saxon Monuments, in quarto, Lond. 1638. In English alone at Oxford, about the Year 1674. And in Saxon and Latin by Mr. Wheelock in his Notes on Bede, Hist. Eccl. L.U. c. 22. p. 462.  Edition Printed by John Day in 12ᵒ about the year 1566. And it is remarkable, that after the Homilist comes to treat of the Sacrament (for a good part of their discourse is about the Paschal Lamb) there escapes hardly one Page without somewhat out of Bertram till he resume his former discourse.  
I shall only note by the way, that the old word 
† Husel ab Hostia derivari modeste conjicit Eruditissimus Somnerus; at rectius omnino Cl. Junius in Glossario a Gothico HUNSL deducit Saxonicum Husel, litera N, euphoniae gratia, uti in nonnullis aliis origine Gothicis e medi● Sublata, ex. gr. Tunth Gothice, Saxonice Toð Anglice Tooth, Munth Gothice, Saxonice Muð, Anglice, Mouth, etc.  Housel, which is frequently used in this Homily, to signify the Holy Eucharist, is of Gothick Extraction, and derived from Hunsl, a Sacrifice, in Saxon housel, the letter N. being here, as in some other Instances, left out to soften the Pronunciation. Our Saxon Ancestors styled the Holy Eucharist a Sacrifice, as the Fathers, both Greek and Latin anciently did in a large and improper Sense, viz. Either as it is a Commemoration of that proper Sacrifice once offered on the Cross, or as Alms, Prayers, and Thanksgiving are sometimes called a Sacrifice.  

Ratramnus, As Bertram defines what a Figure is, and what the Truth. § 6, 7, 8.  
§ 8. VEritas— utpote cum Christus dicitur natus de Virgine, Passus, Crucifixus, mortuus & sepultus. One of his Instances of a Figure is, when Christ calleth himself Bread, whereas substantialiter nec Panis Christus, etc.  
§ 9 At ille panis qui per Sacerdotis ministerium Christi corpus efficitur aliud exterius humanis sensibus ostendit, aliud interius Fidelium mentibus clamat. Exterius quidem panis quod ante fuerat, formae praetenditur, color ostenditur, sapor accipitur—  
§ 10. Cum tamen post Mysticam consecrationem, nec panis jam dicitur nec vinum, sed Christi corpus & sanguis.  
§ 17. Consideremus fontem Sacri Baptismatis, qui fons vitae non immerito nuncupatur— in eo tamen fonte si consideretur solummodo quod corporeus aspicit sensus, elementum fluidum conspicitur, corruptioni subjectum, nec nisi corpora lavandi potentiam obtinere; sed accessit Sancti Spiritus per Sacerdotis consecrationem virtus, & efficax facta est non solum corpora, verum etiam animas diluere, & spirituales Sordes spirituali potentia dimovere.  
§ 18. Ecce in uno eodemque elemento duo videmus in esse sibi resistentia— in proprietate est humor corruptibilis, in Mysterio vero virtus sanabilis.  
§ 19 Sic itaque Christi corpus & sanguis superficie tenus considerata, creatura est, mutabilitati corruptelaeque obnoxia, si Mysterii vero perpendis virtutem, vita est participantibus se tribuens immortalitatem.  
§ 69. Multa differentia separantur corpus in quo passus est Christus— & hoc corpus quod in mysterio Passionis Christi, quotidie a fidelibus celebratur—  
§ 72. Illa namque Caro quae Crucifixa est, de Virginis carne facta est ossibus & nervis compacta, humanorum membrorum lineamentis distincta; rationalis animae spiritu vivificata in propriam vitam. At vero caro spiritualis quae populum credentem pascit secundum speciem quam gerit exterius, frumenti granis manu artificis consistit, nullis nervis, obsibusque compacta, nulla membrorum varietate distincta, nulla rationali substantia vegetata: Quicquid enim in ea vita praebet substantiam spiritualis est potentiae & invisibilis efficientiae, divinaeque virtutis. Atque aliud longe consistit secundum quod exterius conspicitur, & illud secundum quod in Mysterio creditur.  
§ 76. Corpus Christi quod mortuum est, resurrexit & immortale factum est jam non moritur & mors illi ultra non dominabitur. Aeternum est jam, non passibile. Hoc autem quod in Ecclesia celebratur, temporale est non aeternum, corruptibile est non incorruptum— sed § 77. negari non potest corrumpi quod per partes comminutum dispartitur ad sumendum & dentibus commolitum in corpus trajicitur.  
§ 88 Hoc Corpus [sc. quod in Mysterio celebratur] pignus est & species, illud veritas. Hoc enim geritur donec ad illud perveniatur, ubi vero ad illud perventum fuerit, hoc removebitur.  
§ 60. Corpus Christi est, sed non corporaliter, sanguis Christ est, sed non corporaliter.  
§ 25. Nec istic ratio qua fieri potuit est disquirenda, sed fides quod factum sit adhibenda.  
§ 25. Ipse namque qui nunc in Ecclesia omnipotenti virtute Panem & Vinum in sui corporis carnem & proprii cruoris undam spiritualiter canvertit, ipse tunc quoque Manna de Coelo datum Corpus suum & Aquam de Petra profusam preprium sanguinem invisibiliter operatus est.—  
§ 27. Dominus Jesus Christus priusquam pateretur accepto pane gratias egit & dedit discipulis suis dicens, Hoc est Corpus meum, etc. Videmus nondum passum esse Christum, & jam tamen sui corporis & sanguinis Mysterium operatum fuisse.— § 28. Sicut ergo paulo antequam pateretur panis substantiam & vini creaturam convertere potuit in proprium corpus quod Passurum erat, & in suum sanguinem qui post fundendus extabat, sic etiam in deserto Manna & Aquam de Petra in suam carnem & sanguinem convertere praevaluit, quamvis longe post & caro illius in Cruce pro nobis pendenda, & sanguis ejus— fundendus superabat.  
§ 78. Manducavit & Moses Manna, manducavit & Aaron, manducavit & Phinees, manducaverunt & multi qui Deo placuerunt & mortui non sunt: Quare? quia visibilem cibum spiritualiter intellexerunt, spiritualiter esurierunt, spiritualiter gustaverunt, ut spiritualiter satiarentur.  
§ 39 Quod fecit semel nunc quotidie frequentat, semel enim pro peccatis populi se obtulit, celebratur tamen haec eadem oblatio singulis per fideles diebus, sed in mysterio, ut quod Dominus Jesus Christus semel sese offerens adimplevit, hoc in ejus Passionis memoriam quotidie geritur per mysteriorum celebrationem.  
§ 73. Considerandum quoque quod in illo pane non solum corpus Christi, verum corpus etiam in eum credentis populi figuretur.  
§ 95. Et— sic dicit in consequentibus, Corpus ergo Christi vultis Intelligere Apostolum audite dicentem vos estis corpus Christi & Membra— Mysterium vestrum in mensa Domini positum est. Mysterium Domini accipitis ad id quod estis Amen respondetis, & respondendo subscribitis. Audis ergo Corpus Christi & respondes Amen esto membrum Christi ut verum sit Amen— ipsum Paulum dicentem audiamus, unus Panis & unum Corpus multi sumus.  
§ 75 Sic in vino qui Sanguis Christi dicitur, aqua misceri jubetur, nec unum sine altero permittitur offerri quia nec populus sine Christo, nec Christus sine populo sicut nec caput sine corpore, nec corpus sine capite valet existere. Aqua denique in illo Sacramento populi gestat imaginem.   

The Saxon Homily.  
SO Aelfric saith, some things are spoken of Christ by 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, etc.  
p. 32. Truly the Bread and Wine, which through the Mass of the Priest is hallowed, showeth one thing outwardly to human Senses, and another thing they inwardly call to believing minds. 
clyp●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 Mystery.  
p. 33. So the Holy Font-Water, which is called the Wellspring 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, than 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 risen again from Death, never dieth henceforth, but is Eternal and Impassable. But that Housel is Temporal, not Eternal; corruptible, and divided into several parts, chewed betwixt the Teeth, and sent into the Belly.  
p. 38. This Mystery is a pledge and a 
* Hippolito, 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 Archbishopric of Canterbury, was generally reputed Heresy. 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 Bertrams 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 judgement with him in the IX and X Century, and that Paschasius his Doctrine had not received as yet the stamp of public Authority, either by any Popes or Counsels 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 error. For instance, p. 39 and 40, there are two Miracles inserted to prove the Carnal Presence contrary to the scope of the whole Discourse, and the one contrary to their own Doctrine of Christ's Presence. 
(a) This Miracle is found in Paschas Radbert. de Corp. & Sang. Dom. in Bibl. Patrum. Par. 1610. Tom. VI c. 14.  They tell you of a Woman whofe doubts touching the Real Presence, were cured at the Prayers of St. Gregory, at whose request God caused the Host she was about to receive, to appear as though there lay in the dish a joint of a Finger all Bloody. Whereas, according to the Popish Doctrine, Christ's 
(b) Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. Can. 3.  whole Body, Soul and Divinity is in every bit of the Host, and drop of the consecrated Wine; and this Miracle, if it proves any thing, must prove the contrary.  
Again, our Homilist in the beginning of p. 47. saith immediately after those words cited by me out of the 46 page. Therefore the Holy Mass is profitable both to the quick and to the dead. The propitiatory Sacrifice was by this time set on foot, which necessarily supposeth the Corporal Presence of Christ. But it is worth observing, however, that the Adoration of the Sacrament sprang not up till some Ages after, it being not mentioned either by Radbertus or Ratramnus, or Elfrick in this Homily.  
3. The Third Opinion, maintained by those who do not condemn our Author, though they do this Book, is, that it is not the Work of Ratramnus, but of Joannes Scotus. And so it may be for aught I have hitherto said, in regard he was more Ancient than our Saxon Homilist, and equal with Bertram.  
This Opinion was first delivered by the Learned 
(a) P. de Marca in Epistola. Apud Dacherium in Spicil. Tom. 2.  Peter de Marca, and is urged with great confidence by a 
(b) At the end of Mr. Arnaud's Defence, in quarto. Par. 1669. Dissert. 1. The Author is Mr. Paris.  Monk of St. Genovefe, whose Modesty M. Arnaud tells us caused him to conceal his Name.  
This Dissertator makes a great dust with his Conjectures, and would persuade us that Bertram and Ratramnus are not the same Person, by reason of the variety of Names given him, as I have shown in the beginning of this Discourse; but this is a poor shift, for every one knows how differently Writers report the Names of Men who flourished in that Age, and in those Parts of France; and where the Authors make no difference, it often happens by the Transcribers mistake: One would think the Instance he gives of Cellot's Anonymous Writer, who in his first leaf calls the Adversaries of Paschasius, Rabanus and Ratramnus, and in the next Babanus and Intramus, might have suppressed that Objection.  
In the next Section, he saith, Trithemius and Sigebert make Bertram to have written but one Book of Predestination, whereas Ratramnus wrote two, and that the two MSS. mentioned by Suffridus Petrus, may be false written: And I may better say, they are not; for he names neither more, nor elder Copies that make it out. As for the precise number of Books, Sigebert, and more curious Men, are not always exact, but many times, where the Work is small, call two Books, 
Ad Carolum librum de Praedestin.  because one Work, a Book, so Sigebert saith, and not one Book.  
In his Third Section, this Monk of St. Genovefe gives us nothing but a taste of his Modesty, in taxing the incomparable Usher of false dealing, and telling the World that his Testimony is of no credit concerning a rasure out of a Manuscript he had seen at Cambridge, and wonders he hath the confidence to hope that his bare word should be taken for it, after his false dealing about Ratramnus his Book of Christ's Birth, without telling how the Passage razed was recovered.  
In the last Section, he offers toward an Answer to the Reasons that induced Father Cellot to conclude Ratramnus Corbeiensis the Author of those Books which pass under the Name of Bertram; I could, were it worth while, show the insufficiency of his Answers, and would do it, but that I have in reserve such Testimonies from F. Mabillon, as will baffle all his amusing Conjectures, and to which any man of modesty will submit.  
This he offers to prove, that Bertram is not Ratramnus. To make good the other part of his undertaking, and show that Joannes Scotus is the Author of this Book, he suggests Three things.  
1. That this Book is agreeable to the account that is given of Scotus his Book, whose Authority Berengarius used.  
2. That the style and manner of arguing, are Scotus his peculiar way.  
3. That the Disciples of Berengarius, after Scotus his Book was condemned, in the Synods at Vercelli and Rome, gave it the disguised Name of Bertram, to preserve it from the flames.  
His Arguments from the account given of Scotus his Book, are well answered by F. Mabillon; and all I shall say, is, what he omits, viz. That the Doctrine of Scotus, according to the best accounts we can have of it, is not agreeable to that of Bertram; for if F. Alexander and others are not Mistaken in 
(a) Quod Sacramenta Altaris non verum Corpus & verus Sanguis sit Domini, sed tantum memoria veri Corporis & Sanguinis ejus, de Praed. c. 31.  Hincmarus his meaning, he taught that the Sacrament was only a Memory of Christ's Body and Blood, which this Dissertator, to give us a Specimen of his Honesty, as he did before of his Modesty, changes into a naked figure without any sort of Truth, and expressly contrary to his Sentiments, imputes to Bertram as his Doctrine.  
2. The style of Bertram and Scotus are not at all alike: Scotus is full of Greek words, and notions and citations out of the Greek Fathers, which Bertram is free from. His way of Arguing is not Syllogistical, as Bertrams, so far as I can observe by his Books De Naturis. And his notion, 
Scotus de Divisione Naturae, l. 5 N. XX. Item l. 2. n. XI.  That Christ's glorified Body is absorbed in the Divine Nature, and is not local, nor visible, nor had the same Members after its Resurrection which it had before, will quite overthrow many of Bertrams Arguments, to prove that in the Sacrament is not exhibited the same Body in which he died and risen again.  
His Third suggestion is a mere Conjecture, and a very weak one. For if Berengarius his Disciples feigned that Name to preserve the Book from the fire, What use did they preserve it for? What service did it ever do them? Who ever mentions any of them that alleged Bertrams Authority? How comes it to pass that no Copies of it were preserved in the Southern Parts of France, where the Albigenses and Waldenses, Berengarius Disciples, have abounded in all times ever since? It is much they should not save one Copy of Bertram.  
But since he is Conjecturing, Why may not I offer a Conjecture or two in this matter? 1. Why might not Bertrams Book through mistake both with Berengarius and his Adversaries, pass under the Name of Scotus? It is not impossible, but I insist not upon it. 2. It is very probable that when the Synods of Vercellis and Rome condemned Scotus his Book to the flames, those who had the execution of the Decree, especially in Normandy and England, Lanfranc's Province, might burn Bertram for company, and occasion the present scarcity of Manuscripts.  
But to silence all these pretences, and show that Bertrams Book is no Forgery, not corrupted by Heretical mixtures, nor yet written by Scotus, but Ratramnus, Monk of Corbey; I shall close this Chapter, with the iningenuous acknowledgement of the Learned and honest F. Mabillon, who saith, 
Act. Ben. Sec. IU. p. 2. Praef. p. 45. n. 83.  Travelling in the Netherlands, I went to the Monastery of Lobez, where, among the few Manuscripts now remaining, I found two. One Book written 800 years since, containing two pieces, one of the Lord's Body and Blood, and the other of Predestination; the former one Book, the latter two. The Inscription and beginnings of both were thus in the Manuscript; Thus gins the Book of RATRàNVS, 
Therefore it is not Jo. Scotus.  of the Body and Blood of the Lord. You commanded me, Glorious Prince. At the end of this Book. Thus gins the Book of RATRAMNUS concerning God's Predestination. To his Glorious Lord, and most Excellent King Charles, RATRAMNUS, etc. As in the Printed Book. The other Book was a Catalogue of the Library of Lobez, with this Title, A. D. 1049. The Friars of Lobez taking an account of the Library, find in it these Books— Ratramnus of the Lord's Body and Blood one Book. The same Author of God's Predestination, two Books, which gives us to understand, that the Book which contains these pieces of Ratramnus is the very same set down in the Catalogue A. D. 1049. and written before that time; and by the hand, it appears to have been written a little before the IX Century. And I doubt not but it is the very Book which Herigerus Abbot of Lobez used at the end of the X Century.  
This is full proof that Ratramnus is the Author, and that the Book is no modern Forgery, being 800 years old.  
Well, but hath it not been corrupted and interpolated by Heretics? Let F. Mabillon answer again touching the sincerity of the Editions of this Book; I compared (saith he) the Lobez Manuscript with the Printed Books; 
Ibid. p. 64. nu. 130.  and the reading is true, except in some faulty places, which I corrected by the Excellent Lobez Manuscript. There is 
(a) That word is & existit p. which I have inserted into the Text upon F. Mabillon's Authority. Let the Papists make their best of it.  one word of some moment omitted— which yet I will not say, was fraudulently left out by the Heretics, the first Publishers of it, in regard, as I said before, there appears not any thing of unfaithfulness in other places.  
Thus doth this Learned and Ingenuous Benedictine testify, that the Book we now publish, is a genuine piece of the IX Century, that Ratramnus, Monk of Corbey, is the true Author, and that his Work is come to our hands sincere, and without Heretical mixtures either of Berengarius or Wiclef's Disciples.  

(a) Mabil. Iter Germanicum praefixum Analect. Tom. iv Incipit Liber Ratramni de perceptione Corporis & Sanguinis Domini ad Carolum Magnum.  Beside the Lobez MS. the same Father in his  Voyage met with another in the Monastery of Salem Weiler, which he judgeth by the hand to be 700 years old. This gives the Title in the end, as the Lobez MS. but in the beginning, styleth it, The Book of Ratramne, of Receiving the Lords Body and Blood. To Charles the Great.   

CHAP. IU. Of the the true Sense of the Author in some controverted Expressions.  
BEfore we can comprehend the Sentiments of Ratramnus in the Controversy depending between us and the Church of Rome, touching Christ's Presence in the Sacrament, it will be necessary to settle and clear his true meaning in some Terms, which frequently occur in this Tract: Because our Adversaris, by abusing the ambiguity of them, and expounding them according to the Prejudices wherewith Education hath possessed them, seem to think Bertram their own, and charge us with impudence and folly in pretending to his Authority.  
Those Terms which are in the state of the Question, are the principal Keys of the whole Discourse, and well understood, will open our Author's mind therein.  
That 
* 
Quod in Ecclesia ore fidelium sumitur Corpus & Sanguis Christi. Qu. 1. § 5.  
Quod ore fidelium per Sacramentorum Mysterium in Ecclesia quotidie sumitur. Q. 2. sect. 50.   which the mouth receiveth, is the Subject of both Questions. Not what the Faithful receive any way, but what their Teeth press, their Throat swalloweth, and their Bellies receive. In what sense the consecrated Elements are Christ's Body and Blood? and whether his natural Body or not?  
In the first Question there are two opposite Terms, 
† See them explained by Bertram himself. sect. 7, 8. and him determining the Sacramental change to be Figuratively wrought, not corporally, sect. 9, 16. and supporting himself by the Testimony of St. Augustine de Doctr. Christ. l. 3. c. 16.  Figure and Truth. 
Figure.   
The word Figure, when applied to Terms or Propositions, is taken in a Rhetorical sense, and implies those Expressions not to be proper, but either Metaphors, or Metonymies, etc. as when Christ is called a Vine. When applied to things, as the consecrated Elements, Figure and Mystery are of the same signification, and imply the thing spoken of to be a Sign or Representation of some other thing. 
Verity or Truth.  And on the contrary, Verity or Truth in this Tract, when applied to Terms or Propositions, signifies Propriety of Speech; but when applied to things, it imports 
* In Proprietate, Substantialiter, in manifestationis, Luce in veritatis simplicitate, in this Tract, are equivalent to naturally, and in Verity of Nature. This the Saxon Homily very well clears, and as superficie tenus considerata answers to in proprietate a little before in Bertram, sect. 19 so in the Saxon Homily superficie tenus considerata is rendered after bodily understanding, which answers to true Nature immediately preceding.  Truth of Nature. So then Ratramnus determines the first Question to this effect. That the words of our Saviour in the Institution of the Holy Eucharist, are not to be taken properly, but figuratively; and that the consecrated Elements orally received by the Faithful, are not the True Body of Christ, but the Figure, or Sacrament of it; though not mere empty figures, or naked signs, void of all Efficacy, but such as through the Blessing annexed to our Saviour's Institution, and the powerful operation of the Spirit of Christ working in and by those Sacred Figures, is the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ.  
Besides this, 
Another sense of Verity.  Verity or Truth hath yet another sense, as it stands opposed to a Lie or Falshood: For a Proposition is not immediately false, where the Predicate is a Metaphor or Metonymy, and doth not in its first and native signification agree to the subject; for unless the Trope be too obscure, it conveys the Speakers true meaning into the mind of such as hear him.  
Now in this sense 
(a) Non utique mentitur, etc. sect. 35. & supra, cur nemo tam ineptus est ut nos ita loquentes arguat esse mentitos, etc.  St. Augustine, cited by our Author, saith, he tells no Lie, who giveth the Name of the thing itself to the Sign and Sacrament of it; and that this manner of speaking was perfectly understood. And I may add, it was very familiar among the Jews, and is Authorised by a multitude of Scripture Examples. Now in this sense Ratramnus in some places affirms, that the consecrated Elements are truly Christ's Body and Blood, and this without the least contradiction to himself, though in the other sense he more frequently denies it. And a due regard to these two senses of Verity or Truth, will clear the obscurity of which the Romanists accuse our Author in many Passages of this Work.  
There is another term of the same importance, 
Manifestation.  viz. Manifestation; but our Adversaries pretend it is a Key of the whole Work, because Ratramnus defines Truth to be rei manifestae demonstratio, and charge the 
(a) Mabilonius A.B. Sec. IV. P. 2. Praef. n. 101.  French Translator of falsifying the Author, because he renders manifestae & manifesta participatione, real and really. They say, whatever is manifest is real, but the word real doth not express the full notion of manifest, which further includes evidence, many things being real which are not manifest. And this is true. But yet Bertrams sense of the word must be judged by his own use of it, which will appear by inspecting the several places of the Book where it occurs; and I must needs say, that I cannot make sense of him, if he mean not as the French Translator hath rendered him.  
In the state of the question, where he explains Verity, by that which appears manifestationis luce, in a manifest light, or naked and open, his meaning in that Question, (or rather the meaning of those against whom he writes, and whose error the first part of this Discourse is intended to rectify) cannot be; whether the Sacrament was the Body of Christ appearing in its own shape to our bodily Eye: For that Cardinal Perron, or Mr. Arnaud do not pretend the Stercorarists, or whoever else Bertram opposeth, to have believed, but that the accidents of Bread and Wine affected, or were subjected in the natural Body and Blood of Christ. Now as to the matter of the Manifest appearance of Christ's Body, it is all one, whether the accidents of Bread and Wine be subjected in the Body and Blood of Christ, or subsist without a subject; for the bodily Eye doth not behold the Body of Christ, the more or less manifestly for that; nor doth it at all manifestly behold Christ's Body, unless it see him in the form of a Man. And therefore if they meant any thing, it must be, whether the sensible Object in the Sacrament were Christ's very Body, though under the figure of the Sacramental Elements.  
But to clear the point, we need only compare the two Prayers in the close of Bertrams Discourse on the second Question, and we shall find, that what in one Prayer they beg of God to receive by a manifest participation, in the other they pray to be made really partakers of; and in the same Collect, manifest participation is opposed to Receiving in a Sacramental Image: Now there is nothing more naturally opposed to an Image, than the very thing whose Image it is, or to a Sacrament, than the res Sacramenti, the real Object signified and exhibited under it. The Reader will find the word bears the same sense in those few other places where Ratramnus useth it, which are all near the end of the Book.  
Another controverted Term is Species, 
Species.  which hath two senses in this Book. It is most commonly used to signify the kind, and specifical nature of any thing, and is always so taken where it is set in opposition to a Figure, or Sacrament, or where the Author is declaring the nature of the consecrated Elements.  
Sometimes it signifies the appearance or likeness of a thing; so it is taken when it is opposed to Truth, as in the Postcommunion Prayer cited by Ratramnus, and in his Inferences from it.  
Besides these, the Romanists have another acceptation of the word, making it to signify the sensible qualities of the consecrated Elements subsisting without their substance, in which sense I positively affirm, that Species is not where used in this Treatise. And herein the Authors of the 
(a) Index Expurg. Belg. in Bertramo. tametsi non diffitear Bertramum tunc temporis nescivisse exacte accidentia ista absque omni substantia sua subsistere, etc.  Belgic Index will bear me out, who acknowledge that Bertram did not exastly know how Accidents could subsist out of their Subjects, which subtle Truth latter Ages have learned out of the Scripture.  
As Species ordinarily signifies Nature, 
Species Visibilis.  so the addition of Visibilis altars not its signification. For Ratramnus doth not speak of those qualities which immediately affect the sense abstracted from their Subject. And I know nothing in Reason, nor yet in the Holy Scriptures, which are the Rule of our Faith, that can enforce us to believe that our Senses are not as true Judges of what the Mouth receiveth in the Sacrament, as they are of the nature of any other Object whatsoever, and may as easily discern whether it be Bread or Flesh, as they can distinguish a Man from a Tree.  
Our Author frequently mentions the Divine Word, 
Divine Word.  by whose power the Sacred Elements are Spiritually changed into Christ's Body. Now when he thus speaks, we must not imagine, that he means a natural change of the Substance of the thing consecrated by the efficacy of the words of consecration, but a Spiritual change effected by the Power and Spirit of Christ, who is God the Word, as he explains himself.  
The last Term that needs explaining, 
Spiriutal Body.  is Christ's Spiritual Body; this he affirms the Sacrament to be in many places. Now by a Spiritual Body, we are not to understand the natural Body of Christ, but existing after the manner of a Spirit, or as our Adversaries love to speak, not according to its proper existence, that is to say, it is Christ's Natural Body, but neither visible nor local, nor extended; this is not Bertrams sense of Christ's Spiritual Body, but that the thing so called, is Figuratively and Mystically Christ's Body, and that it Spiritually communicates to the Faithful, Christ with all the benefits of his Death.  
I may also add, that Bertram uses great variety of Phrases to express that which we call the outward sign in the Sacrament, that which the outward sense beholds, that which the bodily eye seethe, that which is outwardly seen or done corporeal, that which the Teeth press, or the Mouth receives, that which feeds the Body, that which appears outwardly, importing the sensible qualities to be all that we have to judge the nature of visible Objects by, its extension and figure, its colour, its smell, its taste, its solidity, etc. None of those Phrases imply the Accidents without the Substance, but they are descriptions of the Sacramental Symbols or outward Signs.  
And to these are opposed, that which faith, or the eyes of the mind only beholds, that which we believe, that which is inwardly contained, or Spiritually seen or done, that which faith receives, the secret virtue latent in the Sacrament, the saving benefits of it, that which feeds the Soul, and ministers the Sustenance of eternal life, all expressions equivalent to the thing signified, or the grace wrought by the Sacrament. Also invisibly and inwardly are generally of the same signification with spiritually.  
These are the Terms whose Ambiguity Popish Writers commonly abuse, when they go about to persuade us, that Ratramnus in this Book asserts the Real Presence, in the sense of the Roman Church, and is for Transubstantiation, which any Man that reads him, will find as difficult to believe, as Transubstantiation itself.   

CHAP. V That this Treatise expressly Confutes the Dostrine of Transubstantiation, and is very agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of England.  
IT being acknowledged by 
(a) Bellarm. de Script. Eccles. de Paschasio Radberto ad A. D. 850  Bellarmine, that the first who wrote expressly and at large, concerning the Verity of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, was Paschasius Radbertus, (though he and Possevine, to mention no more, mistake grossly, in saying, that he wrote against Bertram,) and Sirmondus confesseth that he was the first who explained the 
(b) Genuinum Ecclesiae Catholicae sensum ita primus explicuit ut viam caeteris aperuerit, qui de eodem argumento multi postea scripsere. Sirmond. in vita Paschasii praefixa operibus, in Folio, Par. 1618.  genuine sense of the Catholic Church, so as to open the way for others, who have since written on that Subject. It will not be amiss, before I propose distinctly the Doctrines of the Church of Rome and our own Church, that I say somewhat of Radbertus, and his sentiments, which our Adversaries own to be a true Exposition of the sense of their Church.  
That Bertram (as Bellarmine tells us) was the first that called Transubstantiation in Question, we are not much to wonder, since Radbertus was the first that broached that Error in the Western Church, and no Error can be written against, till it be published. And 
(a) Contra quem [i. e. Paschasium] satis argumentantur & Rabanus in Epistola ad Egilonem Abbatem & Ratramnus libro composito ad Carolum Regem. Apud Cellotium Opusc. Il. cap. 1.  Herigerus tells us, that not only Ratramnus, but also Rabanus wrote against him, and by comparing circumstances of time, I shall show that his Book did not long pass uncontradicted. If we look into the Preface of 
* Vide Epistolum ad Carolum apud Mabillonium Act. Ben. Sec. 4. p. 2. p. 135. Placidio meo, Warino Abbati. Quem etiam Abbatem fuisse constat ex Prologo Paschasii. Ideo sic communius volui stilo temperare subulco, ut ea quae de Sacramento Corporis & Sanguinis Christi sunt necessaria rescire, quos necdum unda liberalium attigerat literarum, vitae pabulum & salutis haustum planius caperent ad medelam. Ibidem.  Paschasius Radbertus, it is easy to observe that the Book is not controversal but didactical; and though dedicated to Warinus once his Scholar, but then Abbot of New Corbey, yet it was written in a plain and low style, as designed for the Instruction of the Monks of New Corbey, (as much Novices in Christianity, as in the Religion of St. Benedict, and not so much as initiated in any sort of good literature,) and to teach them the Doctrine of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament.  
This New Corbey was Founded by St. Adelardus, the next year after his return from Exile, viz. A. D. 822. and the place chosen as conveniently seated for the propagation of Christianity among the Pagan Saxons, lately Conquered by Charles the Great, and Ludovicus Pius. And therefore this Book of 
* Vide Mabillonium A. B. sec. 4. p. 2. Praef. de Paschas. Radberto, & in Elogio Historico ejusdem.  Radbertus could not be written, as some conjecture, during the Banishment of Adelardus, which lasted seven years, from 814. to 821. In regard the Society, for whose use it was written, was not erected till afterwards. Nor was Warinus (to whom Radbert gives the Name of Placidius, as he did to himself the Name of Paschasius,) Abbot till the Death of Adelardus, A. D. 826. The ground of the mistake, was the Opinion that prevailed till the Lives of Adelardus and Wala, written by Radbertus, were published by F. Mabillon, viz. That 
† Ex vita S. Walae à Paschasio Radberto scriptae.  Arsenius, mentioned in the Prologue, was Adelardus, whereas now it appears that Radbertus constantly calls Adelardus by the Name of Antonius, and Wala his Brother and Successor in the Government of Old Corbey, by that of Arsenius, and it was during Wala's Banishment that Paschasius wrote his Book de Corpore & Sanguine Domini, or as he styles it of the Sacraments, which happened A. D. 830. and lasted two years, so that Paschasius his Book may be supposed to have been written A. D. 831. that is, thirteen years later than formerly it was thought.  
But though the Book was then first written on this occasion, 
* Nunc autem dirigere non timui vobis, quatenus nobis operis praestantior per vos exuberet fructus mercedis pro sudore, cum per vos ad plurimos pervenerit commendatus. Pasch. Radbert. in Ep. ad Carolum, apud Mabillon, sec. 4. p. 2. p. 135. & p. 136. Et ut hoc diligentius perlegat vestre Sagax intelligentia— prostatis imploro precibus, quatenus vestro examine comprobatus Codex, etsi jamdudum ad plurimos pervenit, deinoeps securius haberi possit.  Paschasius to recommend his Doctrine with the better advantage by his own Dignity, and the Authority of his Prince, sometime after his Promotion to the Abbey of Corbey, writes an Epistle to Carolus Calvus, and sends him this Book, though written many years before, as a Present or New-Years-Gift.  
Upon the receipt of this, it is highly probable, that Carolus Calvus propounded those two Questions to Ratramnus, and upon his Answer those feuds might grow in the Monastery of Corbey, which made Paschasius weary of the Place, and resign his Abbey in the year 851. in which Sirmondus supposeth he died, but F. Mabillon gives good reasons to prove that he lived till 865. That the Controversies about the Sacrament made him weary of his Abbey, is F. Mabillon's conjecture, and not mine. And if so, we have reason to believe, that the Doctrine of Ratramnus had rather the Prince's countenance, and the stronger party in the Convent. And it will yet seem more probable; when we consider that Odo, afterwards Bishop of Beauvais, a great Friend of Ratramnus, was made Abbot in the room of Paschasius. What the Doctrine of Paschasius was, I shall now briefly show.  
He saith, 
* Pasch. Radb. de Corp. & Sang. Dom. c. 1. Licet Figura Panis & Vini hic sit, omnino nihil aliud quam Caro Christi & Sanguis post consecrationem credenda sunt.— Et ut mi●abilius loquar, non alia plane, quam quae nata est de Maria & passa in Cruse, & resurrexit de Sepulchro.—  That although in the Sacrament there be the Figure of Bread and Wine, yet we must believe it after consecration to be nothing else but the Body and Blood of Christ. And that you may know in what sense he understands it to be Christ's Body and Blood, he adds, And to say somewhat yet more wonderful. It is no other Flesh than that which was born of Mary, suffered on the Cross, and risen again from the Grave.  
He illustrates this Mystery further by intimating, that whosoever will not believe Christ's natural Body in the Sacrament under the shape of Bread, that man would not have believed Christ himself to have been God, if he had seen him hanging upon the Cross in the form of a Servant. And shelters himself against all the Absurdities that could be objected against this Opinion, as the Papists still do under God's Omnipotence, laying down this Principle as the foundation of all his Discourse, That the nature of all Creatures is obedient to the Will of God, who can change them into what he pleaseth. He renders these two Reasons, why the miraculous change is not manifest to sense, by any alteration of the visible form or taste of what is received, viz. 
* Sic debuit hoc mysterium temperari, ut & arcana Secretorum celarentur infidis & meritum cresceret de virtute Fidei, c. 13. ubi plura ejusmodi cceurrunt.  That there may be some exercise for Faith, and that Pagans might not have subject to blaspheme the Mysteries of our Religion. Yet notwithstanding this, no man who believes the Word of God, saith he, can doubt but by Consecration, it is made Christ's Body and Blood in Verity or Truth of Nature. And he allegeth stories of the miraculous appearance of Christ's Flesh in its proper form for the cure of doubting, as a further confirmation of his carnal Doctrine.  
These are the sentiments of Paschasius Radbertus, and differ little from those of the Roman Church at present, which I shall deduce from the Authentic Acts of that Church, especially the Council of Trent.  
1. In the Year 1059. there was a Council assembled at Rome by Pope Nicolaus the TWO, in which a form of Recantation was drawn up for Berengarius, wherein he was required to declare, 
* Apud Gratianum de Consecratione. Dist. 2. c. 42. Ego Berengarius, etc.  That Bread and Wine after Consecration, are not only the Sacrament, Sign and Figure, but the very Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is not only Sacramentally, but Sensibly and Truly handled and broken by the Priest's hands, and ground by the Teeth of the Faithful: And this being the form of a Recantation, aught to be esteemed an accurate account of the Doctrine of the Church, yet they are somewhat ashamed of it, as may appear by the Gloss upon Gratian, who hath put it into the body of the Canon Law. But the Council of Trents difinitions are more Authentic, which hath determined,  
I. If any one shall deny that in the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is contained really and substantially, the Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently whole Christ; But shall say that it is therein contained only as in a Sign, or Figure, or Virtually, let him be accursed.  
II. If any one shall say, that in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of Bread and Wine, together with the Body or Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that singular or wonderful conversion of the whole substance of Bread into his Body, and of the whole substance of 
1. Concil. Trid. sess. 13. can. 1.  
2. Conc. Trid. Ibid. c. 2.  Wine into his Blood, there remaining only the species, i. e. Accidents of Bread and Wine, which conversion the Catholic Church very aptly calls Transubstantiation, let him be accursed.  

i e. By faith and not orally.  III. If any man shall say, that in the Eucharist Christ is exhibited, and eaten, only Spiritually, and not Sacramentally and Really, let him be accursed.  
These are the definitions of the Church of Rome in this matter, and now let us see whether the Doctrine of Ratramnus in this Book be agreeable to these Canons.  
I might make short work of it, by alleging all those Authors who either represent him as a Heretic, or his Book as forged or Heretical, and in so doing, I should muster an Army of the most Eminent Doctors of the Roman Church, with two or three Popes in the Head of them, viz. Pius the iv by whose Authority was compiled the Expurgatory Index, in which this Book was first forbid; Sixtus V. who enlarged the Roman Index, and Clement the VIII. by whose order it was Revised and published. They are all competent 
3. Conc. Trid. Ibid. can. 8. & cap. 8.  Witnesses that his Doctrine is not agreeable to the present Faith of the Roman Church. And our Author's 
* Vide Indic. Belgic. in Bertramo. (Excogitato commento.)  kind Douai Friends, are forced to Exercise their Wits for some handsome invention to make him a Roman-Catholick, and at last they cannot bring him fairly off, but are forced to change his words directly to a contrary sense, and instead of visibly write invisibly, and according to the substance of the Creatures, must be interpreted according to the outward species or accidents of the Sacrament, etc. Which is not to explain an Author, but to corrupt him, and instead of interpreting his words, to put their own words into his Mouth. And after all, they acknowledge that there are some other things, which it were not either amiss or imprudent wholly to expunge, in regard the loss of those passages will not spoil the sense, nor will they be easily miss.  
But I shall not build altogether upon their confessions, in regard others who have the ingenuity to acknowledge the Author Orthodox, and the work Catholic, have also the confidence to deny our claim to Bertrams Authority, who is, as they pretend, though obscure, yet their own. Therefore I shall show in his own words, that his sentiments in this matter are directly contrary to Paschasius Radbertus, and to the Council of Trent in three particulars.  
1. He asserts that what is orally received, is not the true and natural Body of Christ.  
2. He asserts that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration.  
3. That what is orally received feeds the body, and that Christ is eaten Spiritually, and not Orally.  
1. It is very plain from the determination of the second Question, that Bertram expressly 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 risen again. He urges a multitude of Authorities out of the Fathers to confirm his own judgement herein, and in short, but pithy expositions, showeth 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 Christ's body and blood, not in nature or kind, but virtually. He observes that St. Ambrose distinguisheth between the Sacrament of Christ's Flesh, and the Verity of Christ's 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 shows that what is orally received in the Sacrament is not Christ's Natural body, because Christ's 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 Christ's 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, Christ's 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 Christ's 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 Christ's body, he means truly in opposition to falsehood, 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 Christ's 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 Usher, 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 Christ's 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 shows that our Saviour's body after its Resurrection, was visible and palpable, and citys Luke 24.39. Compare this with what he saith, Sect. 72. where he showeth the difference between Christ's 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 myself; 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 Christ's 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 Christ's 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, etc. 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 Christ's blood, that it is made Christ's 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 Fathers received in the Heavenly Manna, and what the Faithful aught to believe in the Mystery of Christ's 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, etc. So [before his Incarnation] in the Wilderness, he turned the Manna and Water into his body and blood.  
And that as the Bread is Christ's body, so is it the body of the Faithful People, and that if the consecrated Wine were corporally converted into Christ's blood, the Water mixed 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 Christ's 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 ministering 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 Christ's 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, etc. Sect. 68 He means by the substance of Christ's Body in that place, what he here calls the Bread of Christ's 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 expressly 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 Catholic sense, though they are many of them leveled by the Compilers point blank against the Errors of the Roman Church.  
3 To these I may add what by consequence destroyeth Transubstantiation, and Christ's 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 Belgic 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, Tastes, and Scents, are nothing else but matter in different positions, lights or motions, and little parts of the substance itself sallying out of the body, and making impressions upon 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.  Bellarmine's Illustration of a body under species not properly its own. He tells his Catechumen, Lot's 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 Errors and Absurdities multiply without end.  
I have said enough to show, that Bertram expressly 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 Heretics, that risen 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, passable, and subject to Digestion and the Draught, and that the Accidents were Hypostatically united to Christ's Body.  
But we read of no such Errors, 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 Heresy, viz. Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz, and Heribaldus Bishop of Auxerre, lived and died with the repute of Learned, Orthodox, and Holy Men, and are not accused by any of their own Time of those foul Doctrines. The first I can learn of the Name, is, that Humbertus Bishop of Sylva Candida calls Nicetas Stercoranist. And Algerus likewise calls the Greeks so, for holding that the Sacrament broke an Ecclesiastical Fast, which is nothing to the Gallicane Church, and the IX Century. If 
(a) Vide Labbeum de script. Eccles. Tom. 1. p. 484.  Cardinal Humbert drew up Berengarius his Recantation, he was the veriest Stercoranist who called Stercoranist first; and Pope Nicolaus II. with the whole Council that imposed that Abjuration upon him, were Stercoranists to some purpose; who taught him, 
(b) Of the Stircoranists, an Imaginary Sect, first discovered by Cardinal Perron; see Conferences between a Romish Priest, a Fanatic Chaplain, and a Divine of the Church of of England, p. 63. And Mr. L' Arroque in his Hist. of the Eucharist, Book II. ch. 14.  That Christ's Body is truly and sensibly handled and broken by the Priest's Hands, and ground by the Teeth of the Faithful. And it is very unlikely that Bertram writ against such an Heresy, when admitting him to have been of the same Faith with the Church of Rome, touching Christ's Presence in the Sacrament, he must have been a Stercoranist himself, who asserts, that what the Mouth receives, is ground by the Teeth, swallowed down the Throat, and descends into the Belly, nourishing the Body like common Food.  
But 
(a) Mabillon. Praef. ad sec. IV. p. 2. nu. 93.  F. Mabillon waves this Pretence of the Stercoranists, and makes Bertram to have, through mistake, opposed an Error he thought Haymo guilty of, viz. That the consecrated Bread and Cup are not signs of Christ's Body and Blood. I confess the words cited by him, I can scarce understand, but (if that piece of Haymo be genuine) by the citation he takes from him in the end of the same Paragraph, in which he asserts, That though the Taste and Figure of Bread and Wine remain, yet the nature of the Substance is wholly turned into Christ's Body and Blood; I see no reason why Bertram might not write against Paschasius and Haymo too. Though in truth I do not imagine him to have confuted the Book of Paschasius, but only his Notion in answer to the two Questions propounded to the King.  
Who were the Adversaries of Paschasius (whose Doctrine is owned to be the Catholic Faith now held by the Roman Church) he himself is best able to tell us, and he informs us, 
(a) Paschasius in Epist. ad Frudegardum.  That they were such as denied the Presence of Christ's Flesh in the Sacrament, but held an invisible power and efficacy in and with the Elements, because (say they) there is no Body but what is visible and palpable; which are the Sentiments of Ratramnus, as will evidently appear to any unbyass'd Reader.  
But to deprive us of all pretence to the Authority of Bertram, they falsely impute to us the utter denial of the Verity of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament, which we deny no otherwise than Bertram doth. And to vindicate the Reformed Church of England in this point, I shall propound her Doctrine, out of her Liturgy, Articles and Catechism.  
In the Catechism, we learn That the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lord's Supper.  
In the 28 Article, we profess, That to them who worthily receive the Lord's Supper, the Bread  we break, is the Communion of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing, is the partaking of the Blood of Christ.  
In the Prayer before Consecration, we beseech God that we may so eat the Flesh of Christ, and drink his Blood, that our sinful Bodies may be made clean by his Body, and our Souls washed through his most precious Blood.  
In the Consecration Prayer, we desire to be made partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.  
And in the Postcommunion, we give God thanks for vouchsafing to feed us— with the spiritual food of Christ's most blessed Body and Blood.  
It is not the Verity of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament, that our Church denies, but the rash and peremptory determination of the manner of his Presence by the Roman Church. 'Tis a Corporal and Carnal Presence, and Transubstantiation, which we deny.  
This our Church declares against in the Rubric about Kneeling at the Communion, asserting that we Kneel not 
(a) At the end of the Communion Service.  to adore any corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. That the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain in their very natural Substances after Consecration. Also, that the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here, it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body, to be at one time in more places than one. Our 
(b) Art 28.  Church declares, that Transubstantiation cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many Superstitions. That Christ's Body is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only in an Heavenly and Spiritual manner; And that the means whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith only. These are Authentic Testimonies of the Doctrine of our Church, out of her public Acts. I might add others of very great Authority, out of the Apology for our Church, written by the Learned Jewel, together with its Defence by the Author, Bishop 
(a) Eliensis Apolog. contra Bellarm. p. 11.  Andrews against Bellarmine, the Testimony of King James in 
(b) Casaubonus nomine Jacobi Regis in Epistola ad Card. Perronum, p. 48. & 51. ubi exscribit verba Eliensis.  Casaubon's Epistle to Cardinal Perron, 
(c) Hooker Eccles. Policy, lib. 5. sect. 67.  Hooker, Bishop 
(d) Montacutius in Antidiatrib. contra Bulenger. p. 143.  Montague against Bulengerus, etc. but for brevity's sake, I refer the Reader to the Books themselves. And also for a Vindication of the Foreign Reformed Churches in this matter, I desire the Reader to consult their Confessions, and the Citations collected by Bishop 
(e) Hist Transub. c. 2.  Cousins, out of their Confessions, and their most Eminent Writers.  
Both we and they assert the Verity of Christ's Body and Blood, as far as the nature of a Sacrament will admit, or is necessary to answer the ends for which that Holy Mystery was instituted by our Saviour. We own a real communication of Christ's Body and Blood, in that way which the Soul is only capable of receiving it, and benefit by it. We acknowledge the Verity of Christ's Body, in the same sense that Bertram doth; and deny the same Errors, which the Church of Rome hath since imposed upon all of her Communion for Articles of Faith, which Bertram rejected; though since that time they are increased in bulk, and form into a more Artificial Systeme. Most, if not all of these determinations of our Church are to be found in this little Book, if not in express terms, yet in such expressions as necessarily import them. And perhaps the judgement of Bertram was more weighed by our Reformers in this Point, than any of our Neighbour Churches. Bishop 
(a) In Praef. libri de Coena Domini Latine excusi Genev. 1556.  Ridley, who had a great hand in compiling the Liturgy and Articles, in King Edward VI his Reign, had such an esteem of this Author and Work, that he doth in his Paper given in to Queen Mary's 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 gainsay 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 Errors 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, etc. 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 mere 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 Judgement 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 showeth, 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 sense 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 Usher, and Bishop Cousins 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 Judgement 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 IU. 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 wondered 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 Judgement of Learned Men, whether that Tract against Radbertus be the Epistle of Rabanus or not. And I conceive there are better reasons to persuade 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 likelihood an Author of the same Time, and treats Paschasius very coarsely 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, broke Bread, and gave it them with the Cup for a FIGURE of his Body and Blood, and exhibited a Sacrament highly advantageous to us. As Venerable Bede before him speaks, He gave in the Supper to his Disciples, a FIGURE 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 Bertrams secundum quid, not absolutely and properly, but in some respect the Body of Christ: and Amalarius citys that Passage of St. Augustine which Bertram alleged, 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 'tis 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 though 
(a) Bib. Patrum, Tom. 6. Par. 1610. Col. 226, 227.  Florus, Deacon of the Church of Lions, accord not with Scotus in his Sentiments touching Predestination, yet he agrees with him in contradicting the carnal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament; for in his Exposition of the Mass, he saith, That when the Creature of Bread and Wine is by the ineffable sanctification of the Spirit translated into the SACRAMENT of Christ's Body, Christ is eaten. That he is eaten by parts in the Sacrament, and remains whole in Heaven, and in the Faithful Receiver's heart. And again, All that is done in the Oblation of the Lord's Body and Blood, is a Mystery; there is one thing seen, and another understood; that which is seen, hath a Corporal nature; that which is understood, hath a Spiritual fruit.  
And in the Manuscript 
(a) In Homiliario MS. Eccles. Lugd. apud Mabillon A. B. Sec. IU. Par. 2. Praefat. nu. 80.  Homilies, which F. Mabillon concludes are his, expounding the words of our Saviour instituting the Sacrament, he saith commenting on, This is my Body: the Body that spoke was one thing, the Body which was given was another. The Body which spoke was substantial, that Body which was given was Mystical; for the Body of our Lord died, was buried, risen again and ascended into heaven, but that Body which was delivered to the Apostles in the Sacrament, is daily consecrated by the Priest's hands.  

* Apud Hittorpium. De rebus Eccles. c. 16.  Walafridus Strabo, in the same Century teacheth, That Christ in his last Supper with his Disciples just before he was betrayed, after the Solemnity of the Ancient Passeover, delivered the Sacraments of his own Body and Blood to his Disciples in the substance of Bread and Wine.  

† Apud Albertinum de Euchar. lib. 2. pag. 934. Hoc est corpus meum id est in Sacramento.  Christian Druthmarus a Monk of Corbey, and contemporary both with Bertram and Paschasius, in his Comment on St. Matthew, expounding the words of Institution, saith, That Christ gave his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body— to the end that being mindful of this Action, they should always do this in a Figure, and not forget what he was about to do for them. This is my Body, that is, Sacramentally, or in a Sacrament or Sign: And a little before he saith, Christ did Spiritually change Bread into his Body, and Wine into his Blood, which is the Phrase of Bertram a Monk in the same Cloister with him.  
To these may be added 
* Apud L' Arroque in Hist. Euchar. lib. 2. c. 13. ex Dacherii Spicileg. Tom. 6.  Ahyto Bishop of Basil, in the beginning of this Century, whose words cited by Mr. L' Arroque in his History of the Eucharist are these— The Priest ought to know what the Sacrament of Baptism and Confirmation is, and what the Mystery of the Body and Blood of the Lord is, how a visible Creature is seen in those Mysteries, and nevertheless invisible Salvation, or Grace, is thereby communicated for the salvation of the Soul, the which is contained in Faith only. Mr. L' Arroque well observes, that his words relate to Baptism and Confirmation as well as the Lord's Supper; he distinguisheth in both the sign from the thing signified, and asserts alike, in all three, that there is a visible Creature, communicating Invisible, or Spiritual Grace, which is received by Faith only.  
Moreover, the Question moved by Heribaldus to Rabanus, which he answers (and upon that score both those Learned and Holy Bishops have been traduced as Stercoranists) evidently shows the Sentiments of Heribaldus to have been contrary to those of Paschasius on this Argument. For he never could have moved the Question if he had not believed the external part of the Sacrament to be corporal Food, as Ratramnus doth.  
The Judgement of Rabanus, Archbishop of Mentz, whom Baronius styles the brightest Star of Germany, and as Trithemius says, who had not his fellow in Italy or Germany, agrees with that of Ratramnus, and appears in several of his writings. He teacheth, 
* Raban. de institut. Cleric. lib. 1. c. 31.  That our Lord chose to have the Sacraments of his Body and Blood received by the mouth of the Faithful, and reduced to Nourishment, on purpose that by the visible Body the Spiritual effect might be shown. For as Material food outwardly nourisheth, and gives vigour to the body, so doth the Word of God inwardly nourish and strengthen the Soul. Again, The Sacrament is one thing, and the virtue of the Sacrament is another, for the Sacrament is received with the mouth, but the inner man is fed with the virtue of the Sacrament. In his 
† 
Ad Calcem Reginon. Prum. editi per Baluzium habetur Epistola haec Rabani, unde Heribaldum vide c. 33.  
Quidam nuper de ipso Sacramento corporis & Sanguinis Domini non rite sentientes, dixerunt hoc ipsum Corpus & Sanguinem Domini quod de Maria Virgin natum est, & in quo ipse Dominus passus est in cruse, & resurrexit de Sepulchro [idem esse quod sumitur de Altari] cui Errori, etc.   Penitential, he makes the Sacrament subject to all the affections of common food, and tells of some of late, viz. Paschasius and his followers, who had entertained false Sentiments touching the Sacrament of the Lords Body and Blood, saying, That this very Body of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary, in which our Lord suffered on the Cross, and risen again from the Grave, [is the same which we receive from the Altar] against which error writing to Egilus the Abbot, we have according to our ability, declared what we are truly to believe concerning the Lords very Body.  
From which Passage many things of moment may be collected.  
1. That Paschasius was written against in his life-time, and not long after his propounding his Doctrine publicly, by sending his Book, together with an Epistle, to Carolus Calvus.  
For Rabanus died before Paschasius, and 
* In praefat. ad Rabani Epist. n. 17.  Baluzius makes it out very well, that he wrote this Answer to the Queries of Heribaldus, A. D. 853. In which year Egilus mentioned by him was made Abbot of Promie, and the question of the validity of Orders conferred by Ebbo Archbishop of Rheims, after his Deposition, was discussed in the Synod at Soissons.  
2. We learn from this Passage, that Rabamus judged the Doctrine of Paschasius to be a Novel Error, which he would not have done, had there been any colour of Ancient Tradition or Authority for it.  
3. That F. Cellot is mistaken, in charging his Anonymous Writer with slandering Rabanus, as also in saying, that what Rabanus wrote on this Argument, he wrote in his youth, falsely presuming that Egilus, to whom he wrote, was Abbot of Fulda, and immediate Predecessor to Rabanus in the Government of that Monastery, where as it was another Egilus made Abbot of Promie, A. D. 853. when Rabanus was very old, and but three years before his death.  
4. These words [the same which is received from the Altar] were as 
* Baluz. in notis ad c. 33. Ad calcem Reginonis.  Baluzius and F. Mabillon observe, razed out of the MS, from whence Stevartius published that Epistle of Rabanus. Which I take notice of, because Mr. Arnauds Modest Monk of St. Genovefe, makes so much difficulty to believe Archbishop Usher, who tells of a Passage of the same importance razed out of an old MS. Book of Penitential Canons in Bennet College Library in Cambridge, though he had seen it himself, and no doubt the other MS. also out of which the lost passage was restored.  
This Passage is an Authority of the X Century confirming 
† At the end of the Saxon Homily Printed by Jo. Day.  Bertrams Doctrine, which I shall Transcribe. (But this Sacrifice is not the Body in which he suffered for us, nor his Blood which he shed for us, but it is Spiritually made his Body and Blood like the Manna reigned down from Heaven, and the Water which Flowed from the Rock, as) etc. These words enclosed between two half Circles, some had razed out of Worcester book, but they are restored again out of a book of Exeter Church, as is noted in the Margin by the first Publishers of this Epistle, and the Saxon Homily, they are both one Authors work, viz. Elfric's. Thus the Reader may be satisfied how the Passage was recovered. And Bishop Usher did not invent it, which had it been lost utterly, might also have been restored out of the Saxon Epistle printed immediately before it. And now I am speaking of such detestable practices, I cannot but add what for the sake of such a Passage hath befallen St. Chrysostom's Epistle to Caesarius. The Passage runs thus, 
* Sicut enim antequam Sanctificetur Panis, Panem nominamus, Divina autem illum sanctificante gratia, mediante Sacerdote, liberatus est quidem appellatione panis; dignus autem habitus est Dominici Corporis appellatione, etiemsi natura Panis in ipso permansit, & non duo corpora, sed unum corpus Filii praedicamus sic, etc. Apud Steph. Le Moine inter Varia Sacra. Tom. 1. p. 532.  As before the Bread is Consecrated we call it BREAD, but after the Divine Grace hath consecrated it by the Ministry of the Priest, it is freed from THE NAME OF BREAD, and honoured with THE NAME OF THE LORDS BODY, though the NATURE OF BREAD remaineth in it, and we do not teach two Bodies, but one Body of the Son, so etc. This Epistle Peter Martyr found in the Florentine Library, and Transcribed several Copies of it, one of which he gave to Archbishop Cranmer, the Copies of this Epistle being lost, the World was persuaded by the Papists, that the Passage was a Forgery committed by Peter Martyr. This past current for about a 100 years, till at last Emericus Bigotius found it, and Printed the whole Epistle with 
* Palladii vita Chrysostomi Gr. lat. etc. Quarto. Par. 1680. Inter paginas 235. & 245. In Schedis signatis G. g. & H. h.  the Life of St. Chrysostom, and some other little things, but when it was Finished, this 
† Vide Expostulationem hac de re editam, in Quarto. Londini. 1682.  Epistle was taken out of the Book, and not suffered to see Light.  
The place out of which this Epistle was expunged, is visible in the Book by a break in the Signature at the bottom, and the numbers at the top of the Page. But at length it is published by Mr. le Moine among several other Ancient pieces at Leyden, 1685. And since more accurately, in the Appendix to the Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England.  
So that notwithstanding the French Monks indignation at the Learned Usher for charging the Papists with the razure of an old MS. it's plain, that such tricks are not unusual with them, that they are more ancient than their public Expurgatory Indices, and more mischievous, and that some of their great Doctors at this day make no conscience of stifling ancient Testimonies against their corruptions, when it lies in their power.  
I shall trouble the Reader with no more Citations to prove the concurrence of other Doctors of the Ninth and Tenth Century with Ratramnus, in his Sentiments touching Christ's Presence in the Holy Sacrament. These are enough to show that his opinion was neither singular, nor novel, and that though he be the fullest and most express witness of the Faith of those times, yet he is not a single Evidence, but is supported by the Testimonies of many of the best Writers of those times. And his Doctrine is reproved by no body, but Paschasius, who reflects a little upon it in his Epistle to Frudegardus, and that piece of his commentary on Matthew that is annexed to it.  
On the contrary, the Doctrine of Paschasius was impugned as Novel and Erroneous by the Anonymous Writer published by F. Mabillon, by Rabanus, and Ratramnus, neither doth it in all things please his Anonymous Friend said to be Herigerus, who writes in his favour, and collects passages out of the Ancients to excuse the simplicity of Paschasius. His own writings show, that he valued himself upon some new discovery, which excited many to a more perfect understanding of that great Mystery. That his Paradox was in danger of passing for a Dream, or 
* In Epistolis hortatur Placidum, & Regem Carolum ne existiment illum contexere fabulam de salsura Maronis.  Poetical fiction, and that when he wrote to Frudegardus, many doubted the truth of his Doctrine. Frudegardus once his Proselyte upon reading a Passage in St. 
† Augustin. de Doct. Christ. l. 3. c. 16.  Augustine, which Bertram also citys, was dissatisfied with his Explication of Christ's Presence, and whether this Epistle did effectually establish him, in the belief of Radberts' Doctrine, or whether he adhered to St. Augustine, cannot now be known.  
It is evident, notwithstanding some gross conceits which began to possess the minds of men in those dark and barbarous Ages, that the Church had not as yet received the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation, which was left by Paschasius its Dam, a rude Lump, which required much Licking, to reduce it into any tolerable shape or form, as a 
* The B. of St. Asaph in a Sermon before the late King, 1678.  Reverend Author observes, and was not confirmed by the Authority of any Pope or Council in 200 Years after, nor did the Monster receive its name till the Fourth Lateran Council.  
The Writers of the Ninth and Tenth Centuries, speak of a change, or conversion of the Elements into Christ's Body; but it is plain they mean not a Natural, but a Mystical or Sacramental change, such as happens upon the 
† See the Saxon Homily.  Christening of a Pagan; they affirm the Elements to be Christ's Body and Blood after Consecration, in the sense of 
* Non rei veritate, sed significante mysterio. S. Aug. apud Gratianum de Consecr. Dist. 2. c. 48. Hoc est Sect. Sicut.  St. Augustine, not in Truth of Nature, but by Mystical signification: And, according to the Doctrine of that Father, teach 
† Aug. contra Maxim. l. 3. c. 22. , that in the Sacraments we are not to mind the nature of the visible Object, but its signification; in regard Sacraments are Signs which ARE one thing, and SIGNIFY another.  
They all, according to the Language of St. Paul, style the Consecrated Elements Bread and Wine, our Saxon 
* Fol. 28.  Homilist saith, this Bread is my Body, and 
† Sect. 99 Panis & Calix qui Corpus & Sanguis Christi nominatur & existit.  Bertram in the place where F. Mabillon thinks the adding of existit is of some moment, saith, Bread and Wine is Christ's Body and Blood. They make the Sacrament to be a Figure, they speak of a conversion of the Elements into the Sacraments of Christ's Body and Blood, they distinguish between Christ's natural Body and his mystical Body, the Body which spoke, and the Body which was given to his Disciples, and deny that the nature of the Elements is altered by Consecration, which if any man can reconcile with Transubstantiation, I shall acknowledge that Miracles are not ceased in the Roman Church.    

RATRAMNI Presbyteri & Monachi Corbeiensis; (qui vulgo BERTRAMVS nuncupatur) LIBER De Corpore & Sanguine Domini.  
The Book of RATRAMNUS Priest and Monk of Corbey; (Commonly called BERTRAM) Touching the BODY and BLOOD of the LORD.   


Sigebertus Gemblacensis in libro de Viris Illustribus. c. 96.  
BErtramus 
(a) In Gemblac. cod. erat Ratramus & in Cod. Virid Vallis.  Scripsit librum de Corpore & Sanguine Domini & ad 
(b) Calvum.  Carolum librum de Praedestinatione.  

Testimonium Joannis Trithemii in Libro de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis.  
BErtramus Presbyter & Monachus, in divinis Scripturis valde peritus, & in literis Saecularium Disciplinarum egregie doctus: Ingenio subtilis & clarus Eloquio; nec minus vita quam doctrina insignis; scripsit multa praeclara opuscula, de quibus ad meam notitiam pauca pervenerunt. Ad Carolum Regem Lotharii Imperatoris Fratrem scripsit commendabile opus.  
De Praedestinatione 
(c) Scripsit de Praedestinatione libros duos.  lib. 1.  
De Corpore & Sanguine Domini lib. 1.  
Claruit temporibus Lotharii Imperatoris Anno Domini DCCCXL.    


a Ita se habet MS. Laubiensis. Apud Mabillon. A●ta Bened. Secul. 4. par. 2. Praef. c. 1. n 83. & 129.  INCIPIT LIBER RATRAMNI DE CORPORE ET SANGUINE DOMINI. [
b Haec Inscriptio non est Autoris, nec exstat in MS. Laub. MS. Salem. legit Ad Carolum magnum.  AD CAROLUM 
c Calvum Magni Neporem.  MAGNUM 
d Regem  IMPERATOREM.] PRAEFATIO.  
I. JVssistis 
e Jussistis ex MS. Laub. in impressis Jubes. item in MS. Monasterii Salem. , Gloriose Princeps, ut quid de Sanguinis & Corporis Christi Mysterio sentiam, vestrae Magnificentiae significem. Imperium quam magnifico vestro Principatu dignum, tam nostrae Parvitatis viribus constat difficilimum. Quid enim dignius Regali Providentia, quam de illius sacris Mysteriis Catholice sapere, qui sibi Regale solium dignatus est contribuere, & subjectos pati non posse diversa sentire de Corpore Christi, in quo constat Christanae redemptionis summam consistere?  
II. Dum enim quidam fidelium Corporis Sanguinisque Christi 
* Deest Mysterium. , quod in Ecclesia quotidie celebratur, dicant quod nulla sub figura, nulla sub obvelatione fiat, sed ipsius veritatis nuda manifestatione peragatur; quidam vero testentur, quod haec sub Mysterii figura contineantur, & aliud sit quod corporeis sensibus appareat, aliud autem quod fides aspiciat; non parva diversitas inter eos 
† Impressi Codd. esse dinoscitur legunt.  dignoscitur. Et cum Apostolus fidelibus scribat, ut idem sapiant & idem dicant omnes, & Schisma nullum inter eos appareat, non parvo Schismate dividuntur, qui de Mysterio Corporis, Sanguinisque Christi non eadem sentientes eloquuntur.  
III. Quapropter vestra Regalis Sublimitas zelo fidei provocata, non aequanimiter ista perpendens, & secundum Apostoli praeceptum cupiens, ut idem sentiant & idem dicant omnes, veritatis diligenter inquirit secretum, ut ad eam deviantes revocare possit. Vnde non contemnitis, etiam ab humillimis hujus rei veritatem perquirere, scientes quod tanti Secreti mysterium non nisi divinitate revelante possit agnosci, quae sine personarum acceptione, per quoscunque delegerit, suae veritatis lumen ostendit.  
IV. Nostrae vero tenuitati, quam sit jucundum Vestro parere imperio, tam est arduum super re 
a L. ab humanis.  humanis sensibus remotissima, & 
b Quam nisi.  nisiper Sancti Spiritus eruditionem non 
c 
Possem penetrare.  
Vel quae non nisi per Sancti Spiritus eruditionem non potest penetrari.   posse penetrare, disputare. Subditus igitur vestrae Magnitudinis jussioni, confisus autem ipsius de quo locuturi sumus suffragio, quibus potuero verbis, quid ex 
d Impres. de.  hoc sentiam aperire tentabo, non proprio fretus Ingenio, sed Sanctorum vestigia Patrum prosequendo.  
V. QVod in Ecclesia ore fidelium sumitur Corpus & Sanguis Christi, quaerit vestrae Magnitudinis Excellentia, in Mysterio fiat, an in Veritate? id est, Vtrum aliquid Secreti contineat, quod oculis solummodo fidei pateat; an sine cujuscunque velatione Mysterii, hoc aspectus intueatur Corporis exterius, quod mentis visus spiciat interius, ut totum quod agitur in manifestationis luce clarescat? Et utrum ipsum Corpus 
a Deest sit.  quod de Maria natum est & passum, mortuum & sepultum, quodque resurgens & coelos ascendens ad dextram Patris consideat?  
VI Harum duarum Quaestionum primam inspiciamus, & ne dubietatis ambage detineamur, definiamus quid sit Figura, quid Veritas; ut certum aliquid contuentes noverimus, quo rationis iter contendere debeamus.  
VII. Figura est obumbratio quaedam, quibusdam velaminibus quod intendit ostendens; verbi gratia, Verbum volentes dicere Panem nuncupamus: Sicut in Oratione Dominica panem quotidianum dari nobis expostulamus, vel cum Christus in Evangelio loquitur, dicens, Ego sum panis vivus, qui de coelo descendi; vel cum seipsum vitem, discipulos autem palmites appellat, 
a Impressi Codd. addunt, dicens.  Ego sum vitis vera, vos autem palmites: haec enim omnia aliud dicunt & aliud innuunt.  
VIII. Veritas vero est rei manifestae demonstratio, nullis umbrarum imaginibus obvelatae, sed puris & apertis, utque planius eloquamur, naturalibus significationibus insinuatae; utpote eum dicitur, Christus natus de Virgine, passus, crucifixus, mortuus & sepultus; nihil enim hic figuris obvelantibus adumbratur, verum rei veritas naturalium significationibus verborum ostenditur, neque aliud hic licet intelligi quam dicitur. At in superioribus non ita; Nam substantialiter nec Panis Christus, nec Vitis Christus, nec palmites Apostoli. Quapropter hic Figura, superius vero Veritas in narratione monstratur, id est, nuda & aperta Significatio.  
IX. Nunc redeamus ad illa, quorum causa dicta sunt ista, videlicet Corpus & Sanguinem Christi. Si enim nulla sub figura Mysterium illud peragitur, jam Mysterium non recte vocitatur; quoniam Mysterium dici non potest, in quo nihil est abditum, nihil a corporalibus sensibus remotum, nihil aliquo velamine contectum. At ille Panis qui per sacerdotis ministerium Christi Corpus conficitur, aliud exterius humanis sensibus ostendit, & aliud interius fidelium mentibus clamat. Exterius quidem panis, quod ante fuerat, Forma praetenditur, Color ostenditur, Sapor accipitur: Ast interius longe aliud multo pretiosus, multoque excellentius intimatur, quia caeleste, quia divinum, id est, Christi corpus ostenditur, quod non sensibus carnis, sed animi fidelis contuitu, vel aspicitur, vel accipitur vel comeditur.  
X. Vinum quoque quod sacerdotali Consecratione Christi Sanguinis efficitur sacramentum, aliud superficie tenus ostendit, aliud interius continet. Quid enim aliud in superficie quam substantia vini conspicitur? Gusta, vinum sapit, Odora, vinum redolet: Inspice, vini color intuetur. At interius si consideres, jam non liquor Vini, sed liquor Sanguinis Christi, credentium mentibus & sapit dum gustatur, & agnoscitur dum conspicitur, & probatur dum odoratur. Haec ita esse dum nemo potest abnegare, claret quia panis ille vinumque figurate Christi Corpus & Sanguis existit. Non enim secundum quod videtur, vel carnis species in illo pane cognoscitur, vel in illo vino cruoris unda monstatur, cum tamen post Mysticam Consecrationem nec panis jam dicitur nec vinum, sed Christi Corpus & Sanguis.  
XI. Nam si secundum quosdam figurate nihil hic accipiatur, sed totum in veritate conspiciatur, nihil hic fides operatur, quoniam nihil spirituale geritur, sed quicquid illud est totum secundum Corpus accipitur. Et cum Fides secundam Apostolum sit rerum argumentum non apparentium, id est, non earum quae videntur, sed quae non videntur substantiarum, nihil hie secundum fidem accipiemus, quoniam quicquid existit secundum sensus corporis dijudicamus. Et nihil absurdius quam panem Carnem accipere, & vinum Sanguinem dicere. Nec jam Mysterium erit in quo nihil secreti, nihil abditi continebitur.  
XII. Et quomodo jam Corpus Christi 
a Codd. impressi addunt & Sanguis.  dicetur, in quo nulla permutatio facta esse cognoscitur? Omnis enim permutatio aut ex eo quod non est in id quod est efficitur, aut ex eo quod est in id quod non est, aut ex eo quod est in id quod est. In isto autem Sacramento si tantum in veritatis simplieitate consideratur & non aliud credatur, quam quod aspicitur, nulla permutatio facta cognoscitur. Nam nec ex eo quod non erat transivit in aliquid quod sit, quomodo sit transitus in rebus nascentibus: Siquidem non erant prius, sed ut sint, ev non esse ad id quod est esse transitum fecerunt. Hic vero panis & vinum prius fuere quam transitum in Sacramentum Corporis & Sanguinis Christi fecerunt.  
Sed nec ille Transitus qui fit ex eo quod est esse ad id quod est non esse, qui transitus in rebus per defectum occasum patientibus existit. Quicquid enim interit, prius subsistendo fuit; nec interitum pati potest, quod nunquam fuit. Hic quoque non iste transitus factus essc cognoscitur, quoniam secundum veritatem species creaturae quae fuerat ante, permansisse cognoscitur.  
XIII. Item illa permutatio quae fit ex eo quod est in id quod est, quae perspicitur in rebus qualitatis varietatem patientibus (verbi gratia, quando quod ante nigrum fuerat in album demutatur) nec hic facta esse cognoscitur: nihil enim hic vel tactu, vel ●olore, vel sapore permutatum esse deprehenditur. Si ergo nihil hic est permutatum, non est aliud quam ante fuit. Est autem aliud, quoniam panis Corpus & vinum Sanguis Christi facta sunt. Sic enim ipse dicit Accipite & comedite, hoc est corpus meum. Similiter & de calice loquens dicit, Accipite & bibite, hoc est Sanguis Novi Testamenti, qui pro vobis fundetur.  
XIV. Quaerendum ergo est ab eis, qui nihil hic figurate volunt accipere, sed totum in veritatis simplicitate consistere, secundum quod demutatio facta sit, ut jam non sint quod ante fuerunt, videlicet panis atque vinum, sed sint corpus atque sanguis Christi? Secundum speciem namque creaturae, formamque rerum visibilium, utrumque hoc, id est, panis & vinum, nihil habent in se permutatum. Et si nihil permutationis pertulerunt, nihil aliud existunt quam quod prius fuere.  
XV. Cernit Sublimitas vestra, Princeps gloriose, quo 
a Codd. Impressi legunt aliter.  taliter sentientium intellectus cvadat, negant quod affirmare creduntur, & quod credunt destruere comprobantur. Corpus etenim Sanguinemque Christi fideliter confitentur, & cum hoc faciunt, non hoc jam esse quod prius fuere proculdubio protestantur. Et si aliud sunt quam fuere mutationem accepere. Cam hoc negari non possit, dicant secundum quid permutata sunt? corporaliter namque nihil in eis cernitur esse permutatum. Fatebuntur igitur necesse est, aut mutata esse secundum aliud quam secundnm Corpus, ac per hoc, non esse hoc quod in veritate videntur, sed aliud quod non esse secundum 
b Impressi legunt Existentia n.  esessentiam propriam cernuntur: Aut si hoc profiteri noluerint, 
c Impr. compellentur.  compelluntur negare Corpus esse Sanguinemque Christi, quod nefas est non solum dicere, verum etiam cogitare.  
XVI. At quia confitentur & Corpus & Sanguinem 
d Codd. Impressi legunt Christi.  Dei esse, nec hoc esse potuisse nisi facta in melius commutatione, neque ista commutatio corporaliter sed spiritaliter facta sit, necesse est 
e Impressi. Ut jam.  jam ut figurate facta esse dicatur: quoniam sub velamento corporei panis, corporeique vini, spirituale corpus Christi spiritualisque sanguis existit. Non quod duarum sint existentiae rerum inter se diversarum corporis videlicet & Spiritus, verum una eademque res secundum aliud species panis & vini consistit, secundum aliud autem Corpus est & Sanguis Christi. Secundum namque quod utrumque corporaliter contingitur species sunt creaturae eorporeae; secundum potentiam vero, quod spiritualiter factae sunt, Mysteria sunt Corporis, & Sangunis Christi.  
XVII. Consideremus sacri Fontem Baptismatis, qui fons vitae non immerito nuncupatur, quia descendentes in se melioris vitae novitate reformat, & de peccato mortuis viventes justitiae donat. Num secundum quod aquae conspicitur elementum esse istam potentiam obtinet? Attamen nisi sanctificationis virtutem obtineret, labem vitiorum nequaquam diluere possit. Et nisi vigorem vitae contineret, nullo modo mortuis praestare vitam valeret, mortuis autem non carne sed anima: In eo tamen fonte si consideretur solummodo quod corporeus aspicit sensus, Elementum fluidum conspicitur, corruptioni subjectum, nec nisi corpora lavandi potentiam obtinere. Sed accessit Sancti Spiritus per Sacerdotis consecrationem virtus, & efficax facta est non solum corpora verum etiam animas diluere & spirituales sordes spirituali potentia dimovere.  
XVIII. Ecce in uno eodemque Elemento duo videmus inesse sibi resistentia, id est, corruptioni subjacens incorruptionem praestare, & vitam non habens vitam contribuere. Cognoscitur ergo in isto Fonte & inesse quod sensus Corporis attingat, & idcirco mutabile atque corruptible; & rursus inesse quod fides sola conspiciat, & ideo nec corrumpi posse, nec vitae discrimen accipere. Si requiras quod superficie tenus lavat, Elementum est, si vero perpendas quod interius purgat, virtus vitalis est, virtus Sanctificationis, virtus Immortalitatis. Igitur in Proprietate humor corruptibilis, in Mysterio vero virtus sanabilis.  
XIX. Sic itaque Christi Corpus & Sanguis superficie tenus considerata, creatura est mutabilitati corruptelaeque subjecta. Si Mysterii vero perpendas virtutem, vita est participantibus se tribuens immortalitatem. Non ergo sunt idem quod cernuntur & quod creduntur: Secundum enim quod cernuntur corpus pascunt corruptibile, ipsa corruptibilia. Secundum vero quod creduntur animas pascunt in aeternum victuras, ipsa immortalia.  
XX. Apostolus quoque scribens Corinthiis ait; Nescitis quoniam partes nostri omnes sub nube fuerunt, & omnes Mare transierunt, & omnes in Mose baptizati sunt in nube & in mari, & omnes eandem escam spiritualem manducaverunt, & omnes eundem potum spiritualem biberunt? Bibebant autem de spirituali consequenti eos petra; Petra autem erat Christus. Animadvertimus & mare Baptismi speeiem praetulisse & nubem; patresque prioris Testamenti in eis, id est, in nube sive mari Baptizatos 
a Impaessi esse.  fuisse. Num vel mare secundum quod elementum videbatur, Baptismi potuit habere virtutem; Vel nubes juxta quod densioris crassitudinem aeris ostendebat, populum Sanctificare quiverit? Nec tamen Apostolum in Christo locutum audemus dicere, quod non vere dixerit, patres nostros in nube & in mari esse Baptizatos.  
XXI. Et quamvis Baptismus ille formam Baptismatis Christi quod hodie geritur in Ecclesia non praetulerit, Baptismum tamen extitisse & in eo patres nostros Baptizatos fuisse, nullus negare sanus audebit, nisi verbis Apostoli contralicere vesanus praesumpserit. Igitur & mare & nubes non secundum hoc quod Corpus extiterant, sanctificationis munditiam praebuere; verum secundum quod invisibiliter Sancti Spiritus sanctificationem continebant. Erat namque in eis 
* Mendosa procul●ubio est lectio in omnibus Ratramni quot quot vidi editionibus invisibilis, quod & ex MS. Laub. constat.  visibilis forma quae Corporeis sensibus appareret, non in imagine sed in veritate; Et interius spiritualis potentia refulgebat quae non carnis Oculis, sed mentis Luminibus appareret.  
XXII. Similiter Manna populo de coelo datum, & aqua profluens de petra, corporales extiterant, & corporaliter populum vel pascebant, vel potabant; attamen Apostolus vel illud Manna vel illam aquam, Spiritualem escam, & spiritualem potum appellat. Cur hoc? Quoniam inerat Corporeis illis substantiis Spiritualis verbi potestas, quae Mentes potius quam Corpora credentium pasceret atque potaret. Et cum cibus vel potus ille futuri corporis Christi sanguinisque mysterium quod celebrat Ecclesia praemonstraret, eandem tamen escam spiritualem manducasse, 
a Cood. Impr. & eundem.  eundem potum spiritualem bibisse Patres nostros Sanctus Paulus asseverat.  
XXIII. Quaeris fortasse, Quam eandem? Nimirum ipsam quam hodie Populus Credentium in Ecclesia manducat & bibit. Non enim licet diversam intelligi, quoniam unus idemque Christus est, qui & populum in deserto in Nube & in Mari Baptizatum sua carne pavit, suo sanguine tunc potavit, & in Ecclesia nunc Credentium populum sui corporis pane, sui sanguinis unda pascit & potat.  
XXIV. Quod volens Apostolus intimare, cum dixisset Patres nostros eandem escam spiritualem manducasse, eundemque potum spiritualem bibisse, consequenter adjecit, Bibebant autem de spirituali consequenti eos Petra; Petra autem erat Christus.  intelligeremus in deserto Christum in spirituali petra constitisse, & sui sanguinis undam populo praebuisse, qui postea Corpus de Virgine sumptum, & pro salute Credentium in cruce suspensum, nostris saeculis exhibuit, 
b Cood. Impr. diversa.  & ex eo sanguinis undam effudit, quo non solum redimeremur, verum etiam potaremur.  
XXV. Mirum certe, quoniam incomprehensibile & inaestimabile! Nondum hominem assumserat; nondum pro salute mundi mortem degustaverat; nondum sanguine suo nos redemerat; & jam nostri patres in deserto per escam spiritualem, potumque invisibilem ejus Corpus manducabant, & ejus Sanguinem bibebant, velut testis 
* Existit. Edit. Colon.  extat Apostolus; clamans, Eandem escam spiritualem manducasse, eundem potum spiritualem bibisse Patres nostros. Non istic Ratio qua fieri potuerit disquirenda, sed Fides quod factum sit adhibenda. Ipse namque qui nunc in Ecclesia omnipotenti virtute Panem & Vinum in sui Corporis carnem, & proprii cruoris undam spiritualiter convertit, ipse tunc quoque Manna de coelo, datum Corpus suum & Aquam de Petra profusam proprium sanguinem invisibiliter operatus est.  
XXVI. Quod intelligens David, in Spiritu Sancto protestatus est; Panem, inquiens, Angelorum manducavit homo. Ridiculum namque est opinari, quod Manna corporeum Patribus datum coelestem pascat exercitum, aut tali vescantur edulio, qui divini Verbi saginantur epulis. Ostendit certe Psalmista, vel magis Spiritus Sanctus loquens in Psalmista, vel quid Patres nostri in illo Manna coelesti perceperunt, vel quid Fideles in Mysterio Corporis Christi credere debeant. In utroque Christus certe innuitur, qui & Credentium animas pascit, & Angelorum cibus existit. Vtrumque hoc incorporeo gustu, nec corporali sagina, sed spiritualis Verbi virtute.  
XXVII. Et Evangelista narrante cognovimus, Quod Dominus Jesus Christus priusquam pateretur, accepto pane, gratias egit, & dedit Discipulis suis, dicens, Hoc est Corpus meum, quod pro vobis datur, hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Similiter & Calicem postquam coenavit, dicens, Hic est Calix novum Testamentum in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis fundetur. Videmus nondum passum esse Christum, & jam tamen sui corporis & sanguinis Mysterium operatum fuisse.  
XXVIII. Non enim putamus ullum Fidelium dubitare panem illum fuisse Christi Corpus effectum, quod Discipulis donans, dicit, Hoc est Corpus meum, quod pro vobis datur; sed neque Calicem dubitare sanguinem Christi continere, de quo idem ait, Hic est Calix novum Testamentum in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis fundetur. Sicut ergo paulo antequam pateretur Panis substantiam, & Vini Creaturam convertere potuit in proprium Corpus quod passurum erat, & in suum sanguinem qui post fundendus extabat, sic etiam in deserto Manna & Aquam de petra in suam Carnem & Sanguinem convertere praevaluit, quamvis longe post & Caro illius in cruce pro nobis pendenda, & Sanguis ejus in ablutionem nostram fundendus superabat.  
XXIX. Hic etiam considerare debemus quemadmodum sit accipiendum quod ipse dicit; Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, & sanguinem ejus biberitis, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Non enim dicit, quod Caro ipsius quae pependit in cruce, particulatim concidenda foret, & a Discipulis manducanda, vel Sanguis ipsius quem fusurus erat pro mundi redemptione, Discipulis dandus esset in potum. Hoc enim scelus esset, si secundum quod insideles tunc acceperunt, a Discipulis vel Sanguis ejus biberetur, vel Caro comederetur.  
XXX. Propter quod in consequentibus ait Discipulis, non infideliter sed fideliter verba Christi suscipientibus, nec tamen 
† Impressi habent adhuc quomodo.  quomodo illa verba intelligenda 
* Adde forent.  penetrantibus; Hoc vos scandalizat (inquiens) Si ergo videritis filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius? tanquam diceret, Non ergo Carnem meam vel Sanguinem meum vobis corporaliter comedendam, vel bibendum per partes distributum distribuendumve putetis, cum post Resurrectionem visuri sit is me coelos ascensurum cum integri Corporis sive sanguinis mei plenitudine. Tunc intelligetis quod non sicut Infideles arbitrantur, carnem meam a Credentibus comedendam, sed vere per Mysterium Panem & Vinum in Corporis & Sanguinis mei conversa Substantiam a credentibus sumenda.  
XXXI. Et consequenter Spiritus est, (inquit) qui vivificat, Caro non prodest quicquam. Carnem dicit quicquam non prodesse, illo modo sicut Infideles intelligebant, alioquin vitam praebet, sicut a Fidelibus per Mysterium sumitur. Et hoc quare? Ipse manifestat cum dicit, Spiritus est qui vivificat. In hoc Itaque Mysterio Corporis & Sanguinis spiritualis est operatio quae vitam praestat, sine cujus operatione Mysteria illa nihil prosunt; quoniam Corpus quidem pascere possunt, sed Animam pascere non possunt.  
XXXII. Hic jam suboritur Quaestio, quam plurimi proponentes loquuntur, non in Figura, sed in Veritate ista fieri. Quod dicentes Sanctorum Scripta Patrum contraire comprobantur.  
XXXIII. Sanctus 
† 3. Aug. De Doct. Christ. lib. 3. c. 16.  Augustinus, Doctor Ecclesiae praecipuus, in Libro De Doctrina Christiana tertio taliter scribit: Nisi manducaveritis (inquit Salvator) Carnem Filii hominis, & biberitis Sanguinem ejus, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Facinus vel Flagitium videtur jubere; Figura ergo est praecipiens Passioni Domini esse communicandum, & 
* Apud Augustinum & in obiis editionibus Ratramni habetur, & suaviter atque utiliter recondendum.  fideliter recondendum in memoria quod pro nobis ejus Caro crucifixa & vulnerata sit.  
XXXIV. Cernimus quod Doctor iste Mysteria Corpus & Sanguinis Christi sub Figura dicit a Fidelibus celebrari: Nam Carnem illius Sanguinemque ejus sumere carnaliter, non Religionis dicit esse, sed Facinoris. De quibus fuerant illi, qui in Evangelio dicta Domini non spiritualiter, sed carnaliter intelligentes, recesserunt ab eo, & jam cum illo non ibant.  
XXXV. Idem in Epistola ad Bonifacium Episcopum scribens, inter reliqua, sic ait, Nempe, saepe ita loquimur, Ut Pascha propinquente, dicamus crastinam vel perendinam Domini Passionem, cum ille ante tam multos annos passus sit, nec omnino nisi semel illa Passio facta sit. Nempe, ipso die Dominico dicimus, hodie Dominus resurrexit, cum ex quo 
† In editis Resurrecti.  resurrexerit tot anni 
* Transiorunt in editis.  transierint. Cur nemo tam ineptus est, ut nos ita loquentes arguat esse mentitos, nisi quia istos dies secundum illorum quibus haec gesta sunt similitudinem nuncupamus? Ut dicatur ipse dies qui non est ipse, sed revolutione temporis similis ejus, & dicatur illo die fieri propter Sacramenti celebrationem, quod non illo die, sed jam olim factum 
‖ In editis est.  sit. Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in seipso? Et tamen in Sacramento non solum per omnes Paschae Solemnitates, sed omni die populis immolatur. Nec utique mentitur qui interrogatus, eum responderit immolari. Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem 
* In editis earum rerum.  rerum earum, quarum Sacramentum sunt non haberent, omnino Sacramenta non essent. Ex hac ipsa autem similitudine plerumque 
† In editis etiam.  jam ipsarum rerum Nomina accipiant. Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum Sacramentum Corporis Christi, Corpus Christi est, Sacramentum Sanguinis Christi Sanguis Christi est: Ita 
(a) i e. Baptismus, ut patet ex eis quae sequuntur, apud Augustinum, Ep. 23. quae est ad Bonifacium.— Ac per hoc cum respondetur [i. e. in Baptismo] parvulus credere, qui fidei nondum habet affectum, respondetur fidem habere propter fidei Sacramentum, & convertere se ad Deum propter conversionis Sacramentum.  Sacramentum Fidei Fides est.  
XXXVI. Cernimus quod St. Augustinus dicit aliud Sacramenta, & aliud Res quarum sunt Sacramenta: Corpus autem in quo passus est Christus, & Sanguis ejus de latere qui fluxit, res sunt. Harum vero rerum Mysteria dicit esse Sacrament a Corporis & Sanguinis Christi, quae celebrantur ob memoriam Dominicae Passionis, non solum per omnes Paschae Solemnitates singulis annis, verum etiam singulis in anno diebus.  
XXXVII. Et cum unum sit Corpus Dominicum in quo semel passus est, & unus Sanguis qui pro Salute Mundi fusus est, attamen Sacramenta ipsarum rerum vocabula sumpserunt, ut dicantur Corpus & Sanguis Christi, cum propter similitudinem rerum quas innuunt, sic appellentur. Sicut 
(b) Lege Passio.  Pascha & Resurrectio Domini vocantur, quae per singulos 
(c) In Imqressi dies.  annos celebrantur, cum semel in seipso passus sit & resurrexerit, nec dies illi jam possint revocari, quoniam praeterierint. Appellantur tamen illorum vocabulo, dies quibus memoria Dominicae Passionis, sive Resurrectionis commemoratur, idcirco quod illorum similitudinem habeant dierum, quibus Salvator semel passus est, & semel resurrexit.  
XXXVIII. Vnde dicimus, hodie, vel cras, vel perendie Domini 
* Passio.  Pascha est, vel Resurrectio, cum dies illi quibus haec gesta sunt, multis jam annis praeterierint. Sic etiam dicamus Dominum immolari, quando Passionis ejus Sacramenta celebrantur, cum semel pro Salute Mundi sit immolatus in seipso, sicut Apostolus ait; Christus passus est pro nobis, vobis relinquens exemplum, ut sequamini Vestigia ejus. Non enim, quod quotidie in seipso patiatur, quod semel fecit. Exemplum autem nobis reliquit, quod in Mysterio Dominici Corporis & Sanguinis quotidie Credentibus praesentatur, ut quisquis ad illum accesserit, noverit se passionibus ejus sociari debere, quarum imaginem in sacris Mysteriis praestolatur, juxta illud Sapientiae; Accessisti ad Mensam Potentis, diligenter attende quae tibi sunt apposita. 
(a) Sciens quia talia te oportet praeparare: Hic verba non extant in Bibl. Hebr. sed in versione 70. unde traducta, in nonnullis veteribus Latinis Bibliis lecta fuisse constat: Ab Ambrosio enim citantur, De Officiis l. 1. c. 31. Sed in Versione Vulg. hodie non habentur.  sciens quia talia te oportet praeparare. Accedere ad Mensam Potentis, est divini participem libaminis fieri. Consideratio vero appositorum Dominici Corporis & Sanguinis est intelligentia. Quibus quisquis participat, advertat se talia debere praeparare, ut ejus imitator existat commoriendo cujus memoriam Mortis non solum credendo, verum etiam gustando confitetur.  
XXXIX. Item Beatus Paulus ad Hebraeos, Talis enim decebat, ut nobis esset Pontifex, sanctus, innocens, impollutus, segregatus a peccatoribus, & excelsior coelis factus; qui non habet necessitatem, quemadmodum Sacerdotes, quotidie hostias offerre prius pro suis delictis, deinde pro populi; hoc enim fecit semel se offerendo Dominus Jesus Christus. Quod semel fecit, nunc quotidie frequentat; semel enim pro peccatis populi se obtulit, celebratur tamen haec eadem Oblatio singulis per fideles diebus, sed in Mysterio, ut quod Dominus Jesus Christus semel se offerens adimplevit, hoc in ejus Passionis memoriam quotidie geratur per Mysteriorum celebrationem.  
XL. Nec tamen falso dicitur, quod in Mysteriis illis Dominus vel immoletur, vel patiatur: quoniam illius Mortis atque Passionis habent similitudinem, quarum existunt repraesentationes. Vnde Dominicum Corpus, & Sanguis Dominicus appellantur, quoniam ejus sumunt appellationem cujus existunt Sacramentum.  

Isid. Orig. ● lib. 6. c. 19  Hinc Beatus Isidorus in Libris Etymologiarum, sic ait, Sacrificium dictum quasi sacrum factum, quia prece mystica consecratur in memoriam pro nobis Dominicae Passionis. Unde hoc eo jubente, Corpus Christi, & Sanguinem dicimus, quod dum fit ex Fructibus Terrae, sanctificatur, & fit Sacramentum operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei. Cujus Panis & Calicis Sacramentum Graeci 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicunt, quod Latine 
† Frigidam hanc Etymologiam citat & Gratianus, Decret. l. 2. Causa 1. Quemadmodum & alia ejusmodi, quae ostendunt Isidorum non admodum Linguae Graecae peritum, e. g. Metropolitanis autem à mensura Civitatum vocantur, Oril. l. 7. c. 12. Haec citat Gratianus, Decr. l. 1. Dist. 21. qu. 1. cap. Cleros.  bona gratia interpretatur. Et quid melius sanguine & Corpore Christi? 
* Clausula inter Asteriscos duos posita, non hodie legitur apud Isidorum, vereor ne mala fide omissa sit.  Panis vero & Vinum ideo Corpori & Sanguini 
‖ Impressi addunt Domini.  comparantur, quia sicut hujus visibilis Panis Vinique substantia exteriorem nutrit & inebriat hominem, ita Verbum Dei, qui est Panis vivus participatione sui fidelium recreat mentes 
* Clausula inter Asteriscos duos posita, non hodie legitur apud Isidorum, vereor ne mala fide omissa sit. .  
XLI. Et iste Doctor Catholicus sacrum illud Dominicae Passionis Mysterium in memoriam pro nobis Dominicae Passionis docet agendum. Hoc dicens ostendit, Dominicam Passionem semel esse faectam, ejus vero memoriam in sacris solennibus repraesentari.  
XLII. Vnde & Panis qui offertur, ex fructibus terrae cum sit assumptus, in Christi Corpus, dum sanctificatur, transponitur, sicut & Vinum, cum ex vite defluxerit, divini tamen sanctificatione Mysterii efficitur Sanguis Christi, non quidem visibiliter, sed sicut ait praesens Doctor, operante invisibiliter Spiritu 
(a) In impressis Spiritu Sancto.  Dei.  
XLIII. Vnde Sanguis & Corpus Christi dicuntur; quia non quod exterius videntur, sed quod interius divino Spiritu operante facta sunt, accipiuntur. Et quia longe aliud per potentiam invisibilem existunt, quam visibiliter appareant, discernit, dum dicit, Panem & Vinum ideo Corpori & Sanguini Domini comparari; quia sicut visibilis Panis & Vini substantia exteriorem nutrit & inebriat hominem, ita Verbum Dei, qui est Panis vivus, participatione sui, Fidelium recreat mentes.  
XLIV. Ista dicendo, planissime confitemur, quod in Sacramento Corporis & Sanguinis Domini, quicquid exterius sumitur, ad corporis refectionem aptatur. Verbum autem Dei, qui est panis invisibilis, invisibiliter in illo existens Sacramento, invisibiliter participatione sui Fidelium mentes vivificando pascit.  
XLV. Hinc etiam idem Doctor dicit, Sacramentum est in aliqua celebratione, cum res gesta ita sit, ut aliquid significare intelligatur quod sancte accipiendum est: Haec dicendo ostendit, 
(a) In impressis confitetur.  omne Sacramentum in divinis rebus aliquid secreti continere, & aliud esse quod visibiliter appareat, aliud vero quod invisibiliter sit accipiendum.  
XLVI. Quae sunt autem Sacramenta fidelibus celebranda, consequenter ostendens ait: Sunt autem Sacramenta, Baptismus, & Chrisma, Corpus & Sanguis. 
(b) Apud Isidorum additur Christi.  Quae ob id Sacramenta dicuntur, quia sub tegumento corporalium rerum, virtus divina secretius salutem eorundem Sacramentorum operatur. Unde & a secretis virtutibus, vel sacris Sacramenta dicuntur: Et in sequentibus ait: Graece 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur, quod secretam & reconditam habeat 
(c) Disyensavionem, ita libri impressi.  dispositionem.  
XLVII. Quid istine perdocemur, nisi quod Corpus & Sanguis Domini propterea Mysteria dicuntur, quod secretam & reconditam habeant 
(d) Dispensationem iterum.  dispositionem. Id est, aliud sint quod exterius innuant, aliud quod interius invisibiliter operentur.  
XLVIII. Hinc etiam & Sacramenta vocitantur, quia tegumento corporalium rerum, virtus divina secretius salutem accipientium fideliter dispensat.  
XLIX. Ex his omnibus, quae sunt hactenus dicta, monstratum est, quod Corpus & Sanguis Christi quae fidelium ore in Ecclesia percipiuntur, figurae sunt sesecundum speciem visibilem. At vero secundum invisibilem substantiam, id est, divini potentiam Verbi, vere Corpus & Sanguis Christi existunt. Vnde secundum visibilem creaturam corpus pascunt, juxta vero potentioris virtutem substantiae, Fidelium mentes & pascunt & sanctificant.  
L. Quaestio Secunda, Jam nunc secundae Quaestionis Propositum est inspiciendum & videndum: Vtrum ipsum Corpus quod de Maria natum est, & passum, mortuum & sepultum, quodque ad dextram Patris consideat, sit quod ore Fidelium per Sacramentorum Mysterium in Ecclesia quotidie sumitur?  
LI. Percontemur quid ex hoc Sanctus Ambrose sentiat. Ait namque in 
(a) Habentur haec in Libro de initiandis, c. 8.  primo Sacramentorum Libro; Revera mirabile est quod Manna Deus plueret Patribus, & quotidiano Coeli Pascebantur alimento; Unde dictum est, Panem Angelorum manducavit Homo. Sed tamen Panem illum qui manducaverunt omnes in deserto mortui sunt. Ista autem esca quam accipis, iste panis vivus qui descendit de Coelo, vitae aeternae substantiam subministrat, & quicunque hunc 
(b) Hunc panem in editis.  manducaverit, non morietur in aeternum, & Corpus Christi est.  
LII. Vide secundum quod Doctor iste Corpus Christi dicat esse escam quam Fideles accipiunt in Ecclesia. Ait namque, Iste panis vivus qui de coelo descendit, vitae aeternae substantiam subministrat. Num secundum hoc quod videtur, quod corporaliter sumitur, quod dente premitur, quod fauce glutitur, quod receptaculo ventris suscipitur, aeternae vitae substantiam subministrat? Isto namque modo carnem pascit morituram, neque aliquam subministrat incorruptionem; neque dici vere potest,  quicunque hunc manducaverit non morietur in aeternum. Et hoc enim quod sumit corpus, corruptible est, nec ipsi corpori potest praestare ne moriatur in aeternum: Quoniam quod corruptioni subjacet, aeternitatem praestare non valet. Est ergo in illo pane vita, quae non oculis apparet corporeis, sed fidei contuetur aspectu, qui etiam panis vivus, qui descendit de coelo existit; & de quo vere dicitur, Quicunque hunc manducaverit, non morietur in aeternum, & qui est Corpus 
(a) Ibid. c. 9  Christi.  
LIII. Item in consequentibus, cum de omnipotenti virtute Christi loqueretur, sic ait; 
(b) In Impressis Domini.  Sermo ergo Christi, qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat, non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare 
(c) Quod in editis.  quae non erant? Nonne 
(a) Minus in editis.  majus est novas 
(b) Rebus in editis.  res dare, quam mutare Naturas?  
LIV. Dicit Sanctus Ambrose, In illo Mysterio Sanguinis & Corporis Christi commutationem esse factam, & mirabiliter, quia divine, & ineffabiliter, quia incomprehensibile. Dicant qui nihil hic volunt secundum interius latentem virtutem accipere, sed totum quod apparet visibiliter aestimare, secundum quid hic sit commutatio facta? Nam secundum Creaturarum substantiam, quod fuerunt ante consecrationem, hoc & postea consistunt. Panis & Vinum prius extitere, in qua etiam specie jam consecrata permanere videntur. Est ergo interius commutatum Spiritus Sancti potenti virtute, quod Fides aspicit, Animam pascit, aeternae vitae substantiam subministrat.  
LV. Item in consequentibus, Quid hic quaeris Naturae ordinem in Christi corpore, cum praeter Naturam sit ipse Dominus 
(a) Deus Natus in editis.  Jesus partus ex Virgine?  
LVI. Hic jam surgit 
* Auditor. Fortassis per Auditorem intelligit Catechumenum rudem, & nondum plene dogmatis Evangelicis imbutum, vel Baptismati proximum. Qui Auditores & Audientes apud Tert. appellantur, lib. De Poenit. c. 6. inter Auditorum tyrocinia. Et Cyprianus Optatum Lectorem Catechumenorum institutioni praepositum Doctorem Audientium à se constitutum dicit, Ep. 29. Ed Ox. 1682. Hoc unum obstat, quod apud August. Hieron. vel Ambros. in quorum Scriptis magis versatus videtur Ratramnus vocabulum Auditor nusquam, quod memini, ita acceptum occurrit. Sed res parvi est momenti.  Auditor & dicit, Corpus esse Christi quod cernitur, & Sanguinem qui bibitur; nec quaerendum quomodo factum sit, sed tenendum quod sic factum sit. Bene quidem sentire videris, sed si vim verborum diligenter inspexeris, Corpus quidem Christi, Sanguinemque fideliter credis, 
† Redundat sed si.  sed si perspiceres, quia quod credis nondum vides. Nam si videres, diceres, Video; non diceres, Credo Corpus Sanguinemque esse Christi. Nunc autem quia Fides totum, quicquid illud totum est, aspicit, & oculus carnis nihil apprehendit, intellige quod non in specie, sed in virtute Corpus & Sanguis Christi existant, quae cernuntur. Vnde dicit, ordinem Naturae non hic intuendum, sed Christi potentiam venerandam, quae 
‖ Deest permutat.  quicquid vult, 
* Quomodo vult desideratur in excus s.  quomodo vult, in quodcunque vult, & creat quod non erat, & creatum permutat in ●id quod antea non fuerat. Subjungit idem Author. Vera utique Caro quae crucifixa est, quae sepulta est, 
† Verae legisse videtur Ratramnus, nec praeter mentem S. Ambrosii.  vere ergo Carnis illius Sacramentum est. Ipse clamat Dominus Jesus, Hoc est Corpus meum.  
LVII. Quam diligenter, quam prudenter facta distinctio! De Carne Christi quae crucifixa est, quae sepulta est, id est, secundum quam Christus crucifixus & sepultus est, ait, Vera itaque Caro Christi. At de illa quae sumitur in Sacramento, dicit; 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 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 sit Specie Caro, sed Sacramento. Siquidem in specie panis est, in Sacramento, verum Christi Corpus, sicut ipse clamat Dominus Jesus, Hoc est Corpus meum.  
LVIII. Item in consequentibus, 
† Ambros. ibid. In impressis legitur quid ●damus.  Quid comedamus, quid bibamus, alibi tibi per Prophetam Spiritus Sanctus expressit, dicens, Gustate & videte quoniam suavis est Dominus; Beatus vir qui sperat in eo. Num corporaliter gustatus ille panis, aut illud vinum bibitum, ostendit quam sit suavis Dominus? Quicquid enim sapit, corporale est, & fauces delectat. Numquid Dominum gustare corporeum est aliquid sentire? Invitat ergo spiritualis 
* Rectius gustus in impressis.  gusti saporem experiri, & in illo vel potu vel pane nihil corporaliter opinari, sed totum spiritualiter sentire: quoniam Dominus Spiritus est, & beatus vir qui sperat in eo.  
LIX. Item consequenter, In illo Sacramento Christus est, quia corpus Christi est: Non ergo corporalis Esca, sed spiritualis est. Quid apertius? Quid manifestius? Quid divinius? Ait enim in illo Sacramento Christus est. Non enim ait, ille Panis, & illud Vinum Christus est, quod si diceret Christum corruptibilem (quod absit) & mortalitati subjectum praedicaret: Quicquid enim in illa esca vel cernitur vel gustatur corporaliter, corruptibilitati constat obnoxium esse.  
LX. Addit, Quia Corpus Christi est. Insurgis & dicis, Ecce manifeste illum Panem, & illum Potum Corpus esse Christi confitetur; sed attende quem admodum 
* In impressis Subjungitur.  subjungit. Non ergo corporalis esca, sed spiritualis est. Non igitur sensum carnis adhibeas; nihil enim secundum eum hic decernitur. Est quidem Corpus Christi; sed non corporale, sed spirituale. Est Sanguis Christi, sed non corporalis, sed spiritualis, Nihil igitur hic corporaliter, sed spiritualiter sentiendum. Corpus Christi est, sed non corporaliter; & Sanguis Christi est, sed non corporaliter.  
LXI. Item consequenter, Vnde & Apostolus hic (inquit) de Typo ejus ait, Quia Patres nostri escam spiritualem manducaverunt, & potum spiritualem biberunt; Corpus enim Dei, 
† In impressis, Corpus spirituale.  spirituale est; Corpus Christi, Corpus est Divini Spiritus; quia Spiritus Christus est, ut legimus 
* In editis deest in Threnis.  in Threnis. Spiritus ante faciem nostram Christus Dominus.  
LXII. Luculentissime Sanguinis & Corporis Christi Mysterium, quemadmodum debeamus intelligere, docuit. Cum enim dixisset Patres nostros escam spiritualem manducasse, & potum spiritualem bibisse; cum tamen Manna illud quod comederunt, & aquam quam biberunt, corporea fuisse, nemo 
‖ In MS. est desideratur.  qui dubitet, adjungit de Mysterio quod in Ecclesia nunc agitur, definiens secundum quid Corpus sit Christi. Corpus enim Dei, inquiens, Corpus est spirituale. Deus utique Christus, & Corpus quod sumpsit de Maria Virgine, quod passum, quod sepultum est, quod resurrexit, Corpus utique verum fuit, 
† Codd. impressi legunt idem.  id est quod visibile atque palpabile manebat. At vero Corpus, quod Mysterium Dei dicitur, non est corporale, sed spirituale. Quod si spirituale, jam non visibile, neque palpabile. Hinc Beatus Ambrosius subjungit, Corpus, inquiens, Christi Corpus est divini Spiritus: Divinus autem Spiritus nihil corporeum, nihil corruptible, nihil palpabile quod sit existit. At hoc Corpus quod in Ecclesia celebratur, secundum visibilem speciem, & corruptibile est, & palpabile.  
LXIII. Quomodo ergo divini Spiritus Corpus esse dicitur? Secundum hoc utique quod spirituale est, id est, secundum quod invisibile consistit, & impalpabile, ac per hoc incorruptible.  
LXIV. Hinc in consequentibus, Quia Spiritus Christus, ut legimus, Spiritus ante faciem nostram Christus Dominus. Patenter ostendit secundum quod habeatur Corpus Christi, videlicet secundum id quod sit in eo Spiritus Christi, id est, divini potentia Verbi, quae non solum Animam pascit, verum etiam purgat.  
LXV. Propter quod ipse dicit Author consequenter, Denique cor nostrum esca ista confirmat, & potus iste laetificat cor hominis; ut Propheta 
(a) Memoravit in editis.  commemoravit. Num esca, corporalis cor hominis confirmat, & potus corporeus laetificat cor hominis? Sed ut ostenderet quae esca, vel qui potus sint de quibus loquitur, addidit signanter Esca ista, vel potus iste: Quae ista, vel qui iste? Corpus nimirum Christi, Corpus Divini Spiritus; & ut apertius inculcetur, Spiritus Christus, de quo 
(b) Codd. alii Legitur.  loquitur, Spiritus ante faciem nostram Christus Dominus. Quibus omnibus evidenter ostenditur, nihil in esca ista, nihil in potu isto corporaliter sentiendum, sed totum spiritualiter attendendum.  
LXVI. Non enim Anima, quae corde hominis praesenti loco significatur, vel esca corporea, vel potu corporeo pascitur, sed Verbo Dei nutritur & vegetatur; quod apertius in Libro quinto Sacramentorum, Doctor idem affirmat. 
(c) Ambr. lib. Sacr. 5. c. 4.  Non iste panis est, inquiens, qui vadit in corpus, sed ille panis vitae aeternae, qui animae nostrae substantiam 
(c) Fulcit in editis. Cujus loco memoriae lapsu Librarius videtur subministrat scripsisse; nam Ratramnum etiam perinde ac nos fulcit, legisse liquet ex clausula Paragraphi sequentis.  subministrat.  
LXVII. Et quia non de communi pane dixerit hoc Sanctus Ambrose, verum de pane Corporis Christi, sequentia Lectionis manifestissime declarant. Loquitur enim de pane quotidiano, quem Credentes sibi postulant dari.  
LXVIII. Et idcirco subjungit, Si quotidianus est panis, cur post annum illum sumis, quemadmodum Graeci in Oriente facere consueverunt? Accipe 
(d) Ergo non legitur in impressis.  ergo quotidie quod quotidie tibi prosit, sic vive ut quotidie merearis accipere. Ergo 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 animae nostrae substantiam fulcit.  
LXIX. Hujus doctissimi Viri authoritate perdocemur, quod multa differentia separantur, Corpus in quo passus est Christus, & Sanguis quem pendens in cruce, de latere suo profudit, & hoc Corpus quod in Mysterio Passionis Christi quotidie a fidelibus celebratur, & ille quoque Sanguis qui fidelium ore sumitur, ut Mysterium sit illius sanguinis quo totus redemptus est Mundus. Iste namque panis & iste potus non secundum quod videntur corpus sive sanguis existunt Christi, sed secundum quod spiritualiter vitae substantiam subministrant. Illud vero corpus in quo semel passus est Christus, non aliam speciem praeferebat quam in qua consistebat. Hoc enim erat, quod vere videbatur, quod tangebatur, quod crucifigebatur, quod sepeliebatur. Similiter Sanguis illius de latere manans, non aliud apparebat exterius, & aliud interius obvelabat: Verus itaque sanguis de vero corpore profluebat: At nunc Sanguis Christi, quem Credentes ebibunt, & Corpus quod comedunt aliud sunt in specie, & aliud in significatione. Aliud quod pascunt Corpus esca corporea, & aliud quod saginant Mentes aeternae vitae substantia.  
LXX. De qua re 
(a) Hieron. in Ep. ad Ephes. c. 1.  Beatus Hieronymus in Commentario Epist. Pauli ad Ephesios, ita scribit: Dupliciter Sanguis Christi, & Caro intelligitur; 
(b) Deeft vel in impressis.  vel spiritualis illa, atque divina, de qua ipse dicit, Caro mea vere est cibus, & Sanguis meus vere est potus; vel 
(c) Vel Caro & Sanguis quae crucifixa est, & qui Militis effusus est Lancea.  Caro quae crucifixa est, & Sanguis qui militis effusus est lancea.  
LXXI. Non parva Doctor iste differentia Corporis & Sanguinis Christi fecit distinctionem. Namque dum Carnem vel Sanguinem quae quotidie sumuntur a fidelibus, spiritualia dicit esse; at vero Caro quae crucifixa est, & Sanguis qui Militis effusus est Lancea, non spiritualia esse dicuntur, neque divina; patenter insinuat, quod tantum inter se differunt, quantum differunt corporalia & spiritualia, visibilia & invisibilia, divina atque humana; 
(d) Rectius impressi at quae.  at quod a se differunt, non idem sunt. Differunt autem Caro spiritualis, quae fidelium ore sumitur, & Sanguis spiritualis, qui quotidie Credentibus potandus exhibetur, a Carne quae crucifixa est, & Sanguine qui Militis effusus est Lancea, sicut autoritas praesentis Viri testificatur: Non igitur idem sunt.  
LXXII. Illa namque Caro quae crucifixa est, de Virginis carne facta est, ossibus & nervis compacta, & humanorum Membrorum lineamentis distincta, rationalis animae spiritu vivificata in propriam vitam & congruentes motus. At vero Caro spiritualis, quae populum credentem spiritualiter pascit, secundum speciem quam gerit exterius, Frumenti granis manu Artificis consistit, nullis nervis ossibusque compacta, nulla Membrorum varietate distincta, nulla rationali substantia vegetata, nullos proprios motus potens exercere. Quicquid enim in ea vitae praebet substantiam, spiritualis est potentiae, & invisibilis ●ffcientiae, divinaeque virtutis. Atque aliud longe consistit, secundum quod exterius conspicitur, atque 
(a) Impressi legunt illud.  aliud secundum quod in Mysterio creditur. Porro Caro Christi quae crucifixa est, non aliud exterius, quam quod interim erat, ostendebat; quia vera Caro veri hominis existebat, Corpus utique verum in veri Corporis specie consistens.  
LXXIII. Considerandum quoque quod in Pane illo non solum Corpus Christi, verum etiam in eum credentis populi figuretur, unde multis Frumenti granis conficitur: quia Corpus Populi credentis multis per Verbum Christi fidelibus 
(a) Forte coagmentatur.  augmentatur.  
LXXIV. Qua de re, sicut in Mysterio, Panis ille Christi Corpus accipitur, sic etiam in Mysterio, Membra Populi credentis in Christum intimantur, & sicut non corporaliter, sed spiritualiter, Panis ille Credentium Corpus dicitur; sic quoque Christi Corpus non corporaliter, sed spiritualiter necesse est intelligatur.  
LXXV. Sic & in Vino, qui Sanguis Christi dicitur, Aqua misceri jubetur, nec unum sine altero permittitur offerri: Quia nec Populus sine Christo, nec Christus sine Populo, sicut nec Caput sine Corpore, vel Corpus sine Capite valet existere. Aqua denique in illo Sacramento populi gestat imaginem. Igitur si Vinum illud sanctificatum per Ministrorum Officium in Christi Sanguinem corporaliter convertitur, Aqua quoque quae pariter admixta est, in Sanguinem Populi credentis, necesse est corporaliter convertatur. Vbi namque una Sanctificatio est, una consequenter Operatio; & ubi par Ratio, par quoque consequitur Mysterium. At videmus in Aqua secundum Corpus, nihil esse conversum, consequenter ergo & in Vino nihil corporaliter ostensum. Accipitur spiritualiter quicquid in Aqua de Populi Corpore significatur; accipiatur ergo necesse est spiritualiter quicquid in Vino de Christi Sanguine intimatur.  
LXXVI. Item quae a se differunt, idem non sunt: Corpus Christi quod mortuum est, & resurrexit, & immortale factum, jam non moritur, & Mors illi ultra non dominabitur; aeternum est, nec jam passibile, Hoc autem quod in Ecclesia celebratur, temporale est, non aeternum; corruptibile est, non incorruptum; in via est, non in Patria. Differunt igitur a se, quapropter non sunt idem. 
(a) Haec librarii incuria ex MS. Lobiensi excidisse videntur.  [Quod si non sunt idem] quomodo verum Corpus Christi dicitur, & verus Sanguis?  
LXXVII. Si enim Corpus Christi est, & hoc dicitur vere quia Corpus Christi est; in veritate Corpus Christi est: & si in veritate Corpus Christi, & Corpus Christi incorruptible est, & impassibile est, ac per hoc aeternum. Hoc igitur Corpus Christi quod agitur in Ecclesia, necesse est ut incorruptible sit & aeternum. Sed negari non potest corrumpi, quod per partes 
(b) Commutatum male in impressis.  comminutum dispartitur ad sumendum, & dentibus commolitum in Corpus trajicitur. Sed aliud est quod exterius geritur, aliud vero quod per fidem creditur. Ad sensum quod pertinet Corporis, corruptibile est, quod Fides vero credit, incorruptibile. Exterius igitur quod apparet, non est ipsa res, sed Imago rei; ment vero quod sentitur & intelligitur veritas rei.  
LXXVIII. Hinc 
(a) Aug. in Jo. Tract. 26.  Beatus Augustin. in Evangelii Joannis expositione, dum de Corpore Christi loqueretur & Sanguine, sic ait; Manducavit & Moses Manna, manducavit & Aaron, manducavit & Phinees, manducaverunt ibi multi qui Deo placuerunt, & mortui 
(b) In impress● m● tui non sunt.  sunt. Quare? Quia visibilem cibum spiritualiter intellexerunt, spiritualiter e●urierunt, spiritualiter gustaverunt, ut spiritualiter satiarentur. Nam & nos hodie accipimus visibilem cibum, sed aliud est Sacramentum, aliudvirtus Sacramenti. Item in posteribus, Hic est panis qui de coelo descendit. Hunc panem significavit Manna, hunc panem significavit Altare Dei. Sacramenta ilia fuerunt, in signis diversa, 
(c) In editis diversa sunt.  in re quae significatur paria sunt. Apostolum Paulum audi, Nolovos ignorare, Fratres, quia Patres nostri omnes sub Nube fuerunt, 
(d) Verba unculis inclusa desiderantur in MS. L●b.  [& omnes Mare transierunt, & omnes in Mose Baptizati sunt in Nube & in Mari,] & omnes eandem escam spiritualem manducaverunt, & omnes eundem potum spiritualem biberunt. Spiritualem utique eandem, nam corporalem alteram, quia illi Manna, nos aliud, spiritualem vero quam nos. Et adjungit, Et omnes eundem potum spiritualem biberunt. Aliud illi, aliud nos, sed specie visibili, quod tamen hoc idem significaret, virtute spirituali. Quomodo enim eundem potum? Bibebant, inquit, de spirituali sequenti Petra. Petra autem erat Christus. Ind Panis, unde Potus. Petra Christus in 
(a) In Signo in impressis.  signum, verus Christus in Verbo, & in Carne.  
LXXIX. Item, Hic est Panis de Coelo descendens, ut si quis ex ipso manducaverit, non moriatur; Sed 
(b) Qui utrobique legunt libri impressi.  quod pertinet ad virtutem Sacramenti, non quod pertinet ad visible Sacramentum, qui manducat intus, non foris; qui manducat in corde, non qui premit dente.  
LXXX. Item in posterioribus verba Salvatoris introducens, ita dicit. Hoc vos scandalizat, quia dixi Carnem meam do vobis manducare, & Sanguinem meum bibere? Si ergo videritis filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius. Quid est hoc? Hinc solvit quod illos moverat, hinc aperuit unde fuerant scandalizati. Illi enim putabant eum erogaturum Corpus suum. Ille autem dixit se ascensurum in Coelum, utique integrum. Cum videritis Filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius: Certe vel tunc videbitis, quia non eo modo quo putatis erogat Corpus: 
* Impressi legunt Corpus suum.  certe vel tunc intelligetis; quia Gratia ejus non consumitur morsibus. Et ait, Spiritus est qui vivisicat, Caro non prodest.  
LXXXI. Et pluribus interpositis rursus adjicit, Quisquis autem (inquit idem Apostolus) Spiritum Christi non habet, hic non est ejus. Spiritus ergo est qui vivificat, Caro autem non prodest quicquam. Verba quae ego locutus sum vobis, Spiritus & Vita sunt. Quid est, Spiritus & Vita sunt? Spiritualiter intelligenda sunt. Intellexisti spiritualiter, Spiritus & Vita sunt; Intellexisti carnalitor, etiam 
(a) C●dd. Impressi legunt etiam [sic illa] Spiritus.  Spiritus & Vita sunt, sed tibi non sunt.  
LXXXII. Hujus Authoritate Doctoris Verba Domini tractantis de Sacramento sui Corporis & Sanguinis manifeste docemur, quod illa Verba Domini spiritualiter, & non carnaliter intelligenda sunt, sicut ipse ait, Verba quae ego loquor vobis Spiritus & Vita sunt. Verba utique de sua carne manducanda, & de suo sanguine bibendo. Ind enim loquebatur unde Discipuli fuerant scandalizati. Ergo ut non scandalizarentur, revocat eos Divinus Magister de Carne ad Spiritum, de corporea Visione ad Intelligentiam invisibilem.  
LXXXIII. Videmus ergo, esca illa Corporis Domini, & potus ille Sanguinis ejus, secundum quid vere Corpus ejus, & vere Sanguis ejus existunt, videlicet secundum quod Spiritus & Vita sunt.  
LXXXIV. Item, Quae idem sunt una definitione comprehenduntur. De vero Corpore Christi dicitur, quod sit verus Deus, & verus Homo. Deus qui ex Deo Patre ante Secula natus; Homo, qui in fine Seculi ex Maria Virgine genitus. Haec autem dum de Corpore Christi quod in Ecclesia per Mysterium geritur dici non possunt, secundum quendam modum Corpus Christi esse cognoscitur, & modus iste in Figura est & Imagine, ut Veritas res ipsa sentiatur.  
LXXXV. In Orationibus quae post Mysterium Corporis Sanguinisque Christi dicuntur, & a Populo respondetur, Amen, sic Sacerdotis voce dicitur, 
(a) Deest haec Oratio in Libro Sacramentario Gregorii per Menardum edito. Extat vero in secundo Libro Sacramentorum Rom. Eccles. per Thomasium edito in quarto, Romae 1680. p. 160.  Pignus aeternae vitae capientes humiliter imploramus, ut quod 
(a) In restitui ex MS. Laub.  [in] imagine contingimus Sacramenti, manifesta participatione sumamus.  
LXXXVI. Et Pignus enim & Imago alterius rei sunt, id est, non ad se, sed ad aliud aspiciunt. Pignus enim illius rei est pro qua donatur. Imago illius, cujus similitudinem ostendit. Significant enim ista rem cujus sunt, non manifeste ostendunt. Quod cum ita est, apparet quod hoc Corpus & Sanguis Pignus & Imago rei sunt futurae, ut quod nunc per similitudinem ostenditur, in futuro per manifestationem reveletur. Quod si nunc significant, in futuro autem patefacient, aliud est quod nunc geritur, aliud quod in futuro manifestabitur.  
LXXXVII. Qua de re & Corpus Christi, & Sanguis est, quod Ecclesia celebrat, sed tanquam Pignus, tanquam Imago: Veritas vero erit cum jam nec Pignus nec Imago, sed ipsius rei Veritas apparebit.  
LXXXVIII. Et alibi, 
(a) Habetur altera ejusdem Libri pag. 135. & in Missali Romano. Post-Communio in Sabbato quatuor Temporum post S. Crucem.  Perficiant in nobis, Domine, quaesumus, tua Sacramenta quod continent, ut quae nunc specie gerimus, rerum veritate capiamus. Dicit quod in specie gerantur ista, non in veritate, id est, per similitudinem, non per ipsius rei manifestationem. Differunt autem a se Species & Veritas. Quapropter Corpus & Sanguis quod in Ecclesia geritur, differt ab illo Corpore & Sanguine quod in Christi Corpore 
(b) Codd. nonnulli. [Per resurrectionem] jam glorificatum.  jam glorificatum cognoscitur. Et hoc Corpus Pignus est, & Species, illud 
(c) MS Lobiense addit verba haec emphatica & in omnibus hactenus exemplaribus desiderata vero ipsa.  vero ipsa Veritas: Hoc enim geretur donec ad illud perveniatur, ubi vero ad illud perventum fuerit, hoc removebitur.  
LXXXIX. Apparet itaque, quod multa inter se differentia separantur, quantum est inter Pignus & eam rem pro qua Pignus traditur, & quantum inter Imaginem & rem cujus est Imago, & quantum inter Speciem & Veritatem. Videmus itaque multa differentia separari Mysterium Sanguinis & Corporis Christi, quod nunc a Fidelibus sumitur in Ecclesia, & illud quod natum est de Maria Virgine, quod passum, quod sepultum, quod resurrexit, quod Coelos ascendit, quod ad Dexteram Patris sedet. Hoc namque quod agitur in via, spiritualiter est accipiendum; quia Fides, quod non videt, credit, & spiritualiter pascit Animam, & laetisicat Cor, & vitam praebet aeternam & incorruptionem, dum non attenditur quod Corpus pascit, quod dente premitur, quod per partes comminuitur; sed quod in Fide spiritualiter accipitur. At vero Corpus illud in quo passus est, & resurrexit Christus, proprium ejus Corpus existit, de Virginis Mariae Corpore sumptum, palpabile seu visibile etiam post Resurrectionem, sicut ipse Discipulis ait. 
* Luc. XXIV. 40. Codd. impressi addunt, Quid turbati estis & cogitationes ascendunt in corda vestra? Videte manus meas, & pedes meos quia ego ipse sum.  Palpate & videte; quia Spiritus carnem & ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere.  
XC. Audiamus etiam quid Beatus 
(a) Fulgentius de Fide, ad Petrum Diaconum, c. 19  Fulgentius in Libello de Fide dicat: Firmissime tene, & nullatenus dubites ipsum Unigenitum, Deum Verbum, Carnem factum, se pro nobis obtulisse Sacrificium & Hostiam Deo in odorem suavitatis; cui cum Patre & Spiritu Sancto a Patriarchis, a Prophetis, & Sacerdotibus tempore veteris Testamenti animalia sacrificabantur; & cui nunc 
(b) Idem.  id est, tempore novi Testamenti, cum Patre & Spiritu Sancto, cum quibus illi una est Divinitas, Sacrificium Panis & Vini in Fide & Charitate, Sancta Catholica Ecclesia per universum orbem Terrae offerre non cessat. In illis enim carnalibus victimis 
(c) In editis Figuratio  significatio fuit Carnis Christi, quam pro peccatis nostris ipse sine peccato fuerat oblaturus, & 
(d) lege Sanguinis.  Sanguis quem erat effusurus in remissionem peccatorum nostrorum. In isto autem Sacrificio Gratiarum actio, atque commemoratio est Carnis Christi, quam pro nobis obtulit, & Sanguinis quem pro nobis idem Deus effudit. De quo Beatus Paulus Apostolus dicit in Actibus Apostolorum. 
(a) Acts 20.28.  Attendite vobis & universo Gregi, in quo vos Spiritus Sanctus posuit Episcopos, regere Ecclesiam Dei quam acquisivit Sanguine suo. In illis ergo Sacrificiis, quid nobis esset donandum figurate significabatur, in hoc autem Sacrificio quid jam nobis donatum sit evidenter ostenditur.  
XCI. Dicens quod in illis Sacrificiis quid nobis esset donandum significabatur, in isto vero Sacrificio, quid sit donatum commemoretur, patenter innuit quod sicut illa Figuram habuerit futurorum, sic & Sacrificium Figura sit praeteritorum.  
XCII. Quibus Dictis quanta differentia sit inter Corpus in quo passus est Christus, & hoc Corpus, quod pro ejus Passionis commemoratione, sive Mortis fit, evidentissime declaravit. Illud namque proprium & verum, nihil habens in se vel Mysticum, vel Figuratum. Hoc vero Mysticum, aliud exterius per Figuram ostentans, aliud interius, per Intellectum Fidei repraesentans.  
XCIII. Ponamus adhuc unum Patris Augustini Testimonium, quod & Dictorum Fidem nostrorum adstruat, & Sermonis marginem ponat; in Sermone quem fecit ad Populum de Sacramento Altaris, sic infit; 
(a) Extat hic Sermo ad calcem Epistolae Fulgentii ad Ferrandum Diaconum de Baptismo Aethiopis moribundi, editae inter alia Fulgentii Opuscula per Jacobum Sirmondum, 8. Par. 1612.  Hoc quod videtis in Altari Dei, 
(b) Etiam in impressis.  jam transacta nocte vidistis, sed quid esset, quid sibi vellet, quam magnae rei Sacramentum contineret, nondum audivistis. Quod ergo videtis Panis est & Calix, quod vobis etiam oculi vestri renunciant. Quod autem Fides vestra postulat instruenda, Panis est Corpus Christi, Calix 
(c) Non legitur Est in impressis.  est Sanguis Christi. Breviter quidem hoc dictum est, quod Fidei forte sufficiat, sed Fides instructionem desiderat. Dicit enim Propheta, Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. Potestis ergo 
(a) Modo addnnt hic Impressi.  dicere mihi, Praecepisti ut credamus, expone, ut intelligamus. Potest enim animo cujuspiam cogitatio talis oboriri. Dominus noster Jesus Christus novimus unde acceperit Carnem, de Virgine scilicet Maria. Infans lactatus est, nutritus est, crevit, ad juvenilem aetatem perductus est, a Judaeis persecutionem passus est, 
(b) Repetunt hic Impressi in Ligno.  Ligno suspensus est, interfectus est, de Ligno depositus est, sepultus est, tertio die resurrexit, quo die voluit in Coelum ascendit; illuc levavit Corpus suum 
(c) Vnde legit Sirmondus.  inde venturus est judicare vivos & mortuos; ibi est modo sedens ad Dexteram Patris. Quomodo Panis Corpus ejus? Et Calix, vel quod habet Calix, quomodo est Sanguis ejus? Ista, Fratres, ideo dicuntur Sacramenta, quia in eis aliud videtur, & aliud intelligitur. Quod videtur, speciem habet corporalem; quod intelligitur, fructum habet spiritualem.  
XCIV. Ista venerabilis Author dicens, instruit nos, quid de proprio Corpore Domini, quod de Maria natum, & nunc ad Dexteram Patris sedet, & in quo venturus est judicare vivos & mortuos; Et quid de isto quod super Altare ponitur, & Populo participatur, sentire debeamus: Illud integrum est, neque ulla sectione dividitur, nec ullis Figuris obvelatur: Hoc vero quod super Mensam Domini continetur, & Figura est, quia Sacramentum est, & exterius quod videtur, Speciem habet corpoream, quae pascit Corpus; interius vero quod intelligitur, Fructum habet spiritualem, qui vivificat Animam.  
XCV. Et de hoc Mystico Corpore volens apertius & manifestius loqui, sic dicit 
(a) Apud Fulgentium, Ibidem.  in consequentibus: Corpus ergo Christi si 
(b) Sirmondus legit, Vis & Audi.  vultis intelligere, Apostolum audite dicentem, Vos estis Corpus Christi & Membra 
(c) Haec verba unculis inclusa Librarii errore n MS. Lobiensi omittuntur.  [Si ergo vos estis Corpus Christi & Membra,] Mysterium vestrum in Mensa Domini positum est. Mysterium 
(d) Domini male.  Vestrum accipitis, ad id quod estis, Amen, respondetis, & respondendo subscribitis. Audis ergo Corpus Christi, & respondes Amen, esto Membrum Christi, ut verum sit Amen. Quare ergo in Pane? Nihil hic de nostro adferamus: 
(a) Apostolum item audiamus, in Impressis.  Ipsum Apostolum dicentem audiamus; cum 
(b) Cum ergo, in Impressis.  de isto Sacramento loqueretur, ait. Vnus Panis, Vnum Corpus, multi sumus in Christo, & reliqua.  
XCVI. S. Augustinus satis nos instruit, quod sicut in Pane super Altare positum, Corpus Christi signatur; sic etiam & Corpus accipientis Populi: ut evidenter ostendat; quod Corpus Christi proprium illud existat in quo natus de Virgine, in quo lactatus, in quo passus, in quo mortuus, in quo sepultus, in quo resurrexit, in quo Coelos ascendit, in quo Patris ad Dextram sedet, in quo venturus est ad Judicium. Hoc autem quod supra Mensam Dominicam positum est, Mysterium continet illius, sicut etiam identidem Mysterium continet Corporis Populi credentis, Apostolo testante, 
(c) Dicente Codd. nonnulli.  Unus Panis, Unum Corpus, multi sumus in Christo.  
XCVII. Animadvertat, Clarissime Princeps, Sapientia vestra, quod positis Sanctarum Scripturarum Testimoniis, & Sanctorum Patrum Dictis, evidentissime monstratum est, quod Panis, qui Corpus Christi, & Calix qui Sanguis Christi appellatur, Figura sit, quia Mysterium; & quod non parva differentia sit inter Corpus, quod per Mysterium existit, & Corpus quod passum est, & sepultum, & resurrexit. Quoniam hoc proprium Salvatoris Corpus existit, nec in eo vel aliqua Figura, vel aliqua Significatio, sed ipsa rei Manifestatio cognoscitur, & ipsius Visionem Credentes desiderant; quoniam ipsum est Caput nostrum, & ipso viso satiabitur desiderium nostrum. Quo 
(a) Melius Codd. impressi quoniam.  ipse & Pater unum sunt; non secundum quod Corpus habet Salvator, sed secundum plenitudinem Divinitatis, quae habitat in homine Christo.  
XCVIII. At in isto quod per Mysterium geritur, Figura est, non solum proprii Corporis Christi, verum etiam Credentis in Christum Populi. Vtriusque namque Corporis, id est, & Christi quod passum est, & resurrexit, & Populi in Christo 
(b) Impressi legunt in Christo [per Baptismum] renati.  renati, atque de mortuis vivificati Figuram gestat.  
XCIX. Addamus etiam quod iste Panis & Calix, qui Corpus & Sanguis Christi nominatur, & 
(a) Et existit, Addidi haec verba monitus à Mabillonio, locum ita extare in MS Laubiensi. Acta Bened. Saecul. 4. p. 2. in Praef. n. 130. Nec quicquam tamen juvat Pontificiorum causam haec additio; agnoscunt enim Reformati, Panem & Calicem non solum Corpus & Sanguinem Christi nominari, sed etiam existere spiritualiter.  existit, Memoriam repraesentat Dominicae Passionis, sive Mortis, quemadmodum ipse in Evangelio dixit; Hoc facite in mei commemorationem. Quod exponens Apostolus Paulus ait, Quotiescunque manducabitis Panem hunc, & Calicem bibetis, Mortem Domini annunciabitis donec veniat.  
C. Docemur a Salvatore, necnon a Sancto Paulo Apostolo, quod iste Panis & iste 
(b) Calix, Forte reponendum est.  Sanguis qui super Altare ponitur in Figuram, sive in Memoriam Dominicae Mortis ponantur, ut quod gestum est in praeterito, presenti revocet Memoriae, ut illius Passionis memores effecti, per eam efficiamur Divini Muneris Consortes, per quam sumus a Morte liberati. Cognoscentes quod ubi pervenerimus ad Visionem Christi, talibus non opus habebimus instrumentis quibus admoneamur quid pro nobis immensa Benignitas sustinuerit. Quoniam ipsum facie ad faciem contemplantes non per exteriorem temporalium rerum admonitionem commovebimur, sed per ipsius contemplationem Veritatis aspiciemus, que madmodum nostrae Salutis Autori gratias agere debeamus.  
CI. Nec ideo quoniam ista dicimus, putetur in Mysterio Sacramenti Corpus Domini, vel Sanguinem ipsius, non a Fidelibus sumi, quando Fides, non quod Oculus videt, sed quod credit, accipit; quoniam spiritualis est Esca, & spiritualis Potus, spiritualiter animam pascens, & Aeternae Satietatis vitam tribuens: Sicut ipse Salvator Mysterium hoc commendans, loquitur; Spiritus est qui vivificat, nam Caro nihil prodest.  
CII. Imperio vestrae Magnitudinis parere cupientes, praesumpsi parvus, rebus de non minimis disputare; non sequentes aestimationis nostrae praesumptionem, sed Majorum intuentes Autoritatem; quae si probaveritis Catholice dicta, vestrae Meritis Fidei deputate, quae deposita Regalis Magnificentiae Gloria, non erubuit ab humili quaerere Responsum Veritatis. Sin autem minus placuerint, id nostrae deputetur Insipientiae, quae quod optavit, minus efficaciter 
(a) Valuit; Ita Colon. Editio, 1551. Et MS. Lob. Impressorum alii voluit, alii potuit legunt.  valuit explicare.   
FINIS.   


Sigebert Gemblacensis in his Book of Illustrious Men, Chap. 96.  
BErtram 
* Two MSS. of Sigebert call him Ratramus.  wrote a Book of the Body and Blood of the Lord, and a Book of Predestination, to Charles, viz. the Bald.  

The Testimony of John Trithemius, in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers.  
BErtram, a Priest and Monk, a very able Divine, and also well skilled in Humane Learning; a Person of a subtle Wit and great Eloquence: and no less eminent for Sanctity than Learning, hath written many excellent Pieces, few of which have come to my knowledge. To K. Charles, Brother to Lotharius the Emperor, he wrote a commendable Work.  
Of Predistination 
a He wrote two Books of Predestination.  one Book.  
Of the Lord's Body and Blood one Book.  
He flourished in the Reign of Lotharius the Emperor, A. D. 840.    

Here gins the Book of RATRAMNUS Concerning the BODY and BLOOD of the LORD. [To CHARLES the Great EMPEROR.] The Preface.  
I. YOU were pleased to command me Glorious Prince, to signify to your Majesty my Sentiments touching the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ. Which Command is no less becoming your Highness, than the Performance of it is above my poor Abilities. For what can better deserve a Prince's Care, than to see that he himself be Catholic in his Judgement, concerning the Sacred Mysteries of that God, who has placed him on the Royal Throne, and not able to endure, that his Subjects should hold different opinions concerning the Body of Christ, wherein it is evident, that the sum of our Redemption by Christ consists?  
II. 
Great disputes concerning the Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament.  For while some of the Faithful say concerning the Body and Blood of Christ, which is daily celebrated in the Church, that there is no Veil nor Figure, but that the very thing itself is openly and really exhibited; and others of them affirm, that these things [viz the Body, the Body and Blood of Christ] are present in a Mystery or Figure; that it is one thing that appears to our bodily eyes, and another thing that our Faith beholds; it's plain, there is no small difference in Judgement among them: And whereas the Apostle writes to the Faithful, 
* 1 Cor. 1.10.  That they should all think and speak the same thing, and that there should be no Schism among them; there is no small Division and Schism among those who believe and speak differently concerning the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ.  
III. Wherefore your Royal Highness moved with Zeal for the true Faith, and sadly laying to heart these and being withal desirous that as the Apostle commands, 
The 〈◊〉 Consu●● Ratramnus in the Controversy.  All Men should think and speak the same thing; doth diligently search out this profound Truth, that you may reduce those who err from it, and for that purpose disdain not to consult the meanest; well knowing, that so profound a Mystery cannot be understood, unless God reveal it, who shows forth the Light of his Truth, by whomsoever he pleases, without Respect of Persons.  
IU. And for my own part, your Commands I joyfully obey, notwithstanding the great difficulty I find to discourse, on a subject so remote from humane Understanding, and which no Man (unless taught by the Holy Ghost) can possibly penetrate. Therefore in pure Obedience to your Majesty, and with an entire confidence of his aid, concerning whom I am to Treat; I shall endeavour in as proper Terms as I am able, to deliver my Sentiments on this Subject; not relying on my own Understanding, but following the steps of the Holy Fathers.  
V 
The State of the Controversy in two Questions.  YOur most Excellent Majesty demands, Whether the Body and Blood of Christ, which is in the Church received by the mouths of the Faithful, be such in a Mystery, or in Truth? That is, Whether it contain any secret thing discernible only by the eyes of Faith; or whether without the Coverture of any Mystery, the same thing appeareth outwardly to the bodily Sight, which the eyes of the Mind do inwardly behold, so that the whole matter is apparent and manifest to our Senses? And whether it be the same Body which was Born of Mary, and Suffered, Died, and was Buried, and Rising again and ascending into Heaven, sits at the Right Hand of the Father.  
VI 
The first Question discussed.  Let us consider the first of these two Questions. And that we be not confounded by the Ambiguity of Terms, let us define what a Figure is, and what the Truth; that having some certain mark in our Eye, we may know how the better to direct the course of our Reasoning.  
VII. 
What a Figure is.  A Figure is a certain covert manner of Expression, which exhibits what it intends under certain Vails. For example; We call the Word, Bread, as in the Lord's Prayer, we beg that God would give us our daily Bread: Or as Christ in the Gospel speaks, 
* John 6.51.  I am the Living Bread that came down from Heaven. Or when he calls himself a Vine, and his Disciples Branches, 
‖ John 15.1, 5.  I am the true Vine, and ye are the Branches. In all these Instances, one thing is said and another thing is understood.  
VIII. The Truth is the Representation of the very thing itself, not vailed with any Shadow or Figure, but expressed according to the pure and naked (or to speak more plainly yet) natural Signification of the words. As when we say that Christ was Born of a Virgin, Suffered, was Crucified, Dead and Buried: Here is nothing shadowed out under the coverture of Figures, but the very Truth of the thing is expressed, according to the natural Signification of the words; nor is any thing here understood but what is said. But in the forementioned Instances it is not so. For 
† i.e. In propriety of Nature: So the Saxon Homily, Aefter soðum gecynd nis Crist naþor ne hlaf.  in Substance, neither is Christ Bread, or a Vine, nor the Apostles Branches. These are Figures, but in the other, the plain and naked Truth is related.  
IX. 
He proves the Sacrament to be a Figure from the notion of a Mystery or a Sacrament.  Now let us return to the Subject which hath occasioned the saying of all this, viz. the Body and Blood of Christ. If there be no figure in that Mystery, it is not properly called a Mystery; for that cannot be said to be a Mystery, which hath nothing secret, nothing remote from our bodily Senses, nothing covered under any Veil. But as for that Bread which by the Ministry of the Priest, is made Christ's Body, it showeth one thing outwardly to our Senses, and inwardly proclaims quite another thing to the minds of the Faithful. That which outwardly appears is Bread, as it was before in Form, Colour and Taste: But inwardly there is quite another thing presented to us, and that much more precious and excellent, because it is Heavenly and Divine: That is, Christ's Body is exhibited which is beheld, received, and eaten,, not by our carnal Senses, but by the sight of the believing Soul.  
X. Likewise the Wine, which by the Priest's Consecration, is made the Sacrament of Christ's Blood, appears one thing outwardly, and inwardly contains another: For what doth outwardly appear but the substance of Wine? Taste it, there is the relish of Wine; smell it, there is the scent of Wine; behold it, there is the colour of Wine. But if you consider it inwardly, than it is not the Liquor of Wine, but the Liquor of Christ's Blood, which is Tasted, Seen, and Smelled. Since these things are undeniable, 'tis evident, that the Bread and Wine are Figuratively the Body and Blood of Christ: As to outward appearance, there is neither the Likeness of Flesh to be seen in that Bread, nor the Liquor of Blood in that Wine, and yet after the mystical Consecration, they are no longer called Bread and Wine, but the Body and Blood of Christ.  
XI. 
Another Argument from the nature of Faith.  If according to the Opinion of some Men, here is nothing Figuratively taken, but the whole Matter is real, than Faith operates nothing, here is nothing Spiritual done, but the whole is to be understood altogether corporally. And seeing 
* Heb. 11.1.  Faith is according to the Apostle, the Evidence of things that appear not, that is, not of Substances which are seen, but of such as are not seen; we here shall receive nothing by Faith, because we judge of the whole matter by our bodily Senses. And nothing is more absurd, than to take Bread for Flesh, or to say that Wine is Blood: Nor can that be any longer a Mystery in which there is no Secret, no hidden thing contained.  
XII. And how can that be styled Christ's Body and Blood, 
There must be a Spiritual change, for there is no Physical change wrought in the Sacrament.  in which there is not any change known to be made; For every change is either from not being to being, or from being to not being, or else 
† That is, from one quality to another.  from one being into another. But in this Sacrament, if the thing be considered in simplicity and verity, and nothing else be believed but what is seen, we know of no change at all made. For there is no change from not being to being, 
No Generation.  as in the production of things. Since such did not exist before, but past from a state of Nonentity into Being. Whereas here Bread and Wine were real Being's before they became the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood.  
Nor is here a passage from being, 
Nor Corruption.  to not being, as there is in things decayed and corrupted: For whatever perisheth, once did subsist, and that cannot perish, that never was. Now it is certain, that there is no change of this kind made, for 'tis well known, that the Nature of the Creatures remains in truth, the very same that they were before.  
XIII. And as for that sort of change, 
Nor Alteration.  whereby one thing is rendered another, which is seen in things liable to vary in their qualities; (as for example, when a thing that was before black is made white;) it is plain, that this change is not made here. For we can perceive no alteration here either as to touch, colour, or taste. Therefore if nothing be changed, [the Elements] are nothing but what they were before. And yet they are another thing, for the Bread is made the Body, and the Wine is made the Blood of Christ. For he himself hath said, 
* Matth. 26.26.  Take, eat, this is my Body. And likewise speaking of the Cup, he saith, 
† Mark 14.24.  Take and drink, this is my Blood of the New Testament which shall be shed fon you.  
XIV. I would now inquire of them who will take nothing Figuratively, but will have the whole matter plainly and really transacted. In what respect is this change made, so that the things are not now what they were before, to wit, Bread and Wine, but the Body and Blood of Christ? For as to the Nature of the Creature, and the form of the visible things, both (to wit) the Bread and Wine, have nothing changed in them. And if they have undergone no change, they are nothing but what they were before.  
XV. Your Highness sees, 
They who will admit no figure in the Sacrament contradict themselves.  Illustrious Prince, the tendency of their opinion who think thus: They deny what they seem to affirm, and plainly overthrow what they believe. For they faithfully confess the Body and Blood of Christ, and in so doing, no doubt they profess that [the Elements] are not what they were before. And if they now are other than they were before, they have admitted some change. This [inference] being undeniable, let them now tell us, in what respect they are changed? For we see nothing corporally changed in them. Therefore, they must needs acknowledge, either that they are changed in some other respect than that of their Bodies, and in this respect they are, what we see they are not in truth, but somewhat else, which we discern them not to be in their proper Essence, or if they will not acknowledge this, they will be compelled to deny that they are Christ's Body and Blood; which is abominable not only to speak, but even to think.  
XVI. But since they do confess them to be the Body and Blood of Christ, which they could not have been, but by a change for the better, nor is this change wrought Corporally, but Spiritually: It must necessarily be said to be wrought Figuratively. Because under the Veil of material Bread, and material Wine; the Spiritual Body, and Spiritual Blood of Christ do exist: Not that there are together existing, two natures so different, as a Body and Spirit: But one and the same thing, in one respect, hath the nature of Bread and Wine; and in another respect, is the Body and Blood of Christ. For both as they are Corporally handled, are in their nature Corporeal Creatures; but according to their Virtue, and what they are Spiritually made, they are Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ.  
XVII. Let us consider the Font of holy Baptism, 
He Illustrates the matter by comparing the two Sacraments of Baptism, and the Lord's Body.  which is not undeservedly styled the Fountain of Life, because it regenerates those who descend into it, to the Newness of a better Life; and makes those who were dead in Sins, alive unto Righteousness. Is it the visible Element of Water which hath this efficacy? Verily, unless it had obtained a Sanctifying virtue, it could by no means wash away the stain of our Sins: And if it had not a quickening Power, it could not at all give Life to the Dead. The Dead, I mean not as to their Bodies, but their Souls. Yet if in that Fountain you consider nothing but what the bodily Sense beholdeth, you see only a fluid Element of a corruptible Nature, and capable of washing the Body only. But the Power of the Holy Ghost, came upon it by the Priest's Consecration, & it obtained thereby an efficacy to wash not the Bodies only, but also the Souls of Men; and by a Spitual virtue, to take away their Spiritual filth.  
XVIII. Behold, how in one and the same Element, are seen two things contrary to each other; a thing Corruptible, giving Incorruption; and a thing without Life, giving Life. It is manifest then, that in the Font, there is both somewhat, which the bodily sense perceiveth, which is therefore mutable and corruptible; and somewhat which the Eye of Faith only beholds, and therefore is neither Corruptible nor Mortal. If you inquire what washes the outside, it is the Element; but if you consider what purgeth the inside, it is a quickening power, a Sanctifying power, a power conferring Immortality. So then in its own nature, it is a Corruptible Liquor, but in the Mystery 'tis 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 Baptised 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 Baptised in them, viz. the Cloud and the Sea. Now could the Sea, as a visible Element, have the power of Baptising? Or could the Cloud as a condensation of the Air, Sanctify the People? And yet we dare not say, but that the Apostle who spoke in Christ, did truly affirm, that our Fathers were Baptised 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 Baptised, no Man in his Wits will deny. None but a man that would presume expressly to contradict the Words of the Apostle: Therefore the Sea and Cloud did sanctify and cleanse; not as they were mere 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 discernible 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 People's 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 selfsame [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 Baptised, 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 inquire 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, spoke by the Holy Ghost, saying, 
(a) Psal. 27.25.  Man did eat Angel's 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 aught 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 than 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 quickeneth, 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 shows, when he saith, It is the Spirit that quickeneth: 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 Villainy. 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 risen again, when yet so many years are passed since he risen 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 Lie, 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 signify. As they style these respective Days, which are annually celebrated, the Passion and Resurrection of our Lord; whereas in truth he suffered, and risen 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 our Lord's Passion or Resurrection is celebrated, are called by the name of those Days, because they have some Resemblance of those very Days, in which our Saviour once suffered and risen again.  
XXXVIII. Hence we say, to Day, or to Morrow, or next Day, is the Passion or Resurrection of our Lord; whereas the very Days in which those things were done, are long passed. So we say, the Lord is offered, when the Sacraments of his Passion are celebrated: Whereas he was but once offered in his own Person, for the Salvation of the World, as the Apostle saith, 
(a) 1 Pet. 2.21.  Christ hath suffered for us, leaving you an Example, that you should follow his steps. Not that Christ suffers every day in his own Person: This he did but once; but he hath left us an Example, which is every day presented to the Faithful, in the Mystery of the Lord's Body and Blood: So that whosoever cometh thereunto, must understand that he ought to have a fellowship with him in his Sufferings, the Image whereof he expects [to receive] in the Holy Mysteries; according to that of the Wiseman, 
(a) Prov. 23.1, 2.  If thou comest to the Table of a Great man, consider diligently what is set before thee, (knowing that thou thyself must prepare the like.) To come to this Great-man's Table, is to be made a Partaker of the Divine Sacrifice: To consider what is set before thee, is to understand the Lord's Body and Blood, of which whosoever is partaker, aught to prepare the like, that is, to imitate him, by dying with him, whose Death he commemorates, not only in believing, but also in eating.  
XXXIX. So St. Paul to the Hebrews, 
(a) Heb. 7.26, 27.  Such an High Priest became us who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the Heavens, who needeth not, as those, daily to offer up Sacrifice, first for his own Sins, and then for the People's: For this the Lord Jesus Christ did once, when he offered himself. What he did once, he now every day repeats: For he once offered himself for the Sins of the People, yet the same Oblation is every day celebrated by the Faithful; but in a Mystery: So that what the Lord Jesus Christ, once offering himself, really did, the same is every day done in Remembrance of his Passion, by the Celebration of the Mysteries, or Sacraments.  
XL. Nor yet is it falsely said, That in those Mysteries the Lord is offered, or suffereth; because they have a Resemblance of his Death and Passion, whereof they are Representations; whereupon they are called The Lord's Body, and the Lord's Blood; because they take the Names of those things, whereof they are the Sacrament.  
For this reason, St. Isidore, in his Book of Etymologies, saith thus; Sacrificium (the Sacrifice) is so called, from Sacrum Factum, a sacred Action, because it is consecrated by mystical Prayer, in Memory of the Lord's Passion for us: Whence by his Command, we call it the Body and Blood of Christ, which, though made of the Fruits of the Earth, is sanctified and made a Sacrament by the invisible Operation of the Spirit of God. Which Sacrament of the Bread and Cup, the Greeks call the Eucharist; that is in Latin, bona Gratia, (good Grace.) And what is better than the Body and Blood of Christ? 
* These words which lie between two little Stars, are not in the Printed Editions of St. Isidore; I wish they were not purposely omitted by the Publishers of his Works, or rather expunged anciently by the Enemies of Berengarius.  Now Bread and Wine are therefore compared to the Body and Blood [of Christ] because as the Substance of this visible Bread and Wine, feed and inebriate the outward man; so the Word of God, which is the living Bread, doth refresh the Souls of the Faithful, by the receiving thereof 
* These words which lie between two little Stars, are not in the Printed Editions of St. Isidore; I wish they were not purposely omitted by the Publishers of his Works, or rather expunged anciently by the Enemies of Berengarius. .  
XLI. Likewise this Catholic Doctor teaches, That the holy Mystery of the Lord's Passion should be celebrated in Remembrance of the Lord's Suffering for us. In saying whereof, he shows, that the Lord suffered but once; but the Memory of it is represented in sacred and solemn Rites.  
XLII. So that the Bread which is offered, though made of the Fruits of the Earth, when Consecrated, is changed into Christ's Body; as also the Wine which flowed from the Vine, is by Sacramental Consecration made the Blood of Christ, not visibly indeed; but as this Doctor speaks, by the invisible Operation of the Spirit of God.  
XLIII. And they are called the Blood and Body of Christ; because they are understood to be, not what they outwardly appear; but what they are inwardly made by the invisible Operation of the Holy Ghost. And that this invisible Operation, renders them much a different thing, from what they appear to our Eyes, he (St. Isidore) observes, when he saith, That the Bread and Wine are therefore compared to the Lord's Body and Blood, because, as the Substance of material Bread and Wine doth nourish the outward Man, so the Word of God, which is the Bread of Life, doth refresh the Souls of the Faithful in partaking thereof.  
XLIV. In saying this, we most plainly confess, That in the Sacrament of the Lord's Body and Blood, whatsoever is outwardly received, serves only for the Refreshment of the Body: But the Word of God, who is the invisible Bread, being invisibly in the Sacrament, doth in an invisible manner nourish and quicken the Souls of the Faithful, by their partaking thereof.  
XLV. Wherefore again the same Doctor saith, There is a Sacrament in any divine Office, when the thing is so managed, that there is somewhat understood, which must be spiritually taken. In saying thus, he shows, that every Sacrament or Mystery of Religion, contains in it some secret thing. And that there is one thing that visibly appears, and another thing to be Spiritually understood.  
XLVI. And [soon after] showing what are the Sacraments which the Faithful should celebrate, he saith; And these Sacraments are Baptism, Chrism [or Confirmation] and the Body and Blood [of Christ.] Which are called Sacraments, because under the Coverture of bodily things, the Power of God doth in a secret way work the Salvation (or Grace) conferred by them. And from these secret and sacred Virtues, they are called Sacraments. And in the following words, he saith, It is called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Mystery, because it contains a secret or hidden Dispensation.  
XLVII. What do we learn hence, but that the Body and Blood of Christ are therefore called Mysteries, because they contain a secret and hidden Dispensation? That is, it is one thing which they outwardly make Show of, and another thing, which they operate inwardly and invisibly.  
XLVIII. And for this Reason they are called Sacraments, because under the Covert of bodily Things, a divine Power doth secretly dispense Salvation (or Grace) to them that faithfully receive them.  
XLIX. By all that hath been hitherto said, it appears, that the Body and Blood of Christ, which are received by the Mouths of the Faithful in the Church, are Figures in respect of their visible Nature; but in respect of the invisible Substance, that is, the Power of the Word of God, they are truly Christ's Body and Blood. Wherefore as they are visible Creatures, they feed the Body; but as they have the virtue of a more powerful Substance, they do both feed and sanctify the Souls of the Faithful.  
L. We must now consider the Second Question, 
The Second Question.  and see 
(a) Which Paschasius Radbertus affirms, and Ratramnus denies; as also did Rabanus Maurus, etc.  whether that very Body which was born of Mary, which Suffered, was Dead and Buried, and which sits at the Right Hand of the Father, be the same which is daily received in the Church by the Mouths of the Faithful in the Sacramental Mysteries.  
LI. Let us inquire what is the Judgement of St. Ambrose in this point: 
He argues from a testimony of St. Ambrose  For he saith in his First Book of the Sacraments, Truly, it is wonderful, that God reigned down Manna to the Fathers, and they were fed every day with Heavenly Food; whereupon 'tis said, that Man did eat Angel's Bread; and yet they who did eat that Bread, all died in the Wilderness: But that Food which thou receivest, that living Bread which came down from Heaven, ministers the Substance of Eternal Life, and whosoever eats thereof shall never die; and this is the Body of Christ.  
LII. See in what sense this Doctor saith, That the Body of Christ is that Food which the Faithful receive in the Church: For he saith, That Living Bread which comes down from Heaven, ministers the Substance of Eternal Life. Doth it, as it is seen, as it is corporally received, chewed with the Teeth, as it is swallowed down the Throat, and received into the Belly, minister the Substance of Eternal Life? In this respect, it only feeds the Mortal Flesh, it doth not minister Incorruption; nor can it be truly said, That whosoever eats thereof, shall never die. For what the Body receives, is corruptible, nor can it preserve the Body, so that it shall never die; for what is itself subject to corruption, cannot give Immortality. Therefore there is in that Bread a certain [Principle of] Life, which doth not appear to our bodily Eyes, but is seen by those of Faith; which also is that Living Bread which came down from Heaven; and concerning which it is truly said, that whosoever eats thereof, shall never die, and which is Christ's Body.  
LIII. And afterwards speaking of the Almighty Power of Christ, he saith thus: Therefore the Word of Christ, which could produce things that were not, out of nothing, cannot it change the things that actually exist, into that which they were not? Is it not a greater Work to create things at first, than to alter their Natures?  
LIV. St. Ambrose saith, That in this Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ, there is a Change made, and wonderfully, because it is Divine, Ineffable, and indeed Incomprehensible; I desire to know of them, who will by no means admit any thing of an inward secret Virtue, but will Judge of the whole matter, as it appears to outward Sense, in what respect this Change is made. As for the substance of the Creatures, what they were before Consecration, the same they remain after it. Bread and Wine they were before; and after Consecration, we see they continue Being's of the same Nature and Kind: So that it is changed Internally, by the mighty Power of the Holy Ghost; and this is the mighty Object which Faith beholds, which fe●ds the Soul, and ministers the substance of Eternal Life.  
LV. And again it follows, Why dost thou here require the Order of Nature [in the mystery of] Christ's Body, when our Lord God himself was, contrary to the Order of Nature, born of a Virgin?  
LVI. Now perhaps, 
An Objection obviated.  some one at the hearing of this, may start up, and say, That it is the Body of Christ which we behold, and his Blood that we drink; yet we must not inquire how it becomes so; but only believe steadfastly that it is so. Thou seemest to think aright; but yet if thou didst carefully observe the Importance of thy Words, when thou sayest, That thou faithfully believest it to be the Body and Blood of Christ, thou wouldst understand, that what thou believest thou dost not see: For if thou sawest it, thou wouldst say, I see, and not I believe, that it is the Body and Blood of Christ. Whereas now, because Faith discerns the whole matter, whatever it is, and the Bodily Eye perceives nothing of it, thou must understand, that those things which are seen, are the Body and Blood of Christ, not in Kind, or Nature, but Virtually. For which Reason, he saith, That the Order of Nature is not to be considered; but the Power of Christ must be adored, which changes what he will, how he will, into what he will; creating what had no Being, and changing the Creature into what it was not before. And the same Author adds; Doubtless it was the true Flesh [of Christ,] which was Crucified and Buried; 
(a) Or it may be rendered, The Sacrament of that true Flesh.  therefore this is really the Sacrament of that Flesh. The Lord Jesus himself saith, This is my Body.  
LVII. How warily, 
Another Argument from St. Ambrose.  and wisely doth he distinguish! Speaking of the Flesh of Christ, which was Crucified and Buried, or in which Christ was Crucified and Buried, he saith, It is the true Flesh of Christ: But of that which is taken in the Sacrament, he saith, It's therefore truly the Sacrament of that Flesh, distinguishing between the Sacrament of his Flesh, and the Verity of his Flesh, [or his true Flesh] in as much as he saith, in that true Flesh which he took of the Virgin, he was Crucified and Buried; whereas he saith, the Mystery now celebrated in the Church, is the Sacrament of that true Flesh in which he was Crucified; expressly teaching the Faithful, that that Flesh in which Christ was Crucified and Buried, is not a Mystery, but true and natural; whereas that Flesh which mystically represents the former, is not Flesh in kind, or Naturally, but Sacramentally: For in its Kind, or Nature, it is Bread; but Sacramentally, it is the true Body of Christ, as the Lord Jesus saith, This is my Body.  
LVIII. And in the following words, The Holy Ghost hath in another place by the Prophet declared to thee what it is that we eat and drink, saying, 
* Psal. 34.8.  Taste, and see, that the Lord is good; blessed is the man that trusteth in him. Doth the Bread and Wine, eaten and drunk, corporally show how sweet the Lord is? Whatsoever is an Object of Tasting, is corporeal, and delights the Palate. What? Is to taste the Lord, to perceive any Corporeal Object? Wherefore he invites them to make Trial by their Spiritual Faculty of Tasting; and not think of any thing Corporeal, either in that Drink or Bread; but to understand every thing Spiritually: For the Lord is a Spirit, and blessed is the Man that trusteth in him.  
LIX. And afterwards, Christ is in the Sacrament, because it is the Body of Christ; yet it is not therefore Bodily Food, but Spiritual. What could be more plainly, clearly, and more divinely said: For he saith, in that Sacrament Christ is; but he doth not say, that Bread, and that Wine is Christ; which should he have said, he would have made Christ corruptible and mortal; which God forbidden he should: For it is certain, that whatsoever is corporeally seen, or tasted in that Food, is liable to corruption.  
LX. He adds, Because it is Christ's Body. You will reply upon me; Look here, he plainly acknowledges this Bread and Wine to be Christ's Body. But have patience, and mark what he subjoins; Yet this is not bodily Food, but spiritual. Use not therefore thy bodily Sense; for it is no Judge in this Matter. It is the Body of Christ indeed, yet not Corporal, but Spiritual. It is the Blood of Christ, yet not Corporal, but Spiritual: So that nothing is here to be understood Corporally, but Spiritually. It is the Body of Christ, but not Corporally: It is the Blood of Christ, but not Corporally.  
LXI. And afterwards, Wherefore the Apostle (saith he) speaking of the Type thereof, saith, That our Fathers did eat Spiritual Meat, and drank Spiritual Drink. For the Body of God is Spiritual. The Body of Christ is the Body of a Divine Spirit, as we read in the Lamentations, 
* The Place St. Ambrose citys, is Lam. 4.20. where the LXX read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and the vulgar Latin, Christus Dominus; but our English Translation renders it truly, The Lord's Anointed: By which Expositors understand not Jesus Christ; but either Josiah, or as some think, Zedekiah.  Christ the Lord, is the Spirit before our Face.  
LXII. He very clearly teaches, how we are to understand the Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood: For having said, our Fathers did eat Spiritual Meat, and drank Spiritual Drink; when no body doubts that the Manna which they did eat, and the Water which they drank, were Corporeal; He adds, concerning the Mystery which we now celebrate in the Church, determining in what Sense it is Christ's Body: For the Body of God is a Spiritual Body. Verily Christ is God; and the Body which he took of the Virgin Mary, which Suffered, was Buried, and Rose again, was his true Body, that is, it remained such as might be seen and felt; but the Body, which is called the Mystery of God, is not Corporeal, but Spiritual; and if Spiritual, than it can neither be seen, nor yet felt. And for this reason St. Ambrose proceeds to say, The Body of Christ is the Body of a Divine Spirit. Now, a Divine Spirit is no Corporeal, Corruptible, or palpable Being: But that Body which is celebrated in the Church, according to its visible Nature, is both Corruptible, and such as may be felt.  
LXIII. In what respect then is it called the Body of a Divine Spirit? Truly, as it is Spiritual, that is, as it is invisible; as it cannot be felt, and is therefore incorruptible.  
LXIV. Which makes him further add, That Christ is a Spirit; as we read, Christ, the Lord, is the Spirit before our Face. Whereby he plainly shows, in what respect it is accounted Christ's Body, to wit, in as much as the Spirit of Christ is therein, that is to say, the Power of the Divine Word, which doth not only feed, but also purifies the Soul.  
LXV. Wherefore our Author goes on: Lastly this Meat strengtheneth our Heart, and this Drink maketh glad the Heart of Man, as the 
(b) Psal. 104.15.  Prophet testifies. Now doth our Bodily Food strengthen, or doth this Bodily Drink make glad the Heart of Man? But to show of what Meat and Drink it is that he speaks, he adds emphatically: This Meat, and this Drink. What is this Meat, and this Drink? Even the Body of Christ, the Body of the Divine Spirit; and (to explain the Matter yet more) Christ himself, who is a Spirit, of whom he saith, Christ, the Lord, is the Spirit before our Face. By all which Discourse, it evidently appears, that in this Meat and Drink, nothing is to be corporally understood; but all must be Spiritually taken.  
LXVI. For the Soul, which is in this place signified by the Heart of Man, is not fed with bodily Meat, or Drink; but is nourished by the Word of God, and grows thereby. Which the same Doctor doth more expressly affirm in his Fifth Book upon the Sacraments, saying, It is not that Bread which goes into the Body, but the Bread of Life Eternal, which affords Sustenance to our Souls.  
LXVII. And that St. Ambrose spoke not this of common Bread; but of that Bread which is also Christ's Body, is most manifest from the following Passages: For he speaks of the Daily Bread, which the Faithful pray for.  
LXVIII. Adding, If it be Daily Bread, why dost thou receive it but once in the Year, as the Greeks in the East were wont to do? Receive that every Day, which may every Day do thee good; and live so, that thou mayest be every Day worthy to receive. So that it is plain of what Bread he speaks, to wit, of the Bread of Christ's Body, which sustains our Souls, not as it passes into our Bodies, but as it is the Bread of Eternal Life.  
LXIX. By the Authority of this most Learned Father, 
He Sums up the force of St. Ambr. his Discourse.  we are taught how vast a difference there is, between the Body, in which Christ suffered, and the Blood which he shed out of his Side, as he hung on the Cross, and that Body which is daily celebrated by the Faithful, in the Mystery of his Passion; and that Blood, which is received with their Mouths, as the Sacrament of that Blood wherewith the whole World was Redeemed. For that Bread and Drink, are not the Body and Blood of Christ, as they are visible; but as they Spiritually minister the Sustenance of Life. Moreover, that Body, in which Christ once suffered, appeared to be no other thing than really it was; for such it really was as it appeared to the eye, to the touch, the same thing which was Crucified and Buried. Likewise the Blood issuing from his Side, did not outwardly appear one thing, and inwardly contain another: So that true Blood flowed from his true Side. But now the Blood of Christ, which the Faithful drink, and that Body which they eat, are one thing in their Nature, and another in their Signification; one thing, as they feed the Body, Bodily Food; and another thing, as they feed the Soul, viz. the Sustenance of Eternal Life.  
LXX. Of which matter St. Hierom in his Comment 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 Christ's Body and Blood. 
Christ's Body is taken in two Senses.  For whilst he styles 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 Soldiers Spear: Therefore they are not the same.  
LXXII. For that Flesh which was crucified, 
He showeth the Difference of his Natural and Spiritual Body.  was made of the Virgin's Flesh, consisting of Bones and Nerves, distinguished 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 mixed with the Wine.   
LXXV. So with the Wine, which is called Christ's Blood, 
(a) Both the Greek and Latin Church used to mix Water with Wine in the Eucharist, but held it not essential to the Sacrament.  Water is commanded to be mixed; 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 passable. 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, than it is Christ's Body in verity [of Nature;] and if so, than it is incorruptible, impassable, 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 itself, but the Image of it; but that which the Mind perceives and understands, is the very thing itself.  
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 virtue 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 baptised into Moses in the Cloud, and in the Sea; and did all eat the same spiritual Meat, and drank the same spiritual Drink. The same spiritual, but other corporal Food. They did eat Manna, we quite another thing. But yet they did eat the same spiritual Meat with us. He adds, And they drank the same spiritual Drink. They drank one thing, and we another, but 
(a) In its visible Nature.  only as to what outwardly appeared, which by a spiritual virtue signified and same thing. How was it the same Drink? They drank, faith he, of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. Thence had they Bread whence they had Drink. The Rock was Christ in a Type, but the true Christ was the Word incarnate.  
LXXIX. Again, 
(b) John 6.63.  This is the Bread which came down from Heaven, whosoever eats thereof, shall never die; which must be understood of him who eats the Virtue of the Sacrament, not the mere visible Sacrament; him who eats inwardly, not outwardly; who feeds on it in his Heart, not who presseth it with his Teeth.  
LXXX. Again, in what follows, quoting our Saviour's Words, he saith, Doth this offend you, that I said, I give you my Flesh to eat, and my Blood to drink? What if you shall see the Son of Man ascending where he was before? What means this? Here he resolves that which troubled them; here he expounds the Difficulty at which they were offended. For they thought he would have given them his Body; but he tells them, that he should ascend in his Body entire into Heaven. When you shall see the Son of Man ascend where he was before; certainly then you will see, that he did not give his Body in the way which you imagine; than you will understand, that the Grace of God is not eaten by Morsels. He saith, It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing.  
LXXXI. And after many other Passages, he adds, Whosoever (saith the same Apostle) hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of his: Therefore it is the Spirit that quickeneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing. 
(a) John 6.63.  The words which I have spoken unto you, are Spirit and life. What means he, by saying, they are Spirit and Life? That they must be Spiritually understood. If thou understandest them Spiritually, they are Spirit and Life, if thou understandest them Carnally, [even so] also, they are Spirit and Life, but not to thee.  
LXXXII. By the Authority of this Doctor, treating on the Words of our Lord, touching the Sacrament of his own Body and Blood, we are plainly taught, That those words of our Lord are to be spiritually, and not carnally understood; as he himself saith; The words which I speak unto you, are Spirit and Life. That is, his Words concerning eating his Flesh, & drinking his Blood. He had spoken those things at which his Disciples were offended: Therefore that they might not be offended, their Divine Master calleth them back from the Flesh to the Spirit, from Objects of the outward Sense 
(a) That is, to spiritual Objects.  to the understanding of things invisible.  
LXXXIII. So then we see, that food of the Lord's Body, & that drink of his blood, are in some respect truly his Body and his Blood; that is, in the same respect in which they are Spirit and Life.  
LXXXIV. Again, those things which are one and the same are comprehended under the same Definition. We say of the true Body of Christ, that he is very God, and very Man; God, begotten of God the Father before the World began; and Man born of the Virgin Mary in the end of the World. But since these things cannot be said of the Body of Christ, which is mystically celebrated in the Church, we know that it is only in some particular manner the Body of Christ; which manner is Figurative, and in the way of an Image; so that the Verity is the Thing itself.  
LXXXV. 
He argues from a Prayer in his time used after the H. Communion.  In the Prayer used after the Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood, to which the People say, Amen; the Priest speaks thus, 
(a) This Prayer is not found in the present Roman Mass-book.  We who have now received the Pledge of eternal Life; most humbly beseech thee to grant that we may be 
(a) Or, Really.  manifestly made partakers of that which here we receive under an Image or Sacrament.  
LXXXVI. A Pledge and Image are the Pledge and Image of somewhat else; that is, they do not respect themselves, but another thing. It is the Pledge of that thing for which it is given, the Image of the thing it represents. They signify the thing of which they are the Pledge or Image, but are not the very thing itself. whence it appears, that this Body and Blood of Christ are the Pledge and Image of something to come, which is now only represented, but shall hereafter be 
(b) Or, Really.  plainly exhibited. Now if it only signify at present what shall be hereafter really exhibited, than it is one thing which is now celebrated, and another which shall hereafter be manifested.  
LXXXVII. Wherefore it is indeed the Body and Blood of Christ which the Church celebrates; but in the way of a Pledge, or an Image: The truth we shall then have, when the Pledge or Image shall cease, and the very thing itself shall appear.  
LXXXVIII. And in another Prayer; 
He argues from another Collect.  
(a) This is extant in the ordinary Mass-Book.  Let thy Sacrament work in us, O Lord, we beseech thee, those things which they contain, that we may really be made partakers of those things which now we celebrate in a figure. He saith that these things are celebrated in a Figure, not in Truth; that is, by way of Representation, and not the 
(b) Or Real Presence.  Manifestation of the Thing itself. Now the Figure and the Truth are very different things: Therefore that Body and Blood of Christ which is celebrated in the Church, differs from the Body and Blood of Christ, which is glorified. That Body is the Pledge or Figure, but this the very Truth itself; the former we celebrate, till we come to the latter; and when we come to the latter, the former shall be done way.  
LXXXIX. It is apparent therefore, that they differ vastly, as much as the Pledge, and that whereof it is the Pledge; as much as the Image, and the Thing whose Image it is, as much as the Figure and Truth. We see then how vast a difference there is between the Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood, which the Faithful now receive in the Church, and that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary, which suffered, was buried, risen again, ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the Right-hand of God. For that Body which is celebrated here in our way, must be spiritually received; for Faith believes somewhat that it seethe not; and it spiritually feeds the Soul, makes glad the Heart, and confers Eternal Life and Incorruption, if we attend not to that which feeds the Body, which is chewed with our Teeth, and ground to pieces, but to that which is spiritually received by Faith. Now that Body in which Christ suffered, and risen again, was his own proper Body which he assumed of the Virgin, which might be seen and felt after his Resurrection; as he saith to his Disciples; Luke 24.40. Handle me, and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me have.  
XC. Let us hear also what St. 
He urges the Authority of Fulgentius.  Fulgentius speaks in his Book of Faith. Firmly believe, and doubt not in any wise, that the very only begotten Son, God the Word, being made Flesh 
(a) Ephes. 5.2.  offered himself for us a Sacrifice and Oblation of a sweet smelling savour to God; to whom with the Father and Holy Ghost, by Patriarches, Prophets and Priests, living Creatures were sacrificed in the time of the Old Testament; and to whom now, that is, under the New, together with the Father and Holy Ghost, with whom he hath one and the same Divinity, the Catholic Church throughout the World, ceaseth not to offer a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine in Faith and Charity. In those Carnal Sacrifices, there was a signification of the Flesh of Christ which he without Sin should offer for our Sins, and of that Blood which he was to shed on the Cross for the Remission of our Sins; but in this Sacrifice, there is a Thanksgiving and Commemoration of that Flesh of Christ which he offered for us, and of that Blood, which the same [Christ] our God, hath shed for us: Of which, the Apostle St. Paul, in the Acts of the Apostles, saith, 
(a) Acts 20.28.  Take heed to yourselves and to the whole Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops, to rule the Church of God, which he redeemed with his own Blood. In those Sacrifices, what was to be given for us, was represented in a Figure; but in this Sacrifice, what is already given, is evidently shown.  
XCI. By saying, That in those Sacrifices was signified what should be given for us; but that in this Sacrifice, what is already given is commemorated; he plainly intimates, That as those Sacrifices were a Figure of things to come, so this is the Figure of things already past.  
XCII. By which Expressions, he most evidently shows, how vast a difference there is between that Body of Christ, in which Christ suffered, and that Body which we celebrate, in remembrance of his Death and Passion: For the former is properly and truly his Body, having nothing mystical or figurative in it. The latter is mystical, showing one thing to our outward Senses by a Figure, and inwardly representing another thing by Faith.  
XCIII. 
He concludes with another Testimony of S. Augugustine.  Let me add one Testimony more of Father Augustine, which will confirm what I have said, and shall put an end to my Discourse; in his Sermon to the People touching the Sacrament of the Altar: Thus he saith, What it is which you see upon God's Altar, you were shown last Night; but you have not yet heard what it is, what it meaneth, and of how great a Thing this is a Sacrament. That which you see, is Bread and the Cup; thus much your own Eyes inform you: But that wherein your Faith needs Instruction, is, that this Bread is the Body of Christ, and the Cup is the Blood of Christ. This is a short account of the Matter, and perhaps as much as Faith requires; but Faith needeth further Instruction; as it is written, 
(a) Isa. 7.9.  Except you believe, you will not understand. You may be apt to say to me, You require us to believe, expound to us, that we may understand. Such a Thought as this may arise in any man's Heart. We know that our Lord Jesus Christ took Flesh of the Virgin Mary; when an Infant, he was suckled, nourished, grew, and arrived to the Age of a young Man, was Persecuted by the Jews, suffered, was hanged on a Tree, put to Death, taken down, and buried, the third day he risen again, and on that day himself pleased, he ascended the Heavens, and carried up his Body thither, and shall from thence come to Judge both quick and dead, where he is now sitting at the right Hand of the Father. How is Bread his Body, and how is the Cup, or the Liquor in the Cup, his Blood? These, my Brethren, are styled Sacraments, because in them we see one thing, and understand another. That which we see, hath a Bodily Nature; that which is understood, hath a Spiritual Fruit, or Efficacy.  
XCIV. In these Words, this Venerable Author instructs us, what we ought to believe touching the proper Body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary, and now sitteth at the right Hand of God, and in which he will come to Judge the Quick and the Dead; as also, touching that Body which is placed on the Altar, and received by the People. The former is entire, neither subject to be cut or divided, nor is it veiled under any Figure. But the latter, which is set on the Lord's Table, is a Figure, because it is a Sacrament. That which is outwardly seen, hath a Corporeal Nature, which feeds the Body; but that which is understood to be contained within it, hath a spiritual Fruit, or Virtue, and quickeneth the Soul.  
XCV. And in the following Words, having a Mind to speak more plainly and openly touching this Mystical Body, he saith, If you have a mind to understand the Body of Christ, harken to the Apostle, who saith, Ye are the Body of Christ, and his Members: And [if ye are the Body of Christ, and his Members, then] there is a Mystical Representation of yourselves set on the Lord's Table. You receive the Mystery of yourselves, and answer, Amen; and by that Answer 
(a) i.e. Own yourselves to be the Body and Members of Christ.  subscribe to what you are. Thou hearest the Body of Christ named, and answerest, Amen; become thou a Member of Christ, that thy Amen may be true, 
(a) i e. How are we represented as Christ's Body in the Bread?  But why in the Bread? I shall offer nothing of my own, but let us hear what the Apostle 
(b) 1 Cor. 10.17.  himself speaks of this Sacrament; who saith, And we being many, are one Bread, and one Body in Christ, etc.  
XCVI. St. Augustine sufficiently teaches us, That as in the Bread set upon the Altar, the Body of Christ is signified, so is likewise the Body of the People who receive it. That he might evidently show, That Christ's proper Body is that in which he was born of the Virgin, was suckled, suffered, died, was buried, and risen again, in which he ascended the Heavens, sitteth on the right Hand of the Father, and in which he shall come again to Judgement: But this which is placed upon the Lord's Table, contains a Mystery of that, as also the Mystery of the Body of the Faithful People; according to that of the Apostle; And we being many, are one Bread and one Body in Christ.  
XCVII. Your Wisdom, 
He determines this second Question in the negative.  Most Illustrious Prince, may observe, how both by Testimonies out of the Holy Scriptures, and the Fathers, it is most evidently demonstrated, That the Bread, which is called the Body of Christ, and the Cup which is called the Blood of Christ, is a Figure, because it is a Mystery; and that there is a vast Difference between that which is his Body Mystically, and that Body which suffered, was buried, and risen again: For this was our Saviour's proper Body; nor is there any Figure or Signification in it; but it is the very thing itself. And the Faithful desire the Vision of him, because he is our Head; and when we shall see him, our Desire will be satisfied; 
(a) 1 John 10.30.  For he and the Father are one: Not in respect of our Saviour's Body, but forasmuch as the Fullness of the Godhead dwelleth in the Man Christ.  
XCVIII. But in that Body which is celebrated in a Mystery, there is a Figure, not only of the proper Body of Christ, but also of the People which believe in Christ: For it is a Figure representing both Bodies; to wit, that of Christ, in which he died, and rose again, and that of the People which are regenerated, and raised from the Dead [by Baptism] into Christ.  
XCIX. And let me add, That the Bread and Cup, which is called, and is the Body and Blood of Christ, represents the Memory of the Lord's Passion or Death; as himself teacheth us in the Gospel, saying, 
(a) Luke 22.19.  This do in Remembrance of me. Which St. Paul the Apostle expounding, saith, 
(b) 1 Cor. 11.26.  As oft as you eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, you show forth the Lord's Death till he come.  
C. We are here taught both by our Saviour, and also by St. Paul the Apostle, That the Bread and Blood which is placed upon the Altar, is set there for a Figure, or in remembrance of the Lord's Death; that what was really done long since, may be called to our present Remembrance; that having his Passion in our mind, we may be made partakers of that Divine Gift, whereby we are saved from Death: Knowing well, that when we shall come to the Vision of Christ, we shall need no such Instruments to admonish us, what his Infinite Goodness was pleased to Suffer for our sakes; for when we shall see him face to face, we shall not by the outward Admonition of Temporal things, but by the Contemplation of the very thing itself, shall understand how much we are obliged to give Thanks to the Author of our Salvation.  
CI. But in what I say, I would not have it thought, That the Lord's Body and Blood is not received by the Faithful in the Sacramental Mysteries; for Faith receives not that which the Eye beholds, but what itself believes. It is Spiritual Meat, and Spiritual Drink, spiritually feeding the Soul, and affording a Life of eternal Satisfaction; as our Saviour himself, commending this Mystery, speaks: 
(a) John. 6.63.  It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing.  
CII. Thus in Obedience to your Majesty's Command, I, though a very inconsiderable Person, have adventured to dispute touching Points of no small Moment not following any presumptuous Opinion of my own; but having a constant regard to the Authority of the Ancients: If your Majesty shall approve what I have said, as Catholic, ascribe it to the merit of your own Faith; which, laying aside your Royal Glory and Magnificence, condescended to inquire after the Truth of so mean a Person. And if what I have said, please you not, impute it to my own Weakness, which renders me incapable of explaining this Point so well as I desired.   
FINIS.   

AN APPENDIX TO RATRAM, OR BERTRAM.  
In which Monsieur Boileau's French Version of that Author, and his Notes upon him are Considered, and his unfair Deal in both Detected.  
LONDON, Printed in the Year, MDCLXXXVIII.   

AN APPENDIX TO RATRAM, OR BERTRAM, etc.  
ABout Three Months after I had first Published this small Tract, I was acquainted by a Friend that it was newly Printed at Paris, with a quite contrary design, viz. To show there the Sentiments of Ratram, touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist were exactly conformable to the Faith of the Roman Church. This News made me very desirous to see the Book, but living near an Hundred Miles from London, it was above six Months more, ere I could procure it. At first view I perceived the Publisher 
(a) James Boileau, Doctor in Divinity of the College of Sorbon, and Dean of the Metropolitan Church of Sens.  was a Person of no small Figure in the French Church; and that he had several other Doctors of the Sorbon to avouch, 
(b) See the Approbation at the end.  That there is nothing either in his Version or Notes, but what is agreeable to the Text of that Ancient Writer. But upon further perusal I soon found that Monsieur Boileau, had rather given us his own Paraphrase, than the Author's Words in French; that his design was not so much a Translation, as the Conversion of Bertram; and that he had made almost as great and wonderful a change in his Doctrine, as that which the Romanists pretend to be wrought in the Eucharist itself. I confess his Undertaking seemed both useful and seasonable, and well deserving encouragement; for if he proceed successful in it (in the present juncture) it must needs much facilitate the Conversions in hand. And unless some such way can be found out to bring over the Old Heretics, who for a Thousand Years together after CHRIST, taught that The Bread and Wine remain after Consecration; and that, It is not the Natural Body of our Saviour, which is orally received in the Holy Sacrament. The poor Hugonots will still be of Opinion, That they ought not to distrust the Judgement of their Senses, confirmed by Scripture and Antiquity, or to resign their Understandings to any Church Authority on Earth.  
But the misery of it is, that the Doctor hath not been more generous in his Undertaking, than he is unfortunate in his performance: For tho' the Abjurations of the new Converts, cannot be more against their private Sense, than Dr. Boileau's Exposition is against the Sense of this Author; yet as they recant their forced Subscriptions, whenever they can escape out of France; so Bertram when permitted to speak his own Words in Latin, contradicts whatever this Translator hath forced him against his mind to say in French. But how ill soever he hath treated the Author in French, we must acknowledge ourselves very much obliged to him, for giving us the Latin Text, 
(c) See his Preface, p. 18.  according to F. Mabillons correct Copy of the Lobes Manuscript. We thank him hearty for it, and it is no small piece of Justice he hath done us, to show the World that the former Printed Copies were not corrupted by us, as some have pretended. That the Variations from them are inconsiderable, generally in the order of the Syntax, or the use of some other word of like signification; and where the Doctor himself thinks the variations material, the advantage (if any be) lies on our side.  
In his Preface and Remarks, I meet with nothing of any moment, which is not obviated, and fully cleared in my 
(d) In Chapters IV. and V  Dissertation. For I had considered the main things on which he insists, in the Writings of F. Mabillon, and Natalis Alexander, and given them an Answer. If he had borrowed F. Mabillon's Modesty and Ingenuity, as he hath done his Arguments, or contented himself with them, he would have escaped many foul imputations, which will now unavoidably disparage either his Judgement, or his Integrity.  
There are two things which disable me for a thorough examination of Monsieur Boileau's Work; the one is the want 
* Dacherij Spicilegium. Mabillonij Analecta, etc.  of some Books, which it were necessary for me to consult on this occasion, which cannot be here procured; and the other, the want of a little more critical Skill in the French, in order to the more effectual discovery of his unfair dealing. However under these disavantages, I doubt not to convince all unprejudiced Persons, of these three things.  
1. First, That Monsieur Boileau hath grossly misrepresented the design and sentiments of Ratram, in this Book.  
2. That he hath not acted the part of a Faithful Translator, nor used that exactness which himself, and his Approvers pretend, but on the contrary hath all along accommodated his Version to his own Hypothesis, and not the Author's Words.  
3. That his Exposition of the Controverted Terms in this Discourse, both in his Preface and Remarks is often very absurd, that those Terms cannot bear his Sense, nor are they used therein by other Ecclesiastical Writers, either of the same or elder times.  
And the proof of these, will be a full confutation of this Doctors confident Pretence, that this Book of Ratram contains no other Sentiments, than those of that Church, which he styles, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman, touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist.  
Before I enter upon the first part of my Undertaking, it will not be amiss to take a short view of Monsieur Boileau's Preface, the sum of which is this.  
That although this piece of Ratram is one of the most considerable Monuments of the Ninth Century, and serves admirably to clear the perpetuity of the Faith touching the Eucharist, yet it hath lain in the dark, and been taken notice of, by almost no body, from his own time till it was Printed at Colen, Anno Dom. 1532. That upon its first appearance in public, it met with very odd entertainment, and quite contrary to what it deserved; being challenged by the Protestants as favourable to their Sentiments, and given up by the Roman Catholics as an Impudent and Heretical Forgery. Insomuch, that this Tract was put into the Index of Prohibited Books made in the Council of Trent, Anno Dom. 1559. and stands condemned in the succeeding Indices, and the most eminent Doctors of that Communion have ever since esteemed it a Dangerous and Heretical Piece. Some few indeed have treated poor Ratram a little more favourably. The Louvain Divines, who compiled the Belgic Index, declare that with the help of a Catholic Exposition, he may be tolerated. And M. de saint Boeuve, King's Professor of Divinity in the Sorbon, did in the Year 1655. generously undertake the Defence of his Doctrine in his public Lectures. But after all, no less a man than Petrus de Marca and others, have been since labouring to prove, that this Book was written by Joannes Scotus, and not Ratram, and is the same that was condemned in the Berengarian Controversy by the Synods of Rome and Vercelli. Having rejected this, and all other hard censures, he tells us that Ratrams Sentiments are entirely Catholic, and not in the least contrary to the Doctrine of Paschasius Radbertus, or the present Roman Church; and this he doubts not to make evident, by his Translation of Bertram into French, and the Exposition of his obscure terms given in this Preface, and the remarks which he hath added to justify his Translation.  
Having given this general account of Mr. Boileau's Work, I shall show how he represents the Scope and Sentiments of our Author.  
In the Negative, 
(a) Que cet Auteur n'a point eu d'autre creance que celle de la realite & de la Transubstantiation. Preface, p. 10.  That he doth not impugn the Doctrine of the Real Presence, or Transubstantiation, nor dispute against the Opinion of Paschasius Radbertus. But on the contrary, 
(b) Cet Auteur n' est point oppose a Paschase, ny a la Doctrine de l'Eglise Catholic. Ibid. and p. 23, 24.  That he and Paschasius teach the same Doctrine.  
2. In the Affirmative, 
(c) Ce liure de Ratramne est fait contre des Theologiens Catholics, mais-pas-contre le Sentiment Catholic, p. 21.  That this Book was written against certain Catholic Divines, though not against the real Presence and Transubstantiation. And that the Opinions which he encounters, are these 
(d) See page, 22. 23.  two.  
1. That, The Body of our Lord received in the Holy Sacrament, is exposed naked to our bodily Senses, without any Figure or Veil whatsoever.  
2. That the Body of Christ which is visible and orally received in the Holy Sacrament, or whatever is the object of Sense therein (which as 
(e) Preface, p. 25. & in Versione passim.  Mr. Boileau expounds this Tract, is only the Species or Accidents of Bread and Wine) is the self same Body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin, Crucified, Dead and Buried: That is, his true and natural Body.  
Now in this account of the Design and Sentiments of Ratram, this Doctor is either grossly mistaken himself, or else he grossly abuseth his Reader. And this I hope to make out, both by showing the weakness of those Arguments he offers for it, and also by producing better Reasons against it.  
The Sum of what is said to support the Negative, viz. That Ratram doth not confute the Sentiments of Paschasius, or the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, may be reduced to these three things.  
1 
(f) Preface, p. 2, 3, 4.  The Silence of all Authors from his own time, to the Year 1532. (especially in the Berengarian Controversy) none, save F. Cellot's Anonymus, once mentioning him as an Adversary to Paschasius.  
2. 
(g) Ibid, p. 21, 25, 26.  The Silence of Ratram himself, who never mentions Paschasius, or his Book, nor the real Presence; but on the contrary, uses terms proper to establish Transubstantiation.  
3. 
(h) Ibid, p. 8, 9, 10, 12.  That many Learned Writers of the Roman Communion, especially since Manuscript Copies of it have been found, have esteemed this Piece very Orthodox.  
To the First I answer, That the pretended Silence of Authors, hinders not but that Ratram might impugn the Doctrine of Paschasius. When two Authors of the same time handle one and the same Argument, and the one advanceth this Proposition, That the Body of Christ received orally in the Sacrament, is the same Body which was born of the Virgin, Suffered on the Cross, and risen from the Grave, as Paschasius did; and the other puts the Proposition into the Form of a Question, and determines it in the Negative, as 
(i) Through the whole discussion of the Second Question.  Bertram hath done: I conceive there needs no witness to make any man (who is not sunk quite over head and ears into Scepticism) believe that this latter opposeth the Doctrine of the former.  
But Secondly, He doth not say that no body hath mentioned him as an Adversary to Paschasius; he acknowledgeth that F. Cellots Anonymous Author, hath expressly affirmed it. And tho' he thinks it enough to invalidate his Credit, by saying of him (as the Bishop of Meaux doth of M. Imbert, 
(k) See the Bishop of Meaux his Letter in the Vindication of his Exposition. p. 116. Vn homme sans nom comme sans scavoir.  He is a man of neither Repute nor Learning) that he is an Author of little Sense or Merit, whose Name, or Age cannot be discovered. This will not serve his turn, for the credibility of a Witness depends more upon a man's Honesty, and the means he hath of truly informing himself touching the matter he attests, than on his renown, or deep Learning; an ordinary Parish Priest may be as credible a Witness of a matter of Fact within his knowledge, as the Bishop of Meaux, or the Dean of the Metropolitical Church of Sens. We were in a miserable case, if none under the Dignity of a Dean could tell Truth; or if we were to know no more than some Sorbon Doctors are content to let us. But what if Mr. Boileau be mistaken when he tells us (that by the confession of all Mankind) he hath little Sense or Reason, and that his Age is unknown? What if his Time and Name be well known, and he appear to have been an Author of some Figure and Note for Learning? F. 
(l) Acta Ben. S. IU. p. 2. Praef. n. 48. Proinde auctorem Herigerum Abbatem Laubiensem affirmare non vereor. De Herigero autem Girardus in vita Adalbardi Corbeiensis apud Mabillon. Ibidem n. 48. Abbas Laubiensis HERIGERUS, qui eo tempore inter Sapientes habebatur celeberrimus.  Mabillon thinks he knows both his Name and Time, and that he was no meaner a Person than Herigerus Abbot of Lobes, who lived about 120 Years after Ratram. But if the discovery had never been made, it is a slender Argument that he was not worth the Publishing, because Sirmondus, and Archbishop Usher, could have Published him, but did not: How many other Authors which they could have Published, but did not, must be judged worthless Scribblers, if this be true reasoning? Let M. Boileau despise him as much as he pleaseth, he is a far better Witness that Ratram wrote against Paschasius, than any he can produce to inform us who those Divines were in the Ninth Century, that held the Opinions of Abbaudus, and Prior Gaultier, the imaginary Adversaries which he makes him to encounter. He can neither show the Books of that time, wherein those Opinions are taught, nor yet prove by any Author, that they were then held by any body. That 
(m) Preface, p. 4.  neither Sigebertus Gemblacensis, nor Trithemius (who both mention this Tract) say any thing of its being written against Paschasius is no convincing Proof that it was not. For those Authors ordinarily give us no further account of Books, than the bare Titles afford, and they omit many unquestionable Works of those Writers whom they mention. F. Mabillon 
(n) Acta Ben. S. IU. p. 2. Praef. n. 149. 150.  makes no doubt but the two Books, De partu Virgins, were Written by Paschasius against Ratrams Book on that Subject; yet neither Sigebert or Trithemius say one Word of that Dispute; nor can M. Boileau produce any one Writer from those times to the beginning of this Century, who so much as mentions it: Neither the Popes, nor those Councils which they assembled against Berengarius, at Rome and Verceli doubted but Joannes Scotus wrote against Paschasius; and yet neither 
(o) No very accurate Writers, who make two Authors of Joannes Scotus, and Joannes Erigena, as Mr. Sclater or his Printer doth, p. 76. Trithem. de Script. Eccles. fol. 63. & 65. Quarto, Paris, 1512. Sigeb. cap. 65. & cap. 95.  Trithemius, nor Sigebert 
(p) He wrote in Defence of the Emperor, Henry iv against Pope Gregory VII. & Paschal II. And Died A. D. 1113.  (who lived, and was a Writer in the latter days of Berengarius) saith one Syllable of it. As for Bishop Fisher, he did not (as M. Boileau pretends) 
(q) Preface, p. 4. Qui le cite.  cite Bertram, he only mentions his Name among other Catholic Writers on that Subject.  
His Second Argument concludes as little as the first; for we pretend not that this Tract was written against the Book of Paschasius, but only against his Sentiments; so that there was no occasion to mention it. It was upon the command of his Prince, who propounded those two Questions, that he meddled with this Controversy; and if he wrote about the Year 850. whilst Paschasius was Abbot of Corbey; there is another obvious Reason, for his Silence in that Point.  
But tho' we confess that this Tract confutes not the Book of Paschasius; yet we think it too boldly said 
(r) Preface, p. 21.  That it makes as little mention of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation, as it doth of Stercoranism; unless his meaning be, that they are not mentioned in those proper Terms, which were not then in use. He ought to be very well assured, that Veritas in Bertram, doth not signify Verity of Nature, but such a Verity as is discerned by our bodily Senses; otherwise he must retract this confident Assertion, and give us leave to believe some other great Doctors 
(s) Espenceus, Genebrard, etc.  of the Sorbon, who do acknowledge that he both mentions and denies them.  
But whether he doth or not, as also whether he uses Terms proper to establish Transubstantiation, I shall have a fit occasion hereafter of discoursing with our Author; and shall therefore proceed to consider,  
What he can fairly collect from the favourable Opinion, which some Learned Doctors of the Church of Rome have had of this Piece. The Louvain Doctors think he needs a Comment to give him a tolerable Sense: And though Writing invisibly for visibly, be but the Correction of a Typographical Error, yet the Exposition of external Species, or Accidents of the Creatures, where the Author saith, the substance of the Creatures, and the other that follows is a Gloss that mars the Text, at least when 
t Index Exp. Philippi II. Regis Catholici jussu, Ant. 1571. p. 7.  the Expositors themselves confess, that Bertram knew not that the Accidents did subsist without their subjects. And when they have done all they can by way of Exposition, they think it necessary 
(u) Denique, quaedam, quae videntur n●n obscure ab Haereticis inserta & assuta sub libri finem. Ibidem p. 5. & iterum p. 6. Non male aut inconsulte omittantur igitur omnia h●c a fine pag. Considerandum quoque etc.  to expunge all from the beginning of the 73 number, to near the end of n. 77. And again from the beginning of n. 84. to the middle of n. 89. which they say, are Interpolations; and yet they are as conformable to the Manuscript, as any thing else in the Book. But because they cannot be so expounded, as to reconcile them with the Real Presence, therefore forsooth, they are Interpolations foisted in by some Heretic.  
What M. De saint Boeuve said in the Defence of this Tract I know not, nor what Reputation he might get by maintaining a Paradox; but it's plain he made few Proselytes to his Opinion, when the great 
(w) In Epistola praefixa Tomo Secundo Spicileg. L. Dacherij.  de Marca, Two Years after, fathered it upon Joannes Scotus, and said it is the same Book which was condemned in all the Synods against Berengarius, and 
(x) At the end of M. Arnaud's Defence, in Quarto, Paris, 1669.  M. Paris wrote a Dissertation to support de Marca's Conjecture.  
That he tells us, 
(y) Pref. p. 10.  Since the Manuscripts of it are found, it is that Roman Catholic Divines have judged Bertram no Adversary to Paschasius or the Church, is an excellent hint, and we are much obliged to him for it; for it lets us into the Secret, if there be any in the matter. The naked Truth is this: Ratram had always maintained the Character of an 
(z) Pref. p. 4. Vn Escrivain tres-Catholique.  Orthodox Writer, and is not now to be kicked off as an Heretic. The Manuscripts now brought to Light, baffle the pretences of Forgery and Corruption, as also M. de Marca's Conjecture; and therefore to expound him in a Popish Sense, is the only Game left them to play. As long as there was any colour for saying so; Bertram was an Heretic, or the Book Spurious, or at least grievously Corrupted by the Protestants. But now all these Shifts fail them upon appearance of the Manuscripts; he is grown on a sudden a very Catholic Writer. I profess, that it is beyond my reach to comprehend the Reasons, Why the sight of the Manuscripts, should alter any man's Judgement touching the Orthodoxy of Bertram. The Printed Copies differ very little from that which Doctor Boileau now gives us from the Lobez Manuscript, which is not without some Faults, not committed in the old Editions; and they differ not at all in those places which the Belgic Censors, and Espenceus suspect to have been inserted by the Heretics. So that it is pure Necessity, and not any new Light which they have received from the Manuscripts, which makes the French Doctors now contend for an Author, whom their Predecessors rejected. If the Roman Catholic Divines had formerly entertained that good Opinion of Bertram in M. S. the World had not waited till F. Mabillon obliged us therewith, for a Transcript of the Lobez MS. 
(a) Ant. Sanderi Biblioth. Belgica M S S. par. 1. p. 303. Quarto Insulis 1641.  Antonius Sanderus in his account of the M S S. in the Belgic Libraries, mentions this very Book, 
(b) Juxta exemplar Duaci 1629. in Octa. licet suppresso loci & Typographi nomine. p. 304.  from a Printed Catalogue taken near 50 Years before F. Mabillon found it. And the Precedent 
(c) Vide Praef. ad vet. Auctores. IX. Saeculi. Libri Ratramni ex M. S. Codice Coenobij Lobbiensis, cujus Authenticum exemplar cura Doctoris Lovaniensis & R. P. Lucae Dacherij— consecuti sumus. Vide etiam Testimonium Notarij pub. ad calcem utriusque libri.  Mauguin in the Year 1648. procured a Copy of his two Books of Predestination, which immediately follow this Tract in the same Volume, by the favour of a Louvain Doctor, and M. d' Achery, who cannot be presumed ignorant of its being there. I say nothing of the Manuscript seen by 
(d) Le Cardinal du Perron, qui a ètè persuade que ces Manuscrits ètoient veritablement conforms a l'imprimè— n'a pas laisse de l'abandonner comme un Auteur Hèrètique, qui cache ses pensees sous des terms & des expressions Catholics. Preface, p. 10. 11.  Cardinal Perron, without operating any change in his Judgement of the Author, whom he abandons as an Heretic [and a crafty one too] that conceals his [Heterodox] Opinions under Catholic Terms and Expressions. So that if the Sorbonists at present have better thoughts of this Tract, its Author owes them very little thanks for that Favour.  
Let us now consider what is offered to make good the Affirmative; viz. That Ratrams Adversaries held,  
1. That there is no Figure in the Holy Eucharist, but that the Body of our Saviour was exposed naked to our Corporal Senses.  
2. That what our Senses perceive therein [that is, the Accidents of Bread and Wine] are the self same Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin, Crucified, etc.  
For proof of the former, he citys our 
(e) Preface, p. 22.  Author in the Preface to the King, n. 2. and in the state of the first Question, n. 5. making them to deny, that the Body of Christ, and his Blood 
(f) Remarks, p. 207. & 215. upon n. 2. 5. & 9  are under any Figure or Veil; and to say that the Sacrament is pure and simple manifestation of the Truth; which was not the Sentiment of Paschase, or the Church of Rome, who teach as expressly as Ratram himself, that there is Figure in the Sacrament: If you demand who these Divines were, He tells you 
(g) Preface, p. 34. & Remarks on n. 2.  of one Abbaudus, and Walter Prior of Saint Victors in the Twelfth Century, adding, 
(h) Remarks, p. 213. 214.  That this Opinion seems to have been common in the Year 1059. when Berengarius made his Recantation: And in regard Opinions do not grow common on a sudden, it may be reasonably thought, that these were the Sentiments of some in the times of Ratram; and that as much is intimated by Paschase, in his Book of the Lord's Body and Blood, in the Twentieth Chapter. This is all that I can find, either in his Preface or Remarks that looks like a Proof; how little it concludes shall presently be shown.  
1. Those Passages which are cited do not necessarily infer an absolute denial of any kind of Veil or Figure in the Holy Sacrament, but that his Adversaries denied such a Figure or Veil, as Ratram and the Ancient always acknowledged therein, viz. such a Figure as was a Corporeal Substance, as the Water in Baptism is. The Pelagians are charged by the Orthodox Fathers, as Adversaries of the Doctrine of Grace, though they did not utterly deny Grace, 
(i) Vide Pelagium, citante August. de Gratia Christi, lib. 1. c. 7.  but advanced such a Notion of it, as amounted to no more than the Illumination of the Mind by God's Spirit. Whereas the Catholics did further acknowledge its powerful Sway over our Wills, and its assistance in every good Work. Now if Paschasius and his Party do in Words acknowledge a Sign or Figure, but such as in effect is none; Ratram might well enough charge them with denying any Veil or Figure in the Sacrament.  
Bertram and 
(k) Quae ob id Sacramenta dicuntur quia sub tegumento corporalium rerum Virtus Divina Secretius Salutem eorundem Sacramentorum operatur. n. 46.  Isidore, cited by him, make Sacramental Figures to be res corporales, Corporal Things; not only the proper Accidents of a Body, as the Figure and Taste of Bread and Wine (which Paschase and Haymo both admit in the Sacrament) but Corporal Substances. And in the Holy Eucharist 
(l) Sub velamento corporei Panis, corporeique Vini, etc. n. 16. See Numb. 97.98.  Ratram saith, That Christ's Spiritual Body and Blood are under the Veil of Corporeal Bread, and Corporeal Wine, which are Bodily Substances: He also saith of the Consecrated 
(m) Corpus & Sanguis Christi quae Fidelium ore in Ecclesia percipiuntur Figurae sunt secundum visibilem Speciem. Which is expounded by Visibilem Creaturam, in four Lines after, n. 49.  Bread and Cup, which is called Christ's Body and Blood, that it is a Figure of Christ's proper Body: That the Body and Blood of Christ received in the Church are Figures, as they are Visible Creatures. Whereas 
(n) Lib. de C. & S. D. c. 4. Est autem figura vel character hoc quod exterius sentitur, sed totum veritas & nulla adumbratio, quod intrinsecus percipitur.  Paschase contends, that the Consecrated Elements are both a Figure; and the Truth; as Christ who is true God, is styled 
(o) Heb. 1.3.  the Figure or Character of his Substance.  
This Haymo (although he teacheth a Real Presence of Christ's natural Body) looked upon as absurd, saying that nothing can be a Figure or Sign of itself; and upon that account denied 
(p) Panis ille Sacratus & Calix signa dicuntur. Non autem hoc quantum ad carnem Christi & Sanguinem accipiendum est— Jam enim Corpus & Sanguis Christi non essent. Nullum enim Signum est illud cujus est Signum: Nec res aliqua sui ipsius dicitur Signum, sed alterius. Apud Mabill. A. B. S. 4. p. 2. Praef. n. 93.  The consecrated Elements to be Signs of Christ's Body. Nor will the Text cited by Paschase bring him off, for in the 
(q) It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Original Christ is said to be the Figure of his Person, not his Substance; and the Vulgar Interpreter must mean Subsistence, by Substantia, or he was an Arian. For the Son was the Image, not of the Essence, but the Person of the Father; and consequently Christ was not truly the Father, though truly God; so that the same thing is not proved to be both a Figure and Truth. I confess Paschase expounds the Words of Christ's Human Nature, which tho' it clear him of Arianism, yet it spoils his proof, that a thing may be a Figure of itself.  
Upon reading his Book with the best attention I was able, I cannot say whether he deny the Substance of the Consecrated Elements to remain, or not; he is so inconsistent with himself, and seems rather to be for Impanation, than Transubstantiation. But our Adversaries believing his Doctrine to be the same with that of the present Church of Rome, which is, that mere Accidents remain to be a Figure or Veil of Christ's natural Body, he and they are as justly chargeable with denying any Figure, as the Fancied Predecessors of Abbaudus and Walter; nay as those Authors themselves, who only asserted that Christ's very Body [not the Accidents only] was sensible, and sensibly broken, but never denied that the Accidents, or somewhat which made the same Impressions on Sense, as did the Accidents of Bread and Wine before Consecration, shrouded it from their Eyes. Whether those Accidents were subjected in Christ's Body, or only environed it; or whether God miraculously Imprinted the Idea of them on the Organs of Sense, the case is no way varied: For the Natural Body of Christ is still covered from the outward Senses, so that what is pretended, could not be the Point in Dispute between Ratram and his Adversaries, who must needs admit a Figure and Veil in the Holy Eucharist, as the Roman Catholics now do.  
2. A right Understanding of the Terms of the Question, will clear the Truth of what I said last and overthrow M. Boileau's Fancy. In the Question there are three Parts to be considered. 1. 
(r) 
Subjectum, Quod in Ecclesia ore fidelium sumitur.  
Suppositum, Quod Corpus & Sanguis Christi fiat.  
Quaesitum, An hoc fiat in Mysterio an in Veritate.   The Subject of it, which is comprised in these words [That which the Faithful do in the Church receive with the Mouth] which import somewhat more than the bare Accidents or Superficies of Bread and Wine, viz. the Substance which they environ, and which passeth into the Mouth with them. 2ly. A thing admitted by both Parties touching this Subject, viz. That by Consecration it is made Christ's Body and Blood. 3ly. The point remaining in debate, which is, in what manner, and by what sort of change it is made Christ's Body and Blood; whether by a true and natural change, or only by a Mystical and Sacramental change. There is a great Emphasis in the Word Fiat, which is more than a bare Verb Substantive in the Question, and imports a change made. 
(s) At quia confitentur & Corpus & Sanguinem Dei esse, nec hoc esse potuisse, nisi facta in melius commutatione, neque ista commutatio Corporaliter sed Spiritaliter facta sit, necesse est jam ut figurate facta esse dicatur. Ratr. n. 16.  Ratram proves against his Adversaries that it was a Figurative and Mystical, not a Substantial and Corporal change; and Haymo 
(t) Idem Panis in Carnem Domini mutatur, & idem Vinum in Sanguinem Domini transfertur non per figuram neque per umbram, sed per Veritatem. Haymo, Hom. in Evang. die S. Palmarum. Item in 1 Cor. 11. eadem habet prope ad verbum.  who was of the contrary Opinion, makes the Elements to be converted into Christ's Body and Blood, not Figuratively, or Mystically, but in Verity; so that if Haymo were, as F. Mabillon 
(u) A. B. S. 4. p. 2. n. 93.  supposes the Adversary whom our Author disputes against, on the first Question, Ratram as expressly denies the Real Presence of Christ's Natural Body in the Holy Eucharist, as Paschase, or Haymo can assert it.  
I confess he explains Verity by Manifestation, and makes them to say, that the Object of their Faith was also perceived by the bodily Eye; but their meaning must only be, that what they saw upon the Altar, was truly, certainly, and without any Trope the Lord's Body. Manifestation doth not necessarily import the Sensible Evidence of a thing, but rather its certain Truth: And accordingly it is used in this Sense by our Author in another Work, 
(w) Ratramn. de Praed. lib. 2. p. 77. Apud Mauguin. Qui vero ad illum, quive at● istum pertineant finem, in hac mortalitatis caligine, nulla veritatis manifestatione comprehenditur. Verba Isidori sunt supra. Incertum tamen est ad quem sint Finem Praedestinati.  where expounding Isidores words, Who are predestinated to Life, and who to Death is uncertain, expresseth it thus; It is not comprehended by any manifestation of the Truth. But more of this when I come to consider how M. Boileau expounds the Controverted Terms of our Author.  
3. Let us for once admit (though it be false) that the Writers whom he names, did in the Twelfth Century hold the Opinion which he pretends our Author to have confuted. How doth this infer, that any body held it in Bertrams days, near 300 Years before? This sort of Reasoning is a little of kin to the Logic of that Oxford Alderman, who said, That if they could prove that King Henry the Eighth, Reigned before King Henry the Sixth, the City would carry their cause. It is true, he adds, That this was a common Opinion in the middle of the Eleventh Century, when Berengarius made his first Recantation; and that Opinions do not grow common all on a sudden: I hope he doth not think it was the Opinion of Pope Nicolas II. and the Council who ordered Berengarius to recant in that Form; if he does, it's a shrewd Reflection on the Pope's Infallibility. But suppose it were then commonly believed; cannot an Opinion grow common under 200 Years? Did not Gnosticism, and the Millenary Opinions grow common in a much shorter time? Did not Arianism overspread the World in less than 40 Years? Nay are not the Doctrines of Molino, grown common in 7 Years space?  
There is nothing in that Chapter of Paschase, like the Sentiments which he would fix upon Ratrams Adversaries, and one of the Passages to which he refers, viz. That the Sacrament is digested and passeth into the Draught, is precisely Ratrams own Doctrine, and he argues thence, That what is Orally received is not Christ's Natural Body.  
The Truth is, the Opinions of Abbaudus and Walter plainly point out their Original: The Dispute about the breaking of Christ's Body, sprung from that beastly form of Recantation imposed upon Berengarius, by Pope Nicolas the II. of which the Romanists themselves were afterwards ashamed; and neither Nubes Testium nor Consensus Veterum think it convenient to be cited among their Testimonies for Transubstantiation. The Pope and Cardinal Humbert 
(x) Over & cord profiteor de Sacramentis Dominicae Mensae eam fidem tenere quam Dominus & venerabilis Papa Nicolaus, & haec Sancta Synodus— tenendam tradidit— scilicet Panem & Vinum quae in Altari ponuntur, post consecrationem, non solum Sacramentum, sed etiam verum Corpus & Sanguinem Domini Nostri J. C. esse, & sensualiter, non solum Sacramento, said in veritate, manibus Sacerdotum tractari, frangi, & fidelium dentibus atteri. Apud Gratianum. de Consecr. Dist. 2. c. 42. Ego Berengarius.  resolving to make it full enough, quite over-did the Business; for they made him profess it as the Faith of the Pope and Council, That Christ's Body is Sensibly and Truly (and not only Sacramentally) handled and broke by the Priest's hands, and ground by the Teeth of the Faithful.  
When the Council was over, and the Recantation came to be scanned; some who were too much 
(y) Abaelardus and others. Vide Sequentiam in Festo Corp. Christi in Missali Rom. 
Fracto demum Sacramento,  
Ne vacilles, sed memento  
Tantum esse sub Fragmento,  
Quantum toto tegitur.  
Nulla rei fit scissura,  
Signi tantum fit Fractura,  
Qua nec status nec statura  
Signati minuitur.   Divines to believe the natural Body of Christ capable of Fraction, or Division, said it was broken and chewed in Sacramento, non in Re; in the Signs only, viz. the Accidents and outward Forms of Bread: Others, as 
(z) See their Words cited by M. Boileau, in his Preface, p. 36. And in the Remarks, p. 210. 211, 212, 213, 215.  Abbaudus and Walter were for adhering to the Letter of the Council, and were too much Philosophers to believe Accidents could subsist without a subject; and they contended that our Saviour's Body under those Accidents was broken truly; and said that if it were not really broken, it was not really his Body: So that to say, that the breaking affected only the Species, or abstracted Qualities, was to revive the Heresy of Berengarius.  
This is the true Pedigree of the Disputes about the breaking of Christ's Body, which cannot be derived from any greater Antiquity, than the Roman Synod, A. D. 1059.  
This is more than enough to confute all that M. Boileau offers to prove, that Ratrams Adversaries believed no Figure in the Holy Sacrament. Let us next see how he proves, that the Opinion encountered by him in the Second part of this Tract, was not the Opinion of Paschase, but of some body (he knows not who) that held the Sensible part of the Holy Eucharist, or the Accidents of Bread and Wine, to be the same Body which was Born of the Virgin, etc.  
Truly, for the Proof hereof, he misrepresents the Subject of the Question, as though it were only concerning the Sensible Qualities of what is received in the Holy Sacrament; whereas it is touching the Thing orally received: Then he refers us to his Translation and Remarks, which we shall consider in their proper place. And in the beginning of his Preface, he sets aside the Testimony of Cellot's Anonymus, who tells us, That Ratram and Rabanus, both opposed Paschase in this Point, tho' the Truth of what he asserts be notorious, from the express Words of both those Writers. And the Words of Rabanus are so Emphatical, that although I have already 
(a) Dissert. c. 6.  produced them, I cannot but repeat them here, and add some few remarks to show, how fully, and directly they contradict the Popish Notion of the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Holy Eucharist. His words are these; 
(b) Quidam nuper de ipso Sacramento Corporis & Sanguinis Domini, non rite sentientes dixerunt hoc ipsum Corpus & Sanguinem Domini, quod de Maria Virgin natum est, & in quo ipse Dominus passus est in cruse, & resurrexit de Sepulchro, idem esse quod sumitur de Altari; cui errori, etc. Rhabani. Ep. ad Heribald. ad calcem Reginonis, c. 33.  Some of late entertaining false Sentiments touching this Sacrament of the Lord's Body and Blood, have said, That this very Body and Blood of our Lord, which was born of the Virgin Mary, in which our Lord suffered on the Cross, and risen from the Grave, is the same [Body] which is received from off the Altar; against which Error, etc. I hence observe,  
1. That the Opinion censured by him, is the express Doctrine of Paschase, and the Roman Church at this day. Nor is there any colour for M. Boileau to say, That he censured men who held the Accidents to be Christ's Body; for he speaks of the Body received from the Altar, which he will not deny to be somewhat besides the sensible Figure and Accidents of the consecrated Elements.  
2. He censures this Opinion, as a Falsehood, and Error, against which he had purposely written.  
3. He condemns it as a late Opinion; so that it had not Antiquity to plead.  
4. He represents it as no Universal Opinion, but as the Sentiments of some few.  

(c) 

1. Quidam, non omnes ubique.  
2. Nuper, non semper.  
3, Non rite sentientes, ergo erronei.    So that in short, the Doctrine which was made an Article of Faith in the Eleventh Century, was in the Ninth Century not so much as a Probable Opinion, but rejected by Rabanus as a false Novel, and private Opinion, and by no means the Ancient, Catholic, and True Belief of Christ's Church.  
If Mr. Boileau could produce any Piece of the Ninth Century, wherein the Proposition censured by Rabanus and Ratram, is expounded as it is by him, or that contradicted Cellot's Anonymus, we would readily yield the Point in Dispute. But that without any proof, nay against so notorious Evidence, and so express a Testimony, he should hope to obtrude upon us, his own Chimeras touching the Design and Adversaries of Bertram in this Book, argues a degree of Confidence unbecoming a Divine of his Character.  
F. Mabillon 
(d) A. B. S. 4. p. 2. Praef. n. 56. Rabanum, Ratramnum, Anonymum, Herigerum, aliosque siqui sint, Paschasii Adversarios in real Christi corporis in Sacramento praesentia, cum ipso convenisse, & contentionem hanc in vocum pugna sitam fussse.  hath more Ingenuity and Discretion than to attempt it; and frankly confesseth, that both these Writers did dispute against Paschase, though to salve all again, he pretends that they believed the Real Presence, as much as he did, that they differed only in Words, not in Doctrine; so that it was rather a Verbal than a Real Controversy. But by this Learned Father's leave, the difference appears much more weighty; Paschase and his Adversaries are at as wide a distance, as Protestant and Papist; and of this the Reader will be satisfied upon perusal of the Fifth Chapter of my Dissertation; wherein I have set down the Doctrine of Paschase and the Church of Rome, together with Ratrams contrary Doctrines; and have from the Author himself shown, in what Sense he hath used those Terms which seem proper to establish Transubstantiation, but really overthrow it; and this without the help of those new and bold Figures, which M. Boileau hath been forced to invent.  
Hitherto I have been detecting the weakness of those Arguments which this Doctor makes use of, to prove his Paradox, that the Doctrine of Ratram is conformable to that of Paschase, and the Faith of the Church of Rome.  
I shall now offer some few Reasons that convince me of the contrary.  
1. It is a just and strong Presumption of this Authors being against them, that for above 120 Years together after his first appearance in Print, their most eminent Doctors have with one consent yielded the Point. I will not except his Louvain Friends, whose Expedient to make him Orthodox, is with good Reason by M. Alix declared impracticable, since the appearance of Manuscripts; for they justify those passages to be Genuine, which the Louvain Divines would have expunged as spurious Mixtures. If Bertram be so full and considerable a Witness of the perpetuity of their Faith, touching the Presence of Christ in the Holy Sacrament, How comes it to pass, that their Supreme Judge of Controversies hath treated him as a Knight of the Post?  
The Doctors of the Church of Rome in former days, were not unacquainted with the Art of Expounding, which is now practised with so much applause, but have shown themselves much greater Masters in it, than M. Boileau, and have used it with greater dexterity, for evading the Testimonies produced out of other Fathers by our Divines against Transubstantiation. Nor can we doubt but that they were bred under the strongest Prepossessions and Prejudices for the Real Presence, and consequently as well disposed to understand all the obscure and harsh Passages of this Book, in the sense of their own Church, if the Words could possibly have born it. If it be now so plain, as 
(e) Nous avons son liure il ne faut que le lire, Pref. p. 24. 25.  M. Dean of Sens would have it thought, That Bertram wrote neither against the Stercoranists, nor the Real Presence: If the very reading of the Book be sufficient to convince a man thereof; How came it to pass, that so many Popes and Cardinals, with other eminent Prelates and Doctors have conspired in the Condemnation of so Useful and Orthodox a Work? To pass a 
(f) Pref. p. 5.  Sentence quite contrary to its merit; and such as no man, who had well examined it, could reasonably have expected? Did they condemn it without Examination? Then God preserve us from such Judges. Did they not understand the Book? Or did they want Skill to try it by the Roman Standard? For my part I cannot think so meanly of the Trent Fathers, who were employed to censure Books, and who composed the Index. What pity was it, that no Artist of that time, could furnish those Fathers with a pair of M. Boileau's Spectacles!  
F. Mabillon 
(g) A. B. Ubi supra n 126. At cum haec classis contineat libros, qui propter Doctrinam, quam continent non sanam aut Suspectam— rejiciuntur— nihil inde in Ratramni fidem inferri potest, nisi quod ob duriores quasdam & obscuriores sententias, suspectam Doctrinam visus est continere.  tells us, that Bertram is not placed in the first Class of the Index, which consists of condemned Authors, but in the second Class in which the Works of Catholic Writers, containing false or suspected Doctrine, are prohibited; so that nothing can be hence concluded against the Soundness of his Doctrine, but only that some harsh and obscure Sentences, rendered it suspected.  
To this I Answer;  
1. That nothing appears in the Censure, by which we can learn that the Book was prohibited only for Suspected Doctrine, and not for unsound Doctrine; which is also assigned as the Reason why some Books of Catholic Divines are rejected.  
2. If the Censors of Books had only rejected Bertram for the Obscurity of his Expressions, or Suspicious Doctrine, and not for false and unsound Doctrine, why might they not have allowed him (as they have done others in the same Class) the favour of a Temporary Prohibition 
(h) Vide Indicem in Class 2. B.  donec corrigatur, till he be corrected, or explained? I fear those Fathers despaired of softening his harsh Expressions into any tolerable Catholic Sense.  
3. If we may judge of the Sense of the Pope, who published the Index, and the Council, which ordered it to be made, by the Judgement of the most eminent Doctors in and soon after that time, we must believe that False and Heretical Doctrine was the fault, which the Trent Censors found with it. Sixtus Senensis, who wrote within three Years after the Council was dissolved, calls it 
(i) Perniciosum Oecolampadii volumen— in vulgarunt sub titulo Bertrami. Sixtus Sen. in Praef. Biblioth. S.  a pernicious Book of Oecolampadius, against the Sacrament of Christ's Body. And saith, 
(k) Aug. Expositionem hujus loci Bertramus— detorquet ad Haeresin Sacramentariorum, Lib. 6. Annot. 196. n. 1. vide n 2.  That he wrists St. Austin's Exposition of these words, I am the Living Bread; to the Sacramentarian Heresy, making the Holy Eucharist to be nothing else but Bread and Wine in substance, bearing a Figure and Resemblance together with the Name of Christ's Body, which is not truly and corporally present, but only in a Spiritual and Mystical way. And makes 
(l) Berengarius— ducentis pene post Bertramum annis eandem Haeresin instauravit, ib. n. 6.  Berengarius to have revived the same Heresy Two hundred Years after him. Espencaeus, an Author of the same time, points out the very Propositions, which show the Pseudo-Bertram 
(m) Espencaeus de ador. Euch. lib. 2. c. 19 , as he styles him, to have been no true Son of the Church, but the Son of a Strange Woman, 
(n) Vide pref. p. 8.  Claudius' Saints, who was at the Council of Trent, judged the Book full of Errors and Heresies, and therefore spurious. Gregory de Valentia, 
(o) Greg. Valen. Comment Theol. Tom. IU. Disp. VI Punct. 3.  tells us that the Book is leavened with the Sacramentarian Error, and justly [sure for false Doctrine] condemned in the Trent Index. And Possevin 
(p) Appar. T. 1. p. 219. Bertramus. Prohibitus est omnino a Clem. VIII. Pont. Max. in postremo indice Librorum prohibitorum. Itaque amplius legendus non est, nisi quis concessus, Sedis Apostolicae, ad refellendos qui ex illo errores afferuntur— Bertramo qui Divinum hoc mysterium, haud recte intelligebat neque credebat.—  acquaints us, that notwithstanding the favourable Judgements of the Louvain Divines, It may by no means be read, save by the Pope's special Licence in order to confute it, being utterly Prohibited: So that it is not for an obscure Expresson, or suspected Proposition, but for downright Heresy, that he stands condemned.  
M. Boileau 
(q) Preface, p. 8. He might have added Baronius, who could not be ignorant of this Work, yet never vouchsafeth to mention it, nor the Author more than once, and that with Disgrace, as an Adversary to Hincmare, in the Controversy of Predestination.  confesseth, that not only the Trent Censors, but Pope Clement the VIII. with the Cardinals, Bellarmine, Quiroga, Sandoval, and Alan, utterly rejected this Book as Heretical. But he gives an incredible account of their inducement to do so, viz. That the Protestants run them down by the pure dint of Impudence, 
(r) Estant imprime par le soin des Protestant's d' Allemagne, comme un ovurage qu'ils s'imaginerent leur estre favourable, ils en furent ●rus sur leur parole, & presque tous les Catholiques le rejetterent comme un tres-mechant liure, etc. Pref. p. 5. see also p. 12.  They first Published it, they claimed it as favourable to their Sentiments, and made Translations of it into French to serve their own turns, and they had the fortune to have their bare word taken; and thereupon the R. Cs. generally rejected it as a pernicious Forgery. These were Candid Doctors indeed, to take an Adversaries bare word, and let go so considerable a Champion for the Real Presence. This was an extraordinary piece of Civility, for those Doctors are not usually so prone to believe us, though we produce Scripture, and Authentic Testimonies from the Fathers in proof of our Assertions. The first Editions of this Book have little appearance of that confidence, we are accused of, there were no large Prefaces or Remarks printed with the Text, no Expositions or Paraphrases but plain Translations, for many Years after the Roman Doctors had censured it, but the naked Text was fairly left to the Readers Judgement. The first Publishers of our Party, could not possibly make a more confident pretence to the favour of Bertram, than M. Boileau doth, and yet we must beg his Pardon, that we cannot return the Civility and give him up to the Church of Rome on his bare word.  
Whatever motives prevailed with them, it is undeniable, and by M. Boileau himself confessed, that their greatest Men have judged this Book Heretical; and I see no reason to believe that Espenceus, Genebrard, and other Sorbon Doctors of the last Age, were not as competent Judges, whether the Doctrine it contains, be agreeable to the Faith of the Church of Rome, as himself, M. le Faure, and the other Doctors his Approvers. And yet, if after all, the Judgement of so many great Prelates and Doctors of the Church of Rome must stand for nothing, and be no prejudice to the Notion of Ratrams Orthodoxy, advanced by Mr. Dean of Sens, I think it but a modest and equitable request to him and his Friends, that they make no use of the Concession of the Centuriators 
(s) As Mr. Boileau doth. Remarks on n. 15. and some others, citing Cent. IX de Doctrina. Transubstantiationis habet Semina Bertramus, utitur enim vocabulis commutationis & conversionis. Non sequitur. Vide in Dissertationis nostrae cap. 5. quo sensu his Vocabulis utatur. Centuriatores etiam objiciunt Mabillonius & N. Alexander.  who acknowledge in this Author, the Seeds of Transubstantiation. Especially when it is remembered that those Authors being Lutherans have no power to make Concessions for us, and being for Consubstantiation, which Doctrine is utterly inconsistent with Ratram, it was indifferent to them, since he was no Friend of theirs, whether they gave him up for a Calvinist or Papist; if their Inclinations were determined one way rather than the other, they must be stronger to allow him for a Transubstantiator, who agrees with them in the Belief of a Corporal Presence, than to acknowledge him a favourer of our Sentiments, which are against both.  
2. A Second Reason why we cannot understand this Tract in the Sense of M. Boileau, and for Transubstantiation, is because Aelfric and our Saxon Ancestors, who lived in the Tenth Century, have taught us to understand it in a contrary Sense. And if there be any thing in the Vulgar Plea for Oral Tradition, we may justly expect a better account of the Doctrine of the Ninth Century, the Age immediately before him, and of the true Importance of the controverted Terms and Phrases of this Book from Aelfric, than from Mr. Boileau, or any interessed Writer of these times.  
How large a part of the Saxon Homily for Easter day was taken out of this Piece, 
(t) Dissert. ch. 3.  I have shown before. And as Mr. Wheelock 
(u) In notis ad Bedae. l. v. c. 22. p. 462. Liber Catholicorum Sermonum Anglice, in Ecclesia per annum recitandus.  well observeth from the general Title of the Manuscript, from which he hath Printed it; this Sermon must not be looked upon as the Private Judgement of a single Doctor, but the public Doctrine of the English Church in that Age. Now Bertrams expressions are so Translated into the Saxon, as renders them incapable of that Paraphrase which Mr. Dean of Sens hath given us.  
This I hope to make appear from sundry Passages of the Homily, which now and then upon occasion, I shall crave leave to Translate for myself, where the Version Printed with the Text is too literal, and therefore somewhat obscure.  
1. Here is acknowledged (what some of our Adversaries are loath to own, though it is impossible to deny it) that there were Controversies about the Presence of Christ's Body in the Holy Eucharist, in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries, 
(w) Nurse smeadon ge hƿilc men oft and get gelome smeagaþ. Nonnulli saepe disputa●unt & etiamnum frequenter disputant. Male in praesenti disputat per C l. Wheelock redditur smeadon.  Men oft have Disputed, and still do frequently Dispute, etc. And the Question was not (as M. Boileau bears us in hand) whether there be any Figure in the Sacrament? But what is the effect of Consecration, By what sort of change it makes Bread and Wine become Christ's Body and Blood? Whether by a Physical or a Mystical change? And consequently, whether the Holy Sacrament be called the Body and Blood of Christ, in Propriety of Speech, that is, in a Literal, or Figurative Sense? The Words are these:  
How Bread made of Corn, and Baked with Fire, can be turned into Christ's Body? And how Wine is by Consecration turned into Christ's Blood? That Ratrams first Question, and that here discussed by our Homilist, is one and the same, is apparent from the Answers given by both Authors; and the Instances whereby they explain the Terms Figure and Truth. And as in the Saxon, the Emphasis lies unquestionably on the Word 
(x) Hu se hlaf— mage be on aƿend to cristes lichaman oððe ꝧ ƿin— þeor þe aƿend, etc. Fol. 30.  Turned; so doubtless in Ratram the Word Fiat is of the like force, and imports the Question to be, By what kind of change the Consecrated Elements are made Christ's Body and Blood? Whether it be by a Substantial, or only by a Sacramental change?  
2. As Ratram to clear his Discourse, gives us such definitions of a Figure and Truth, as best agree to Figurative and True, that is, proper Forms of Speech. So Aelfric premiseth 
(y) ðurh getacnunge— ðurh geƿissum ðinge. Fol. 30.  a distinction of things attributed to Christ, some Figuratively, and some Truly and Properly. And to express the latter, he useth a Word which answers to manifestatio, and res manifesta in Ratram, and fully expresseth its Sense in the Explication of the first Question, and the Terms . The Saxon 
(z) Ðurh geƿissum ðinge. geƿis Certus, planus, manifestus. Somneri Lex. The opposition of this term to getacnunge directs us in this place, which acceptation to choose; as Bread, Lamb, Lion, &c, are affirmed of Christ in an improper or Figurative Sense; so that he was born of the Virgin, Crucified and risen again, are affirmed of him in the plain, manifest, and proper Sense of the words.  Word signifies certain, plain, or manifest, and is opposed to Figurative, and therefore cannot import the sensible Evidence of Things, as Mr. Boileau pretends, but the plain, manifest, and natural Signification of Words. The Instances both in the Homily and Bertram, are an undeniable Proof hereof, and withal give us Light into their Sense of our Saviour's Words, This is my Body, which they understood not literally but figuratively; which is what Aelfric himself meant by not corporally but spiritually, and no doubt in that Sense he understood Bertram; and that he was not mistaken, is evident from num. 74. where the Words corporally and spiritually can be no other Sense. 
(a) 
Sicut non Corporaliter, sed Spiritualiter Panis ille credentium Corpus DICITUR; sic quoque Christi Corpus non Corporaliter sed Spiritualiter, necesse est INTELLIGATUR. n. 74.  
Aelfric saith, Fol. 23. that Christians must not keep the Old Law lichamlice, corporally, i. e. literally. But learn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what it Spiritually signifieth, that is, of what Christian Duties it was the Figure. And in this Sense the Letter and Spirit, and the Flesh and Spirit are opposed each to other by Saint Paul   As the Bread is not corporally but spiritually [that is not literally and properly, but figuratively] said to be the body of the Faithful, so is there a necessity of understanding it in the same Sense to be the Body of Christ. Not corporally SAID to be, etc. not corporally UNDERSTOOD, etc. can signify nothing else, but not literally and properly affirmed to be the Body of Christ, or of the Faithful.  
In this Sense the word Corporally is taken, when it is applied to Terms and Propositions; but when applied to things, as the Baptismal Water, the Consecrated Elements in the Eucharist, or the Types of the Old Testament, it signifies the natural Substance, by positive Institution made a Figure, in opposition to its Sacramental Signification and Virtue; and our Homilist calls the spiritual Mystery, the spiritual Virtue, or spiritual Understanding thereof.  
3. Aelfric so expounds Ratram, as to make him expressly deny, that the Holy Eucharist is Christ's Body in Truth of Nature, and affirm it to be Bread and Wine after Consecration. When the Objection is made, Why is the Holy Sacrament called Christ's Body and Blood, if it be not Truly what it is called? He admits, that the Consecrated Elements are not in Verity of Nature the Body and Blood of Christ. Whereas if Aelfric had been a Transubstantiatour, he would have denied the Supposition, and with M. Boileau have said, The sensible part of the Holy Sacrament, i. e. the Accidents of Bread and Wine are not Christ's Body; they are only the Vails and Figures that cover it, but his very natural Body and Blood are environed by, and contained really under those Vails. He would roundly have answered, That by Consecration the Substance of Bread and Wine was substantially converted into Christ's Body and Blood; so that nothing of their Substances; but only the sensible Qualities and outward Figure of them remained.  
Whereas he saith, that we sensibly discern them in Figure and Taste to be Bread and Wine, and that 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, therefore not in verity of Nature.  in spiritual Mystery they are truly Christ's 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 hiƿoðrum ƿaeterum. 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 ƿin. In Nature corruptible, and therefore common Bread and Wine. gesepenlican hiƿe 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 ●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 signify 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 bade them not, to eat the Body, ðe he mid befanten ƿaes, 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 ƿisne 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 seemed 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 ƿine, 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 Latin gave him no Invitation; and the same words are by Translators of the other Evangelists rendered 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 Ratrams 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 men's 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 eal, Fol. 36.  whole Virtue not Substance of Christ's Body, is as much in the one as the other, and the Virtue being entire in the smaller piece, must consequently be equal to the Virtue of the whole Host. This is a very intelligible Notion, That in Signification and Efficacy, a part may be equal to the whole, especially where it operates as a Moral Instrument. But to say that in Substance or Quantity after infinite Divisions, the least sensible Part should be equal to the whole, is an insolent Contradiction to the standing Principles of Geometry.  
And in some places he so renders Bertram, that the Passages which in the Author appear a little favourable to M. Boileau's Exposition, in Aelfric's Paraphrase quite subvert it, comparing the Sacrament of Baptism, with the Holy Eucharist, having determined that Water in the Former, is in its own nature a corruptible Liquor, but in the Sacrament it is an Healing Virtue; saith in like manner of the Holy Eucharist. That outwardly considered, the Body and Blood of Christ is a corruptible Creature, but if you ponder its Mystical Virtue it is Life. M. Boileau Translates Superficie tenus considerata, considered as to its Exterior Superficies which falleth under Sense, on purpose to beguile the Reader, and make him believe, that Bertram calls the Sensible Accidents only, a corruptible Creature: But Aelfric renders Superficie tenus 
(p) aeften lichamlicum andgite, Fol. 32.  after bodily Understanding, that is, considered Corporally, or in its Nature, in opposition to its Virtue and Beneficial Efficacy. For so he expounds himself immediately; and that Ratram intended not to separate the Superficies from its Subject, is I think very evident, from N. 10. 
(q) Vinum quoque— aliud Superficie tenus ostendit, aliud interius continet. Quid enim aliud in Superficie quam SUBSTANTIA VINI conspicitur, Ratr. N. 10.  where he saith of the Consecrated Wine, What do we discern else in its Superficies, but the Substance of Wine. And speaking of the Baptismal Water, he useth the like Phrases, 
(r) In eo tamen fonte si consideretur solummodo quod corporeus aspicit Sensus, etc. n. 17. Cognoscitur ergo in eo fonte & inesse quod Sensus corporis artingat & idcirco mutabile atque corruptibile, n. 18.  as it is seen by the Bodily Sense, it is a corruptible, fluid Element; and again, There is in the Holy Font, that which the Bodily Sense can reach, which is mutable, etc. and yet no Body will pretend, that those Phrases import no more than the Sensible Accidents of Water without its natural Substance.  
So then Substances are Objects of Sense, by the good leave of the 
(s) Transubstantiation defended, p. 5.  Defender of Transubstantiation, tho' he Chastiseth his Learned Adversary, as one who hath less Logic than a Junior Soph, for saying that it is a matter of Sense, that we dispute with the R.Cs. when we prove the Holy Eucharist to be Bread and not Flesh; and for all the Maxims which he gravely lays down against it, Substances do truly, though not immediately, affect the Organs of Sense, which are competent Judges of the Essential difference of Bodies, by their proper Sensible Qualities. And all this he confesseth as; soon as his Passion is a little spent.  
Again, AElfric teacheth us Ratrams true sense of Christ's Spiritual Body, and shows it to be vastly wide of what the Romanists fancy. For he meant not thereby Christ's Natural Body subsisting after the manner of a Spirit, that is, without being Visible, or Local, and without its proper Dimensions, under the Visible forms of Bread and Wine; but on the contrary by Christ's Spiritual Body he understands the Viible Sacrament, or consecrated Bread, which he calls the Holy Housel, and stle it a Spiritual Body, in 
(t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen. in Matth. Tom. I. pag. 254. Edit. Huetianae.  Origen's sense, when he calls it a Typical or Symbolical Body; or, as the Apostle calls the Rock in the Wilderness, a Spiritual Rock, 
(u) I Cor. 10.4.  i.e. a Typical Rock. To make out this, I need only produce his bare words, where distinguishing his Body wherein he Suffered from that in the Sacrament, he proves them to be quite different things, because the former was born of the Flesh of Mary with Blood, Bones, Skin, Sinews, distinct Limbs, and animated with a Rational Soul, whereas 
(w) Saxon Hom. fol. 34, 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is of manegum cornum gegaderod. Et Ratramnus, n. 72. At vero caro Spiritualis quae Populum credentem Spiritualiter pascit, secundum speciem quam gerit exterius, frumenti granis manu artificis consistit. etc.  his SPIRITUAL BODY which we call the HOUSEL, is made up of many Corns, without Blood, Bone, Limb, or Soul, etc. Therefore not as the Trent Fathers teach us, the entire Person of Christ, Body, Soul, and Divinity. It is obvious also to remark the same thing fairly intimated by him in another place, where expounding these words of our Saviour, He that eareth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, hath everlasting Life. He glosseth thus after St. Austin, 
(x) Liflica hlaf, fol. 69. gastlice housel, fol. 71.  He did not command them to eat that Body in which he was apprehended, nor to drink that Blood which he shed for us, but he meant the holy HOUSEL by those words, which is SPIRITUALLY his Body and Blood, and proceeds immediately after Fulgentius and Ratram, to compare the Legal Sacrifices, with this Eucharistical one, and makes the difference principally to consist herein, that the Legal Sacrifices did PREFIGURE Christ TO BE given us, and the Holy Eucharist was a commemorative Type, or Memorial of Christ ALREADY given to Die for our Sins. And in Elfrics latter Epistle, he saith, that the Consecrated Bread, 
(y) On lichamlican ðinge ac on gastlecum and gyte, fol. 69.  which he calls Living Bread, that it is not Christ's Body in Corporal Substance or Reality, but in a Spiritual, i. e. Sacramental or Mystical Sense.  
I could add many more Observations from this Homily, and other Monuments of our Saxon Ancestors, which show that the Transubstantiators, and not we are departed from the Faith of our Ancestors 700 years ago. As his speaking of 
(a) ðeah sum men gesceote laes se dael ne biþ sƿa mare miht on ðam maran daele ðonne on þam laessan. fol. 37.  pieces of Christ's Body, and 
(b) Fol. 62. & 65.  its growing black, hoary, or rotten, whereas no such division, or ill-favoured Accidents can happen to Christ's true Body, and how new Accidents can be generated without a Subject, or be subjected in the remaining Accidents of Bread and Wine, is a Phaenomenon that transcends all Philosophical Solution. For Consecration can have no effect on Accidents not existing, and which have no relation at all to the Holy Mystery, and consequently cannot be presumed to exempt them from the common Law of Accidents, which necessarily require a Subject to subsist in, whereas these are not subjected in Christ's Body, and how they should be subjected in other Accidents, Aristotle himself would not be 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 enjoin fresh Consecrations, every Week or Fortnight at longest, to prevent such Accidents, and that if 
(c) Canon's sub Edgaro apud Spelman. Concil. Tom. I. vide Canon. 38. p. give hit forheaden sy þat his man brucan ne maege þonne sorbaern hit man on claenum fire— I know the Roman Missal in some cases enjoins Burning, but not till the Species be wholly corrupted, when in the Judgement of the Schoolmen, Christ's Body and Blood are retired.  the Housel grew stolen 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 show 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 show 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 Ratrams Judgement, 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, etc. And this is in express Terms the Heresy which Chifflet's Anonymous Writer chargeth Berengarius with advancing, contrary to the Catholic 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 Catholic 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. TWO 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 intent 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 satisfy the Councils of the XI. Century, nor did it please Paschase, as hath been shown, 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 Anathematised 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, etc. and affirms them to be the Figures, Pledges, Images, Sacraments of Christ's 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 shows 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) Remarks, p. 226.  flatly denieth, but upon very slender Reasons. For, saith he, were this the Author's 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 mere Smoke, and Amusement. For Ratram doth not say it is a Crime to think that the Consecrated Elements are not Christ's NATURAL Body; he saith it himself twenty times over, and tells us that they are Christ's SPIRITUAL Body, and the Sense of the word Spiritual I have already shown. 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 show in its proper place. He fairly intimates the contrary, where he tells us, That it is a change for the  
(n) Nec hoc esse potuisse nisi facta in melius commutatione, neque ista commutatio Corporaliter sed Spiritualiter Facta sit; necesse est jam ut Figurate, etc. 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 Christ's Body, have not two distinct Existences, I shall when I come to consider how he abuseth the word Species, show that the Bodily Appearances he speaks of are mere Fiction, never dreamed of by our Author. In the mean time I shall give the Author's true sense, which is this: That there are not two Consubstantiate Being's in the Sacrament, as in a Man there is a Soul and Body. but that one and the same thing, viz. The Elements considered with respect to their Natural Substance are Bread and Wine, but considered 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 Ratrams 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 Ratrams 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) Remarks, 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) Remarks, p. 222.  Mr. B's confession, that may signify 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 alleged, 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 
(s) 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 credenti●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, etc.  
For first, The subject of the Question is, as hath been already shown, the Consecrated Elements, the whole Eucharist as Orally received, and not their mere Accidents: For he saith, 
(w) Nam secundum Creaturarum Substantiam, quod fuerant ante Consecrationem, hoc & postea consistunt, Panis & Vinum prius extitere, etc. N. 54.  The substance of the Creatures remains after Consecration, what they were before, that is, Bread and Wine. Indeed, if the Subject were only the outward Species, or Accidents of Bread and Wine, I know no need Mr. Boileau hath to Translate the word Veritas, the Sensible verity, as he doth forty times over, where Ratram denies that which is orally received to be Christ's Natural Flesh. For the mere Accidents are in no sense Christ's Natural Body, they are in no way Christ's Body in verity of Nature, neither the Sensible nor yet the Invisible verity thereof.  
2. The matter in Question cannot be whether the Holy Eucharist is Christ's Body born of the Virgin, in its proper state, with its Sensible Qualities, and Dimensions, but whether it be his True and Natural Body, which Paschase describes as in the Question.  
The former could not be the Notion opposed by our Author, for besides, that he not where mentions any such Opinion, it doth not any way else appear by any Writer, either before or of his time, that such an Opinion was ever embraced, or vented by any Man.  
The latter was the Doctrine of Paschase, a Doctrine which by his own confession gave offence to many, and that Ratram disputes against it, seems very clear to any Man who observeth, in how accurate Terms he establisheth an Essential Difference, between the Consecrated Elements and Christ's Natural Body.  
He distinguisheth them as things of vastly different Natures, using the words aliud and aliud, ONE THING and ANOTHER THING, THIS Body, and THAT Body, which was born of the Virgin. He teacheth that Sacraments are ONE thing, and the THINGS whereof they are Sacraments are ANOTHER. That Christ's Natural Body and Blood are THINGS, but the Mysteries hereof are SACRAMENTS. Num. 36.  
Again, He proves them to differ (I think Essentially) because the same Definition doth not agree to both. For one of their Canonised Schoolmen teacheth, 
(x) Bonav. in Sent. 14. Dist. 10. p. 1. q. 4.  That even Omnipotence itself cannot separate the Definition, and the thing Defined.  
Again, He calleth the one Christ's PROPER Body, the other his MYSTICAL Body, N. 94, 95. And in a word, he distinguisheth the Eucharist, from Christ's Proper Body, in almost the same words wherein St. Hierom 
(y) Tantum interest inter Panes Propositionis & Corpus Christi, quantum inter umbram & Corpora, inter Imaginem & Veritatem, inter Exemplaria & ea quae praefigurabantur, Hier. in Titum, Cap. I.  compares the Shewbread with the Eucharist, calling it Christ's Body, and declaring how much the latter excels the former, N. 89. It appears, saith Ratram, that they are extremely different, as much as the Pledge differs from the Thing for which it is given in Pledge, as much as the Image differs from the Thing Whereof it is the Image, as much as a Figure from the Truth: And if the words do not effectually import an Essential Difference, it's hard to devise words that can do it.  
In a word, the Scope of all his Arguments and Authorities, is to prove such a Difference between the Holy Eucharist, and our Saviour's Natural Body. And in the close of the Book, when he sums up the force of all his Reasonings, and comes to determine the Point, he concludes thus.  

(a) N. 97.  From these Testimonies of the Holy Scriptures and Fathers, it is most evidently demonstrated, that the Bread and Cup, which are called the Body and Blood of Christ are a FIGURE, because they are a Mystery, and that there is NO SMALL DIFFERENCE between the BODY which is so MYSTICALLY, and the BODY that SUFFERED, etc. For this latter is the PROPER BODY of our Saviour, nor is there any FIGURE, or Signification therein, but the very manifestation of the thing itself— 
(b) N. 98.  Whereas in the Body which is celebrated by a MYSTERY, there is a FIGURE, not only of Christ's PROPER BODY, but also of the People who believe on Christ: For it bears a FIGURE of BOTH BODIES.  

(c) N. 99  Moreover, That Bread and Cup which is called, and is Christ's Body and Blood, represents the Memory of the Lords Passion, i. e. (as he explains himself in the next Number) 
(d) N. 100  they are placed on the Altar for a FIGURE or MEMORIAL of the Lord's Death.  
And lest his Adversaries should misrepresent his Doctrine, as though he taught that Christ's Body and Blood were not received by the Faithful, but a mere Memorial, and Figure of them (as the Romanists slander the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches) he 
(e) N. 101  closeth all with a caution against any such Inference, adding that Faith receives not what the Eye beholds, but what itself believes, for it is Spiritual Meat, and Spiritual Drink, which do spiritually feed the Soul. Which words, if Mr. Boileau take to be a Declaration in favour of their Real Presence, I shall the less wonder, since our Adversaries at Home have the confidence from such Apologies of our own Divines, to infer that they and the Church of England are for their REAL PRESENCE.  
Having thus shown how Mr. Boileau either grossly mistakes, or wilfully misrepresents the Author's Design in the account he hath given, I shall now proceed to take a view of his Translation.  
Now this Book of Ratrams being a Theological Controversy, whosoever shall undertake to turn it into any other Language, aught to employ his utmost care in truly expressing the Author's Sense, and as much as the Language will bear it, in his own words. He may not take those liberties of Paraphrase, which are llowable in the Translator of a Poem, or a Piece of History or Morality. He may not to adorn his Version, or smooth his Style, add, omit, or change, a word; for the Nature of the Subject forbids it. And moreover Mr. Boileau hath obliged himself to observe the strictest Laws of Translation, having professed to have made this Version with all possible exactness, and brought severa● of his Brethren of the Sorbon to all vouch its conformity to the Author's Text. He is severe upon 
(f) Preface, p. 47, 48.  M. Dacier, and the Protestant Translator of Bertram, for taking as he conceives undue Liberties. He will not allow the 
(g) Remarks, p. 250. and p. 277.  latter to express in French, what is plainly understood in the Latin, and expressed within four Lines before; and he cries out Falsification and Corruption, because the Protestant Publisher of Bertram doth with an Asterisk refer the Reader to the Margin, and there explains a word in the Text by another Latin word, which he thought equivalent.  
A Man might therefore reasonably expect, that Mr. Boileau had avoided all these Faults, and that if his Version had any defect, it should be in the grace of his Language only, by his keeping too close to the Authors own Terms. But I perceive Mr. Boileau is subject to that general Weakness of Humane Nature which makes men very severe against those Vices in others, which they discern not in themselves. For certainly never did any Man use those undue liberties of adding, omitting, and altering the Author's words at a more Extravagant rate, than he hath done in Translating Bertram: Insomuch that should he rise from the Dead, he would find his Sense and Doctrine as much changed, as the French Tongue is since his days. For Mr. Boileau doth not content himself to refer the Reader to the Margin, or to his Remarks for the Exposition of a controverted Term, which he might have done without impeaching his own Sincerity, but he mixeth his gloss by way of Paraphrase with the Text, and doth not by any difference of Character, or by enclosing them in Hooks [] distinguish his own words from the Authors, so that the Reader who understands not Latin, cannot tell when he reads Bertram, and when Mr. Boileau.  
I shall not tyre myself, or the Reader with a complete List of his unfair Deal, but give him some remarkable instances by which he may take an estimate of Mr. Boileau's exactness and fidelity.  
I shall begin with his Fraudulent Omissions, which are but few; and of these I shall give you two Instances, both near the beginning of the Book.  Mr. Boileau. 
For it is not the Appearance of Flesh, that is seen in that Bread, or of Blood in the Wine.  Ratram. 
N. 10. 
(h) Car ce n'est pas l'apparence de la chair, que l'on voit dans ce pain— ny du sang dans le vin.  Non enim secundum quod videtur, vel carnis Species in illo Pane cognoscitur, vel in illo vino cruoris unda monstratur.  
Having rendered Species Carnis, the appearance of Flesh, he gently slides over the word unda, and leaves it Untranslated; by which means he tacitly insinuates to the unwary Reader, that Ratram doth not deny the Substance of Flesh and Blood to be in the Sacrament: But only saith that the Appearance of Flesh, and Blood is not discerned therein. Whereas the word unda, Liquor, imports the Liquid Substance of Blood, and therefore by parity of Reason, Species must signify somewhat more than the mere visible accidents of Flesh: So that if he deny the Substance of Blood to be in the Wine, he could not believe the Substance of Flesh to be in the Bread.  
If it be alleged, that Ratram only saith, that they are not known or discerned, or shown therein, he doth not say they are not there invisibly. The answer is obvious. Ratram esteemed our Senses competent Judges of what we orally receive in the Sacrament, and able to distinguish Flesh from Bread. And withal, as I shall shortly prove, the words cognoscitur, and monstratur, and ostenditur, are frequently used as the Copula of a Proposition, and signify no more than Est, and have nothing of Emphasis in them.  
Another crafty omission is of the word Sacrament, which he leaves out in Translating the last words of Number XII.  Ratram. 
Hic vero Panis & Vinum prius fuere, 
(i) Avaunt qu'ils passassent au Corpse & au sang de J. C.  quam transitum in Sacramentum Corporis & Sanguinis Christi fecerunt.  M. Boileau. 
But here the Bread and Wine did exist before they passed into, or were changed into the Body and Blood of Christ.  
How wide difference there is between being turned into Christ's Body and Blood, and into the SACRAMENT of his Body and Blood; any one knows, who is not blind because he will not see. I wonder why Mr. Boileau did not omit the same word in other like Passages; as where our Author saith, That Wine is made the Sacrament of Christ's Blood by the Priest's Consecration thereof: And again, That the Elements are Spiritually made Mysteries or Sacraments of Christ's Body and Blood, etc. For these Expressions teach us how to understand him in other places, where he saith, That Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Christ, viz. that they are made the Memorials, Symbols, or Sacraments thereof. For we have no reason to doubt, that Ratram who from St. Augustine observeth, that it is familiar to give the name of the thing signified to the Sign or Sacrament, by reason of its Analogy thereunto, I say we have no reason to doubt, but that he frequently doth so himself in this Book.  
I shall next give you a taste of his bold Paraphrases and Additions to the Author's Text, so that it is very difficult for a Common Reader to distinguish Ratrams own words from Mr. Boileau's Exposition of them. And passing by many of his less Material, though large Interpolations, I shall instance in some foisted in to serve the Cause of Transubstantiation against the Author's true Sense. What is not in the Latin, I have enclosed thus in [] Hooks for the Readers ease.  Ratram, N. XI. 

(k) Et que tout ce que l'on y voit, soit la Pure Veritè.  Sed totum in Veritate conspiciatur.  Mr. Boileau. 
But the whole that is seen there, is [the Pure] verity. So N. XXXII.  
And in several other places, he renders Veritas the [Pure] Verity. If he believe that really to be the Author's meaning, he might have advertised his Reader in a Marginal Note; but the inserting that Explication into the Text is more than well consists, with that great exactness in Translating, to which he pretends.  
It were easy to guests, though he had not acquainted us in a Remark, for what end he foisted in the word Pure; it was to insinuate that Ratram disputes not against Paschase, but against some unknown Adversaries, who held there was no Veil or Figure in the Sacrament, and that Christ's Body presented itself Naked to our View. Now that these Extravagant Opinionists never had any being, save in Mr. Boileau's Imagination, hath been already shown. And as he is pleased to make them express their Sentiments, viz. That the whole which is seen is the pure Verity; it were more reasonable to think, that they believed nothing but a Figure in the Sacrament, nothing but Bread and Wine, since nothing else is discerned by the Eye. And he makes them elsewhere to say, 
(l) Mais que tout y est tel qu'il paroist aux yeux, n. 54.  That the whole is just what it appears to the Eye. If the Notion were that the Accidents of Bread and Wine, whose first Subject was destroyed, were translated into Christ's Natural Body, it was very improper for him to make them say that the Sensible Object was the Pure Verity; for it must needs be a Prodigious Compound of one Substance divested of its natural Qualities; and the proper Accidents of another Substance.  
Again, This Translator in many places doth greatly corrupt the Author's Sense by inserting the Particle [there], which though it be the addition of a single Letter [y] in the French, yet it makes almost as great a change in Ratrams Doctrine, as the Arrians made in the Christian Faith, by the addition of an jota to the word Homoousios. For hereby he insinuates the Presence of Christ's Natural Body, in an invisible manner, where the Author had no intention to say any thing of Christ's Presence at all, but only to show that the Consecrated Elements are Christ's Body and Blood, which in Ratrams sense we also acknowledge them to be. I shall give an Instance or two of his Fraud in this kind.  
For [we there see] nothing, which passed from not being into being.  
N. XII. 
(m) Car on n' y voit rien qui, etc.  Nam nec ex eo quod non erat, transivit in aliquid quod sit.  
His design is by that addition to insinuate, that although we see it not, some other Substance is there present, under the Vails or Accidents of Bread and Wine. Whereas Ratram only saith, that the Consecrated Elements did not pass from a state of Nonentity into Being.  
Now if none of these three changes be here made, we must conclude, that nothing is [there] but what was before. But [there] is some other thing, for the Bread is made the Body, and the Wine the Blood of Christ.  
Again, N. XIII. 
(n) Or s'il n' y a aucun de ces trois changemens, il en faut conclure qu'il n' y a rien qui n' ait etè auparavant. Cependant il y a autre choose.  Si ergo nihil est hic permutatum, non est aliud quam ante fuit. Est antem aliud, quoniam Panis Corpus & Vinum Sanguis Christi facta sunt.  
Here he insinuates the Presence of some other thing in the place, and under the Accidents of Bread and Wine, whereas all that Ratram saith is this, That if there be no change upon Consecration, not as our Translator makes him speak, none of those three Changes, which were to make him argue against himself, who had newly in express terms denied any of those three Changes. I say, if there be no change at all made, than the Elements after Consecration are nothing more than they before were: But they are something more, for the Bread and Wine are made Christ's Body and Blood, that is, as our Author often expounds himself, Mystically, Spiritually, Figuratively. And this may very well be, without the Invisible Presence of Christ's Natural Flesh in the place of the Bread.  
Again, N. XVI. 
(o) SH' y rencontrent & y existent.  Quoniam sub V●lamento Corporei Panis Corpo e●que Vini, Spirituale Corpus Christi, Spiritualisque Sanguis existit.  
For under the Veil of Corporeal Bread, and Corporeal Wine, the Spiritual Body of Christ, and his Spiritual Blood [is there found and there] exists.  
The Presence of Christ's Natural Body and Blood under the Accidents of Bread and Wine, is intimated in the Addition of the Particle there, in this Sentence. Whereas Bertram saith nothing like it, but only proves that the change wrought by Consecration is not a Physical, but a Figurative, or Mystical change, because Christ's Spiritual, that is, as hath been shown, his Symbolical, or Sacramental Body and Blood are in, or under the Veil of Material Bread and Wine.  
I should not so much have regarded this little Interpolation, but Mr. Boileau swaggers so much with these Passages both in his 
(p) P. 26. & 226.  Preface and Remarks, and draweth Inferences from them, whereas he therein imposeth on the Reader, who consults not the Author's Latin, which without his Interpolation, gives no colour for such Inferences.  
In the same Paragraph, immediately before the words last cited, we have another Instance of his exactness in Translating.  
And this change is not made Corporally [that is to say, in that which falls under the Bodily Senses] but Spiritually.  

(q) Corporellement, c'est a dire, en ce qui tombe sous les s●ns corporels, mais spirituellement.  Neque ista commutatio Corporaliter, sed Spiritualiter facta sit.  
Whether he hath given the true meaning of the Term shall be elsewhere considered, but in the mean time it was fit that Mr. Dean should be told, that he deals not fairly to foist his own gloss into the Author's Text.  
Here ariseth a Question,— touching which many hold, That in all these things there is not any Figure, but the whole is done in [Pure] Verity, [that is to say, in a manner that is Sensible and Corporal, by which the Flesh of Jesus Christ is cut into bits like our ordinary Meat.]  

(r) Mais que tout s'y fait dans la pure verity: c'est a dire, d'une manner sensible & corporelle, par la quelle la chair de JESUS CHRIST est divisee par morceaux comme une viande ordinaire.  Again, n. XXXII. Hic jam illa suboritur Quaestio quam plurimi proponentes loquuntur, non in Figura 
(r) Mais que tout s'y fait dans la pure verity: c'est a dire, d'une manner sensible & corporelle, par la quelle la chair de JESUS CHRIST est divisee par morceaux comme une viande ordinaire.  sed in Veritate ista fieri.  
Most exacty Translated! But sure Veritas is one of the most pregnant words in the Latin Tongue, which carries all this in its Belly. Now the use of this Gloss appears more plainly N. XXXIV. where Mr. Dean makes this to be the Notion of Carnally eating Christ's Flesh.  
Bertram having cited 
(s) Facinus vel Flagitium videtur habere. Figura ergo est praecipiens, etc. n. 33.  St. Augustine to confirm his own Exposition of our Saviour's Words, John 6.54. Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, ye shall have no Life in you. Which is, that they must be understood Figuratively, and not Literally. He adds, that in this Father's Judgement, to eat Christ's Body Carnally, is so far from being an Act of Religion, that it would be a piece of horrid Wickedness. But what is this barbarous crime of eating Carnally? Why Mr. Boileau here explains the Point. It consists 
(t) Recevoir charnellement, c'est a dire, en le broiant avec les dents & le coupant par morceaux.  in cutting Christ's Body into bits, and in bruising it between the Teeth, like our ordinary Meat. What pity is it, that Mr. Boileau had not been in our Saviour's Train, to have answered those Disciples which were offended at this Doctrine, and complained of it as an 
(u) John 6.60.  hard saying. I warrant you, it would have given marvellous satisfaction, had any one told them: Sirs, you grossly mistake the matter, you imagine that Christ's Flesh is to be eaten like common Meat out of the Shambles, that it must be cut in bits on your Trencher, and chewed small before it will go down. It is no such, it is not a dead but living Body that he gives you to eat, nor are you to touch it with your Knife, or Teeth, but swallow him whole. And because it might otherwise go against your Stomach, you are not to receive his Body under the Offensive Species or Appearances of Flesh, but, in the same manner as Physicians sometimes give a Nauseous Bolus, wrapped up in a Wafer, so that you shall neither see nor taste it.  
This would have been very Edifying no doubt, it would have removed the Scandal, and have reduced those Apostates to our Saviour. But can any man in his Wits believe, that their Scruple was merely about the cutting and mangling of our Saviour's Body, and that they would have made no bones of swallowing him whole? No sure, they stumbled at the Literal Sense of his Words, they could not digest a command to eat man's Flesh, which seemed (as St. Austin observes) to be an impious Precept; and they would no doubt have as much abhorred him, (could such a Monster have been found) who should swallow a man whole, as an ordinary Cannibal.  
But is Mr. Boileau in earnest, when he tells us 
(w) J'ay ajoute [c'est a dire, en la broiant avec les dents & le coupant par morceaux] parce que c'est le veritable sens de ces mots Charnellement, etc. Remarks, p. 236. , that to cut Christ's Body in pieces, and tear it with the Teeth, is the true Notion of Carnal eating. Doth our Saviour's answer to those murmuring Deserters any wise countenance this Notion? Doth it give the least hint that their mistake and scandal lay, in apprehending that Christ's Body was to be eaten piece-meal? No; but he blames their stupidity, for taking his Words, which are SPIRIT, and LIFE, in a carnal or literal Sense.  
St. Austin cited by Bertram, expounding our Saviour's Answer, makes it import, that his words touching the necessity of eating his Flesh, and drinking his Blood, must be Spiritually, that is, Mystically, and not carnally or literally understood. In another place cited by 
(x) N. 33, 34.  Bertram, he makes the hard saying an Instance of the necessity of understanding the words of Scripture in a Figurative Sense, telling us those words are a FIGURE, enjoining us to communicate in our Saviour's Sufferings, by a faithful and profitable commemoration of his Death on the Cross for us.  
I confess both St. Austin and Bertram, describing the mistake of these Disciples, deny that his Body was to be cut into pieces, and eaten by bits, but they make not this to have been the scruple of those Infidels, nor do either of those Writers so much as hint, that Christ's Body was to be swallowed whole. On the contrary, St. Austin makes it to have been their Erroneous conceit, that 
(y) Illi putabant se erogaturum Corpus suum; ille autem dixit se ascensurum in coelum utique integrum. Apud Ratram, n. 80.  Christ intended to give them his Natural Body, his Body which they saw with their Eyes. And Bertram showing how our Saviour's Words confute that gross Conceit, saith by way of Paraphrase on them, that when his Disciples should behold him ascend into Heaven, with his Body and Blood entire and without Diminution, they should then understand the mistake of those carnal Infidels, viz. That he did not command them to eat his Natural Body, which was impossible, since it was conveyed from them unto Heaven. This Paraphrase he borrowed from 
(z) Verba quae locutus sum, Spiritus & Vita sunt, spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum. Non hoc Corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis, etc. Aug. in Ps. 98. & in Joannem Tract. 27. Intellexerunt— quia— disponebat Jesus, carnem qua indutum erat verbum veluti concisam distribuere credentibus, etc.  St. Austin, whom he citys for it, N. 80. And 
(a) Sax. Hom. Fol. 44.  Aelfric as hath been shown, expounds the words as did 
(b) Aug. in Ps. 98.  St. Aust.  
Again, N. XL. 
(c) Parce que comme la Substance visible c'est a dire ce qui paroist aux yeux de ce pain & de ce vin.  Sicut hujus Visibilis Panis, Vinique substantia exteriorem nutrit & inebriat hominem, etc.  
As the Visible Substance [that is to say, what appears to our Eyes] of this Bread, and this Wine, nourisheth and quencheth the thirst of the outward man, etc.  
In rendering this half Sentence, there is a double Fraud committed. 1. The Adjective Visible, is unduly applied to the word Substance, whereby he hoped to persuade the Reader, that Substance is not here to be understood in its proper Sense, but only for the Sensible Qualities of Bread and Wine, whereas this Author joined that Adjective to the Bread and Wine. Isidore saith, 
(d) Hujus visibilis Panis, Vinique Substantia.  The substance of this Visible Bread and Wine; not as Mr. Boileau Translates him, the Visible Substance, i. e. Qualities of this Bread and Wine feed the outward Man. 2. The Notion of the word Visible is corrupted by the Translator's Gloss inserted into the Text of Isidore, viz. That which appears to the Eye of this Bread, etc. viz. the Accidents; whereas the Author meant material Bread and Wine. The Passage is a clear Authority against Transubstantiation, and deserves a Remark or two.  
1. The Bread and Wine whereof he speaks is Consecrated Bread and Wine, which the Pronoun THIS demonstrates. 2. He saith that the SUBSTANCE of this Bread and Wine [after Consecration] do nourish the Body. 3. He calls it Visible Bread and Wine, which Term is so far from importing what our Adversaries would have it, viz. The Sensible Qualities only, that it signifies Material Bread and Wine, as I hope to prove beyond all Dispute, when I come to Examine Mr. Boileau's Exposition of the Controverted Terms. So that I do not wonder that these words are not now read in Isidore's Works.  
In the like manner he corrupts Bertram, N. LII.  

(e) Car ce Corpse Visible & Sensible que l'on recoit.  Hoc enim quod sumit Corpus Corruptibile est.  
For this [Visible and Sensible] Body which is received, is subject to Corruption.  
The Epithets Visible and Sensible, are impertinently as well as deceitfully foisted in, for if he had minded the Author's words; Corpus in that place imports not the Body of Christ received, but the Body of the Receiver, and the Clause should have been thus rendered, That which the Body receives is Corruptible. I should not have taken notice of this Slip, as I have not of some other mere slips in Translation, had it not been for the Fraud thereby designed.  
A worse piece of false dealing appears in the next Paragraph, N. LIII. where he adds a false Gloss to the words of St. Ambrose.  
Doth it not require a greater power to Create a thing of nothing, than to change the Natures, [that is, the Substances of things.]  
Nun majus est novas res dare quam mutare 
(f) Pour changer les Natures; c'est a dire les Substances des choses?  naturas?  
He tells us 
(g) Remarks, p. 245.  That the Natures here mentioned can be no other than those of Bread and Wine, changed into Christ's Body and Blood; and this obliged him to add the word Substances by way of Explication. Now admitting what he saith, I can see no such necessity of understanding the word of the Natural Substances of the Elements. Neither this Context of St. Ambrose, to which he refers, nor Bertrams Exposition of that Father, nor yet the force of the word Nature itself, do any way oblige him to it.  
For, 1. St. Ambrose parallels the change made by Consecration in the Holy Eucharist with several others, which are not Substantial changes, as the dividing the Waters of the 
(h) Nun claret Naturam vel maritimorum fluctuum, vel fluvialis cursus esse mutatam? Ambros. Ibid.  Red Sea and Jordan. The sweetening of the Waters of Marah, the causing of Iron to swim, which are only changes of the Natural Qualities, not of the Substances of things.  
2. Neither doth Bertram expounding St. Ambrose any way Authorise that Gloss, but on the contrary directs us to take the word Nature in another Sense, by an express denial of any change in the Substance of Bread and Wine. As to 
(i) Nam secundum Creaturarum Substantiam, quod fuerunt ante Consecrationem, hoc & postea consistunt: Panis & Vinum prius extitere, etc. N. LIV.  the Substance of the Creatures, they continue after Consecration, what they were before, viz. Bread and Wine.  
3. Neither will he say that the word Natures can bear no other Sense, who contends, that the word Substance may signify no more than the Sensible Qualities of a thing. And it were gross Trifling for me to labour in the proof of the contrary by Examples. Nevertheless I shall give him one, out of Salvian, speaking of some of those changes which St. Ambrose parallels with that in the Sacrament. Having proved God's Providence, by miraculous methods, in which he brought the Israelites out of Egypt, protected and fed them in the Wilderness, he goes on thus: 
(k) Add huc fontes repentè natos, add medicatas aquas, vel datas, vel immutatas, SPECIEM servantes, NATURAM relinquentes, Salu. de Gub. l. 1. p. 21. Edit. Baluz. Par. 1669.  To this add new Fountains instantly springing out of the Earth, also Medicated Waters, the one given [Miraculously], the others changed [and made wholesome] keeping their Species [or Natural Substance] and forsaking their Nature, i. e. Natural Qualities, viz. Bitterness, and Unwholesomeness. Here Species signifies the Substance, and Natura the Sensible Quality of Bitterness.  
Another corrupting Interpolation may be observed in the words which immediately follow, N. LIV.  

(l) St. Ambroise dit, due— le changement qui se fait d'une chose en une autre est admirable, etc.  Dicit Sanctus Ambrose in illo Mysterio Sanguinis & Corporis Christi commutationem esse factam, & mirabiliter, etc.  
St. Ambrose saith, That in this Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood the change [of one thing into another] is admirable.  
Not to insist on his licentious alteration of the Syntax, I appeal to any Man that understands Latin, whether Ratram make St. Ambrose to say 
(l) St. Ambroise dit, due— le changement qui se fait d'une chose en une autre est admirable, etc.  that in the Sacrament one thing is changed into another, that is, as Mr. Boileau would have it, 
(m) Remarquer, p. 246.  one Substance into another. Ratram infers no more than this, That there is a change made, which no Body denies: But that this change is of one thing or substance into another is Mr. Boileau's Fiction, who basely imposeth on his Reader, both in his Preface and Remarks, citing this place so Translated, to prove that this Author's Sentiments could not possibly be different from those of the Church of Rome. Whereas in the words immediately following, as I observed just before, he denieth expressly any substantial change.  
I might add many more Instances of his foul Glosses inserted into the Text, such as Translating Veritas, the [Visible and Sensible] Truth, or [with all its Dimensions]. Proprium Corpus Christi, the Proper Body of Christ, [together with its Natural Properties], etc. But I am weary of tracing him in these Byways, and should I follow him further, my trouble would be endless, almost every Paragraph to the end of the Book, being thus corrupted.  
I shall therefore give but an Example or two, of his bold Variations from the Author's Words, as well as Sense.  
N. XIV. Quaerendum ergo est ab eis qui nihil hic Figurate volunt accipere, sed totum in veritatis simplicitate consistere 
(n) Il faut donc demander— comment ce Changement soit fait; de sorte que les choses qui etoient auparavant, ne soient plus, c'est a dire, que le pain & le vin qui etoient auparavant ne soient plus, mais, etc. , secundum quod demutatio facta sit, ut jam non sint quod ante fuerunt, videlicet, Panis atque Vinum; sed sint Corpus atque Sanguis Christi.  
It must be demanded of those who pretend that there is no Figure, and who maintain that all is there spoken in the pure and simple Verity, how this Change is made, so that the things which were before, are no longer, that is, the Bread and Wine which were or did exist before, are or do exist no longer, but are become the Body and Blood of J. Christ.  
All that the Author intended to say, was no more than this, That after Consecration, the Elements are not what they were before it, but somewhat more excellent, than common Bread and Wine, viz. The Body and Blood of Christ. He never intended to deny the Existence of the Elements, as this Version makes him to do. The words are plain and intelligible, but Mr. Boileau, by some unknown Rules of Construction inverts their natural Order, and joins a Nominative Singular to a Verb Plural, and then by a sort of Logic as peculiar to himself, making the Predicate the Subject of his Proposition, so renders the Passage as by a 
(o) A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, vel, ab est tertii adjecti ad est secundi adjecti in propositione Negativa, quales consequentiae non necessario valent, & non raro falsissimae sunt.  Notorious Fallacy, to make the Author deny the Existence of Bread and Wine, immediately after he had been proving it, and against the Scope of his Discourse in this place.  
For Ratram thus argues against his Adversaries, Either Consecration makes a Figurative Change of the Elements, or else it makes no change. The absurdity of saying the latter, is this, that then the Consecrated Elements are not the Body and Blood of Christ, which to say is Impious.  
And to make good his Consequence, he reminds them of what he had largely proved just before, that the Elements as to their Species, or Nature, had undergone no change, there being no Substance produced anew, none corrupted, nor yet so much as altered in its Natural Qualities by Consecration, and therefore no Physical Change made thereby. But Mr. Boileau is resolved in defiance both of Priscian and Aristotle, to make poor Ratram say what he pleaseth.  
I hope it may be denied of the Water in Baptism, or the Chrism, or a Church after Consecration, that they are what they were before; that is, common Water, or Oil, or an Ordinary House, without denying Water, Oil, or the Building to exist my longer. And in this sense, 
(p) Cyril. Catech. Mystag. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  St. Cyril of Jerusalem, saith, As the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are not mere, or common Bread and Wine; so after the Invocation of the Holy Ghost, the Chrism is not common Oil. 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 rendered 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 rendered the Meat profane 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 Corpse & le sang de J. C. dans leur espece ou appearance visible, mais qu'ils y sont par la Virtue du Verb.  non in Specie, sed in Virtute, Corpus & Sanguis Christi existant, quae cernuntur.  
Know assuredly that the things which fall under the Senses, are not Christ's Body and Blood, in their Species, or Visible Appearance, but that they, [viz. Christ's Body and Blood] are there by the Virtue 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 Ratrams Adversaries) This Father, teacheth 
(r) Hic jam surgit Auditor & dicit, Corpus Christi esse quod cernitur, & Sanguinem qui bibitur, etc. , that what is seen on the Lord's Table, and orally received, is the Body and Blood of Christ. To this Ratram answers by a distinction, and showeth 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 Christ's Body and Blood, but to give an account in what sense St. Ambrose affirmed the Consecrated Elements to be Christ's 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 Verity, c'est a dire de la maniere dont il se comporte, & dont il paroist a nos yeux, etc.  Si enim Corpus Christi est & hoc dicitur vere, quia Corpus Christi est, in Veritate Corpus Christi est: & si in veritate Corpus Christi est, etc.  
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, than it is the Body of Christ in Truth, that is, as it showeth itself to the Eye, & if so etc.  
It was cunningly done to make Nonsense 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, etc. aught to have been rendered 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, Impassable 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 myself and the Reader with no more particulars of his false deal, 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 eye crucify, & 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 Virgin, 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 eye crucify, & 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 received 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 lafoy verity de la nature, avec toutes ses dimensions au lieu que cette chair, qui en contient l'Image dans le Mist credit n' est pas la chair selon l'apparence, & selon ce qui tombe sous le sens, mais dans le Sacrament. Puis que selon les apparences sensibles ce que l'on voit est du Pain, etc.  Verity of Nature [with all its dimensions] whereas that Flesh which contains the Image hereof in the Mystery, is not Flesh, according to Sensible Appearance, but in the Sacrament. For according to the Sensible Appearance, that which we behold is Bread, and that in the Sacrament it is the True Body of Christ, as he himself declareth in these words, This is my Body.  
This is a remarkable Specimen of Fidelity in Translating, and may suffice to let the Reader see, how far he is to rely on the Translators exactness and sincerity, or to give credit to the Testimony of his Brethren of the Sorbon, who have under their hands declared, this Version of M. Boileau and his Notes to be conformable in every thing to the Text of this Ancient Author.  
I shall now in the last place endeavour to show, that the Sense, which he imposeth on the Technical Terms by which we are to learn the Author's true Sentiments, is generally forced, and often absurd; that it is not agreeable to the scope of the Author, neither are those Terms so used by Ecclesiastical Writers of the same or elder Times.  
I shall begin with the word Veritas, which is one of the Terms of the first Question, and often occurs in this Tract. Now when Ratram denieth that which is orally received in the Sacrament, to be Christ's Body and Blood in Verity, or his True Body and Blood, we understand him to deny the Holy Eucharist to be his Body and Blood in Reality or Truth of Nature, or which is all one, his Natural Body. And in case we 
(w) Si cette pretention avoit ete autorisée de quelque bonne preuve— il n'y auroit pas lieu de doubter, qui n' eust ete l'Inventeur de l'Heresie du Calvin. p. 27. Pref.  be in the right, M. Boileau confesseth that he must yield the Point in dispute, and abandon poor Ratram as the Author of Calvin's Heresy; so he is pleased to style the Doctrine of the Ancient Church for the nine or ten first Centuries.  
He therefore tells us, that of 
(x) Pref. p. 31.  Two and forty places in which those Terms Verum and Veritas are found in this Book, there are not above seven or eight (of which the Protestants can make no advantage) in which they signify Real or Reality, and in the other Three and thirty, so curious hath Mr. Dean been in his Observations, it imports only the Manifestation, or Sensible Appearance of Christ's Body. That in this sense Ratram opposeth Verity to a Figure, and denieth the Holy Eucharist to be Christ's true Body and Blood, from which nothing can be concluded against the Real Presence, which is, as he explains it, the Proper Substance and Humane Nature of Jesus Christ.  
Now on this Point we will join Issue, and I will first examine the Proofs he brings for his sense of the word, and afterwards I shall show that sense to be false, absurd, and contrary to the use of that Term in other Ecclesiastical Writers of the same and elder Times.  
To make out his Notion of the Word, two things are offered by M. Boileau. 1. He saith, That Ratram himself expounds Verity by Manifestation. 2. That the Writers of the middle Ages use it to signify the Depositions of Witnesses, and the Proof of things.  
To the former of these, somewhat hath already been said in the 
(y) Pag. 66.  Dissertation before this Tract, and in this Appendix, which I desire the Reader to consult, and I shall further add what I conceive will take off the force of this Argument.  
I admit that Ratram doth so expound Verity, and defines it to be the manifest Demonstration of a thing, but he not where expounds Manifestation to be the Sensible Appearance. I have already shown that the Verity which he defines is Propriety and Plainness of Speech in opposition to Figurative Speech; and in that Notion of this word, divers things are manifested which have no Sensible Appearances. These say, that the Father is God, the Soul is a Spirit, that Angels are Creatures, are in Ratrams sense, the naked Manifestation of the Truth, or the plain or manifest Demonstration of the things, which have no Sensible Appearance at all; that is, the words in their native signification import that which they are used to express; whereas in the Figurative and Mystical Forms of Speech, the words are used to express quite another thing, than what they really and naturally import. So that the one is a covert and obscure, the other a plain, proper and natural way of speaking, and this Bertram calls the clear light of Manifestation, the plain or simple Verity; and our Saxon Homilist, as I have shown, useth a word 
(z) geƿissum ðing Folly 29.  of the same importance; whereas had he understood Bertram in that sense M. Boileau doth, he must have expressed Manifestation by another word, which is afterwards used for the 
(a) sum sƿutelunge be ðam halgan housel, Fol. 38.  Sensible Demonstration of a thing.  
Now as this Term, when applied to Forms of Speech, imports Propriety of Speech, so when applied to Things, it signifieth Propriety of Nature, or the Very thing itself, without any Mystical Signification of, or Respect unto another thing. And thus it stands opposed to a Pledge, an Image, or Figure instituted to represent one thing, whilst it is in Substance, in Reality and Truth of Nature another.  
When it's urged to prove that Ratram useth the word Manifestation to signify the Reality, That he must use it in the same sense it was used by his Adversaries, who must either thereby understand, the Reality; or else believe the Holy Eucharist to be our Saviour's Body, in humane Form, which none pretends they did: Mr. Dean briskly denies the Consequence, and like a Doctor of great Authority, adds, 
(b) P. 35. Je Soutiens, qu'ils se persuadoient seulement de voir le Corpse & le Sang'de J. C. affectez des qualitez du pain & vin, etc.  I maintain that they only believed it to be Christ's Body affected with the Qualities of Bread.  
Now I appeal to any Man of common sense, whether any thing can be more absurd, than some Passages of this Book are, if so expounded? For Example, in that Prayer, 
(c) N. 85. Quod in imagine contingimus Sacramenti, manifesta participatione sumamus.  wherein the Church begs of God, to grant the manifest Participation of that, which is received in a Sacramental Image, the meaning must be, that they might partake of our Saviour's Flesh, under the Sensible Appearance of Bread. And again, where 
(d) N. 97. Nec in eo vel aliqua figura vel significatio sed ipsa rei Manifestatio.  he saith, the Body which suffered and risen again, is our Saviour's Proper Body, and in it there is no Figure or Signification, but the Manifestation of the thing itself, he must mean, if M. Boileau hath hit upon the true Notion of Ratrams Adversaries, that the Body of our Saviour which was crucified and risen again, is his Natural Body affected with the sensible Accidents of Bread, which I take to be rank Nonsense, and so I am apt to think doth our Translator also: For he doth not render that Passage by the word Manifestation, as he had elsewhere done, leaving the Reader to seek the sense of so uncouth a Phrase in his Preface and Remarks, but he renders it by words importing our Saviour's Body in Human Shape. Though in so doing he makes Bertram a very despicable and impertinent Sophister, and to dispute vehemently against an Opinion which his Adversaries did not maintain. For so he doth, if they affirming the Holy Eucharist to be Christ's Body affected with the Sensible Appearances of Bread, he brings Arguments to prove that it was not his Body in its proper state, that is, retaining the Members, Dimensions, Lineaments, and all other Sensible Qualities of a Man's Body.  
That Ratram used Manifestation as a Term equivalent to the Reality, is clear to any Man who will observe how he useth the Adverb , which is one of its Conjugates. When he is describing a Pledge and Image, he saith, 
(e) Significant enim ista rem, cujus sunt, non manifeste ostendunt. N. 86.  they have a relation to some other thing which they signify, but non manifeste ostendunt do not manifestly show, i.e. really exhibit. This must be his sense, for he he is delivering the Notion of Pledges and Images in General which are not the very thing for which they are deposited, or which they represent in Substance and Reality, and only want the Sensible Appearances thereof. For on the contrary, an Image hath the Sensible Appearance of what it represents without the Reality.  
I do not deny but Ratram supposes Christ's true Body to be Visible, when he saith, it is the very Manifestation of the thing; some of his Arguments to prove the Sacrament not to be Christ's Very Body, are drawn from a Supposition, that if it were so, it would be a Living, Organical Body, Visible, Palpable and Manifest to our Bodily Senses: Yet the Visibility of Christ's glorified Body, is not the thing primarily imported by the word Manifestation, but its Truth and Reality. As the Apostle, speaking of 
(f) 1 Tim. 3.16.  God manifest in the flesh, principally designed to teach the Truth of Christ's Incarnation, that the Word was truly made Flesh, that is, Man, and not that God Visibly appeared to Man. And as 
(g) Idem ipse Christus illis in Petra figuratus, nobis in carne manifestatus est. Aug. in Psal. 77.  St. Austin, when he saith, The same Christ who was Typified in the Rock to the Jews, is now manifested in the Flesh to us, doth not by that Phrase imply our Saviour's Visible Appearance to us, but that he was truly and actually Incarnate for us.  
As for his Second Reason to prove that Verity imports not the Reality, but the Sensible Appearance, viz. That the Writers of the Middle Age use the word to signify the Depositions of Witnesses, and the Proof or Evidence of things, I conceive it to be weak and unconcluding. The Instances to which he refers us, are in M. du Cange's 
(h) Glossarii, Tom. 3. col. 1283.  Glossary: And I might tell him, that they are not taken out of Writers of the Middle Age, but the 
(i) Scilicet, A. D. 1228.  Latest Times; but not to insist on that Circumstance, I think that he cannot infer, that Proofs by Witnesses are called Verities, because they clear the Point in dispute, in regard it seems more likely that Depositions (if they are styled Verities) have that name from the Charitable Presumption, that every Man hath so just a reverence of an Oath, that he will swear nothing but the Truth. I say, if Depositions are styled Verities, for I conceive the Learned and Industrious M. du Cange is mistaken in the sense of the word Veritas 
(k) Veritas, Depositio Testis. Veredictum J. C. Anglis,— Veritate Scabinorum convincatur Procul dubio hallucinatur, Veritas Scabinorum. idem valet quod Judicium Scabinorum, supra in voce Scabinus, ubi statuit Cl. du Cange, Scabinos esse Judices urbanos.  in those Instances he makes to prove that it signifieth the Deposition of a Witness; and that he more truly expounds it by the English word Verdict, which is the Sentence of the Jury, who are Judges of the Fact, and not Witnesses, and in those places Judgements are styled Verities, according to a known Rule of the Civil Law, that a judged Case is taken for Truth.  
His other Instances from the Synod of Coyac, A. D. 1050. are much more impertinent; for the word Veritas is there a Feudal Term, and imports in the former Canon the Title of the Church to its Possessions, against which three years Usurpation should not prescribe; and in the latter Canon, the Homage and Fealty of the Vassals to their Lord, and is equivalent to 
(l) Veritatem & Justitiam Regis non contemnant, sed sicut in diebus Adelfonsi Regis fideles & recti persistant, & talem Veritatem facient Regi qualem, & c-  Fidelitas, which signifieth Faith and true Allegiance. So that M. Boileau hath made a great flourish with these Authorities to no purpose.  
He tells us moreover that Paschase useth the word Veritas to signify the Sensible Truth, but the words cited out of him seem plainly to import the Reality. They are these; 
(m) Quando jam ultra non erunt haec Mystica Sacramenta in fide; sed in REIPSA VERITAS, quae adhuc recte agitur in Mysterio luce clarius referetur, & erit omnibus palam in fruitione, quod nunc sumimus in Mysterio. Pasch. apud Boileau, p. 216.  Then these Mystical Signs in our Faith shall cease, but the Truth in Reality, which as yet is rightly celebrated in the Mystery, shall be shown clearer than the Light, and that shall be evident to all in the enjoyment which we now receive in the Mystery. I conceive Reipsa may very aptly be rendered the Real Truth, or Truth in Reality. Nor doth the latter Clause expound the word Veritas, but is easy to observe a double Antithesis of Mystical Sacraments to the Real Verity, and of an obscure Representation to the clear Vision, which double Antithesis is ordinary in the Writings of the Fathers, and in this Tract of Ratram.  
Having thus answered that M. Boileau offers to maintain his Notion▪ that Verity signifieth not the Reality, but only the Sensible Appearance, I shall next prove his Notion not only groundless and precarious, but also false and absurd, by showing,  
1st. That this Notion of Verity is inconsistent with Bertrams own Exposition of that Term in this Treatise. And,  
2dly. That it agrees not with the Use of the Word in other Writers of the same or elder Times.  
I. It is inconsistent with Bertrams own Exposition of the Term in this Treatise, who explaineth it very frequently, and by great variety of Expressions equivalent to the Reality or very Truth, as will appear in the following Instances.  
N. XV. Verity is expounded by Proper Essence; 
(n) Fatebuntur ergo necesse est, aut mutata esse secundum aliud quam secundum Corpus, ac per hoc non esse hoc quod in Veritate videntur, sed aliud quod non esse secundum propriam Essentiam cernuntur. N. 15.  They must needs confess either that they are changed in some other respect than that of their Bodies, and that in this respect they are not what we see they are in Truth, but somewhat else which we discern them not to be in their Proper Essence, etc. what he styles Verity or Truth in one Member of the Antithesis, is called the Proper Essence in the other, which I take to be equivalent to the Reality. In this Passage the Lobe MS. varies from the Printed Copies, which read Existence instead of Essence, and I think the Variation of some moment, and that it is advantageous to the Protestant Cause.  
Again, In discussing the Second Question, he often describes the Real and Natural Body of our Saviour in Terms as clear and express as Human Wit can devise, viz. His Body born of the Virgin, which suffered, was buried, and risen again: This he calleth our Lord's True or Very Body, and denieth the Holy Eucharist to be that Body. For Instance, he saith that Christ's Natural Body 
(o) Non sit Mysterium sed Veritas Naturae. N. 57  is no Mystery but Truth of Nature, which he denieth the Sacrament to be.  
Again, N. LXII. The Body which he took of the Virgin Mary, which Suffered, was Buried, and Rose again, was a True Body, that is, such as remained Visible and palpable. But the Body which is called the Mystery of God, is not Corporeal, but Spiritual; and if Spiritual, than it can neither be seen, nor felt. From which words we may learn what Ratrams Notion of a True Body is, viz. such as our Senses judge to be a Body, discernible by the sight and touch. A Real Body, and not a Spirit or Phantasm. So N. LXXII. He describeth Christ's to be an Organical Body, animated with a Reasonable Soul, to be the True or Real Flesh of a True or Real Man 
(p) Vera Caro veri hominis existebat, Corpus utique Verum in Veri Corporis specie consistens. N. 72. , A True Body in the shape of a True Body, which cannot be affirmed of his Spiritual Flesh or the Holy Sacrament; which expressions most evidently import the Reality, and not the Sensible Appearance. And therefore in denying the Holy Eucharist to be such a True Body, he denieth the Real Presence.  
Again, He sometimes expounds Verity by ipsa Res, the thing itself, which is the Reality, N. 77. 
(q) Exterius igitur quod apparet, non est IPSA RES, sed Imago REI, ment vero quod sentitur & intelligitur, Veritas REI, n. 77.  Wherefore that which outwardly appears is not the thing itself, but the Image of it, but that which the Mind perceives and understands is the Verity of the thing, or the very thing itself. Here ipsa res, and veritas Rei, are manifestly the same.  
Thus also speaking of Christ's Body in the Sacrament in opposition to his True Body, he saith, that the former 
(r) Secundum quendam modum Corpus Christi esse cognoscitur, & modus iste in Figura est & imagine ut Veritas RES IPSA sentiatur, n. 84  is only in some particular manner [or respect] the Body of Christ, which manner is Figurative, and in the way of an Image; so that the Verity is the THING ITSELF. And again, 
(s) Veritas vero erit, cum jam nec Pignus, nec Imago; sed IPSIVS REI veritas apparebit, n. 87.  The Truth we shall then have when the VERY THING itself shall appear. And elsewhere comparing the Natural Flesh of our Lord, with the Holy Eucharist, which is commonly called his Body, he saith, 
(t) Et hoc Corpus Pignus est, & Species; illud vero IPSA Veritas. n. 88  This Body is a Pledge and Figure, but that is the TRUTH ITSELF; where we own the Emphatical Pronoun ipsa, to the Lobez MS. He saith 
(u) Sed IPSA REI manifestatio cognoscitur, n. 97.  of Christ's Natural Body, That it is the very Manifestation of the THING, whereas he denied the Holy Eucharist to be the 
(w) Non per IPSIVS REI manifestationem, n. 88  Manifestation of the THING ITSELF, N. 88 Which two latter Phrases are perfectly equivalent to the 
(x) Ipsius Veritatis nuda manifestatione, n. 3.  Manifestation of the TRUTH ITSELF, in the Preface of this Tract; and all these Expressions plainly import the REALITY.  
Moreover, He calls our Saviour's Body, born of the Virgin 
(y) Illud namque proprium & Verum nihil habens in se vel Mysticum vel Figuratum: hoc vero Mysticum. , his Proper and True Body, having nothing Mystical or Figurative in it. So many several ways is the Term Verity explained, and in all the Holy Eucharist denied to be the True, that is, REAL Body of our Saviour.  
Again, The Sense of the word Verity, may be learned from the Terms to which it stands opposed through the whole Discourse, which manifestly declare the subject of which they are affirmed, not to be Christ's Real Body. Sometimes it is opposed to a Figure, now nothing is a Sign or Figure of itself, sometime to a Pledge, sometime to an Image, to a Similitude, a Remembrance, and the like; and by affirming the Consecrated Elements to be Christ's Body in any of the forementioned respects, he virtually denieth them to be his Natural and Real Body, and by consequence when he saith they are Christ's Flesh and Blood in Figure and not in Truth, he must mean thereby, not in Reality.  
Lastly, If this be not the Sense of that Term, Ratrams Reasoning, N. 77. is false and absurd 
(z) Si enim— hoc vere dicitur quia Corpus Christi est, (1) In Veritate Corpus Christi est; & si in Veritate Corpus Christi est',— (2) Incorruptibile est & impassibile, etc. n. 77. . He argues thus; If the Holy Eucharist be Christ's Body, and be truly and properly said to be the Body of Christ, than it is such in Verity, and if so, than it is Incorruptible impassable, and by consequence Eternal, etc. Now as M. Boileau expounds that Term, the former (1) consequence is false, and Ratram must contradict himself as our Adversaries understand him. It followeth not, that if the Eucharist be properly and truly said to be Christ's Body, that therefore it is so in the sensible appearance, on the Principles of the Church of Rome. Nor is the latter (2) Inference valid, viz. That if it be Christ's Body in sensible Verity, than it is incorruptible and impassable. For the Incorruptibility of Christ's Body, depends not upon the Sensible Qualities, but upon its Glorified State. And Christ hath no other Real Body but his Glorified Body. In the state of Humiliation, when he was Scourged, Buffeted, and Crucified, the Body of our Saviour was visible and palpable, and was a true Body with all the sensible Appearances of such a Body, yet I am of opinion, that M. Boileau will scarce adventure to say, that our Saviour's Body was then Impassable, Incorruptible, or Immortal.  
Whereas if the word Veritas be taken in its genuine and common Sense, the Consequence is undeniable. For to the Truth of a Proposition it is requisite, that the Predicate do really agree to the Subject, and that the Subject be in Truth of Nature, what it is affirmed to be. And whatever the Subject is not in Reality, that is either falsely or improperly affirmed of it.  
I hope this may suffice to show, that Ratram did not use the Term in M. Boileau's sense, which is as much as I am obliged to prove. But for the further manifestation of his Extravagance in imposing that signification upon it, I shall proceed to let you see how contrary it is to the usage of the word Verity in other Ecclesiastical Writers of his own and Elder times.  
I shall give you an Instance or two out of Tertullian, who in answering those Heretics, who objected against the Reality of the Incarnation the words of St. Paul, Rom. viij. 3. God sending his Son in the LIKENESS of sinful Flesh, etc. thus expresseth himself: 
(a) Non quod Similitudinem Carnis acceperit, quasi IMAGINEM Corporis & non VERITATEM: Sed Similitudinem peccatricis carnis vult intelligi, etc. Tertul. de Carne Christi, c. 16.  Not that he assumed the LIKENESS of FLESH, as if it were the IMAGE of a Body, and not the VERITY, i. e. a Real Body. Again, Answering an Objection of Martion, who said, That if the Image of God, the Soul sinned in Man, the Gild would affect God himself. He saith, 
(b) Porro IMAGO VERITATI haud usque quaque adaequabitur, aliud enim est secundum VERITATEM esse, aliud IPSAM VERITATEM esse, Adu. Martion. l. 2. c. 9  The IMAGE must not be in all respects made equal with the VERITY, it is one thing to be made after the TRUTH, i. e. in imitation of it; and another thing to be the VERY TRUTH itself. Again, He proves that Christ had a Real Body, because the Sacrament was a Figure of it. For there could be no Figure, unless there were a TRUE Body.  
Irenaeus doth not only use the word in the same sense, but establisheth an Essential difference between the Image, and Verity: 
(c) Typus enim & Imago secundum materiam, & secundum Substantiam aliquories a VERITATE diversus est, secundum autem habitum & lineamentum debet servare similitudinem, Iren. adv. Haer. l. 2. c. 40.  A Type and Image, saith he, is sometimes in Matter and Substance different from the VERITY, or TRUTH, but it ought to resemble the Shape and Lineaments thereof. They differ Substantially.  
St. Cyprian also useth the Term in the same sense, where making the deliverance of the Firstborn in Egypt, whose Door-posts were sprinkled with the Blood of the Paschal Lamb, a Type of our Salvation by the Cross and Passion of our Lord, he saith, 
(d) Quod ante occiso agno praecedit in imagine, impletur in Christo, secuta postmodum Veritate, Cypr. ad Demetrian, p. 194. Edit. Oxon.  That [Salvation] which anciently in the slaying of the [Paschal] Lamb went before in the way of an IMAGE, is fulfilled in Christ, the TRUTH which followed after.  
St. Ambrose frequently useth VERITAS for the Reality, speaking of boaring the Ear of the Jewish Servants, and the Circumcision of their Flesh, etc. 
(e) SIGNA sunt ista & non VERITAS. Sed ille intelligit qui cor suum Spiritali Circumcisione castificat, etc. Ambr. in Ps. 118. Oct. 13.  These things are SIGNS and not the TRUTH; which was Sanctification, as he tells immediately. And in what sense the word Verity must be taken when we find it opposed to Signs, he elsewhere teacheth, speaking of Abraham's Circumcision; 
(f) Abraham Signum accepit Circumcisionis: Vtique SIGNUM non IPSA RES, sed ait rius rei est; hoc est, non VERITAS sed indicium VERITATIS, de Abraham l. 1. in Gen. c. 17.  The Apostle Paul said, that Abraham received the Sign of Circumcision, now the SIGN is not the THING ITSELF, but [the Representation] of another Thing, that is, not the TRUTH, but an Indication of the TRUTH. where he not only opposeth the TRUTH to a SIGN, but also expounds it to be the REALITY.  
So Gaudentius, Bishop of Brescia, contemporary with St. Ambrose, speaking of the Paschal Lamb as a Type of Christ's Death, saith, 
(g) Figura erat, non Proprietas Dominicae Passionis; FIGURA etenim non est VERITAS, sed imitatio VERITATIS. Gaudent. Brix. Serm. 2. in Exod. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 2. Edit. Par. 1610.  It was a FIGURE of our Lord's Passion, and not the PROPRIETY; now a FIGURE is not the TRUTH or REALITY, but an Imitation of the TRUTH. Here he makes a Figure and the REALITY to be Inconsistent, in their very Natures.  
I might produce several Passages of St. Austin to the same effect, but shall content myself with one or two.  

(h) Hujus Sacrificii Caro & Sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas SIMILITUDINUM promittebatur; in Passione Christi per IPSAM VERITATEM reddebatur: Post ascensum Christi per SACRAMENTUM MEMORIAE celebratur, August. contra Faustum Manich. l. xx. c. 21.  Having cited those words of the Psalmist, Sacrificium laudis glorificabit me, etc. He addeth, The Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice was promised by Typical Victims before the coming of Christ, it was given in VERY TRUTH [or Reality] in the Passion of Christ, and is celebrated in the SACRAMENT which is the MEMORIAL thereof, after the Ascension of Christ. This is a remarkable Passage, not only as it gives us the true sense of the word verity, but as it declares the Holy Eucharist to be an Historical Type of our Saviour's Oblation on the Cross, as the Jewish Sacrifices were Prophetical Types thereof; but neither one nor the other his Flesh and Blood in Reality.  
The other place is cited by Gratian, whose Decretum the 
(i) Sed animum hic advertat Sanctitas tua; Nam Decretalium, & Sexti & Clementinarum, & Extravagantium tantum supra Meminimus, ac non item Decreti, quod minime mirum videri debet. Est enim Perniciosus liber, & Authoritatem tuam valde imminuit, etc. Concil. quorundam Episc. de stabilienda Romana Eccles. fol. 5.  Bishops met at Bononia, in their Advice to Pope Julius III had reason (upon account of this and many other Passages of the Ancient Fathers and Councils no way favourable to Popery extant in that Collection) to call a Pernicious Book. The words occur not in the Works of St. Austin, but are cited from Prosper's Sentences of St. Austin, and are cited by Lanfranc, and other Zealots for Transubstantiation; I marvel why: And they run thus, 
(k) Sicut ergo coelestis Panis, qui vere Christi caro est, suo modo vocatur Corpus Christi cum REVERA sit SACRAMENTUM Corporis Christi, illius videlicet quod Visibile Palpabile, mortale in cruse est suspensum, vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi Passio, Mors, Crucifixio, non REI VERITATE sed SIGNIFICANTE MYSTERIO. Sic, etc. De Consecr. dist. II. c. 48. Sect. sicut.  Therefore as the Heavenly Bread which is truly the Flesh of Christ, is [suo modo] in its peculiar manner called the Body of Christ, though in REALITY, it is the SACRAMENT of Christ's Body, namely of that [Body] which was Visible, Palpable, Mortal, and Hanged on the Cross; and the very Immolation of his Flesh by the hands of the Priest is called the Passion, Death, and Crucifixion of Christ, not [that it is so] in VERITY of NATURE, but in MYSTICAL SIGNIFICATION.  
And the Gloss is very extraordinary; 
(l) Caeleste Sacramentum quod VERE REPRAESENTAT Christi carnem dicitur Corpus Christi, sed IMPROPRIE, unde dicitur SVO MODO, sed non REI VERITATE, sed significati MYSTERIO, ut sit sensus, Vocatur Corpus Christi, id est SIGNIFICAT. Glossa in verbum Caelestis.  The Heavenly Sacrament which truly represents the Body of Christ, is called the Body of Christ but improperly.— So that the meaning is, it is called the Body of Christ, that is, it signifies it.  
I shall make two or three brief Remarks on this Passage.  
1. As Bertram 
(m) Secundum quid, secundum quendam modum Corpus Christi esse cognoscitur & Modus iste in Figura est, & in Imagine, N. 84.  saith of the Holy Eucharist, that it is in some respect, or in some particular manner, the Body and Blood of Christ; so here it is said to be in a peculiar way called Christ's Body, though 
(n) RE VERA.  in Reality it is only the Sacrament thereof.  
2. As Bertram declares that manner and respect to be Figurative, and in the way of an Image, so here the Holy Eucharist is said to be, as the Gloss teacheth us, 
(o) Sed improprie.  improperly so called, it being the Body of Christ only in Mystical signification, not in Verity of Nature.  
3. That verity when opposed in Sacramental Discourses to Signs, Mysteries, Figures, Pledges, Images, and the like, imports Reality, or Truth of Nature.  
But to come nearer Bertrams time, the Venerable Bede, 
(p) Cum omnes electi carne agni immaculati, id est, Dei & Domini nostri, non amplius in Sacramento credentes sed in REIPSA & VERITATE videntes, reficientur, Beda in Esdram l. 2. c. 8.  hath a Passage in which he expounds the Truth to be the THING itself. Having mentioned the Resurrection, he proceeds, When all the Elect shall feast on the Flesh of the Immaculate Lamb, that is, of our God and Lord; no longer exercising Faith in the Sacrament, but beholding him in REALITY, and in TRUTH.  
I shall close all with a Manuscript Prayer, which I found among the Saxon MSS. 
(q) In libro cui titulus Anglo-Saxon Remains ad calcem Psalterii Saxonici Anglice redditi per M. Lisle. Quarto Cod. 1249.  of Archbishop Laud's gift to the Public Library at Oxford, which was Copied by that Industrious Collector of Saxon Monuments, Mr. Lisle, from a MS. Rule of Nuns, in Bennet College Library 
(r) In Biblioth. Coll. S. Bened. Cod. 274. pag. 16. vide titulum apud James, Ecloge Oxonio Cantab. p. 89.  in Cambridge, which I have gotten compared with the Original, and is found exactly to agree with it.  
The Title.  
Another to be said at receiving the Sacrament of the Altar.  
Concede, quaesumus, Omnipotens Dens, ut quem enigmatice & sub aliena Specie cernimus quo Sacramentaliter cibamur in Terris, fancy ad faciem eum videamus, eo sicuti est VERACITER, & REALITER frui mereamur in Coelis. Per eund.  
Grant, we beseech thee Almighty God, that him, who we see darkly and under another Species, on whom we feed Sacramentally on Earth, we may behold Face to Face, and enjoy him TRULY and REALLY as he is in Heaven, Through, etc.  
The Antiquity or Author of this Prayer I know not, but I believe it may be somewhat more Ancient than the Saxon Prayers among which I found it; which I believe to be, as Dr. James saith, later than the Conquest by the Language, which is much nearer English, than Elfric's Sermon.  
The Prayer is a plain Allusion to those words of St. Paul, 1 Cor. 13.12. 
(s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  now we see as in a glass darkly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then shall I know even as also I am known. And the Allusion makes it apparent that the Author of the Prayer did not believe the Real or Oral Manducation of Christ in the Sacrament.  
The words, 
(t) Quem aenigmatice & sub aliena specie cernimus.  whom we see darkly and under another Species, are of the same importance with those of 
(u) Per speculum in aenigmate.  St. Paul, as in a glass, darkly, which import not the direct and immediate Vision of the thing itself, but an obscure and reflex Vision of it by an Image; so the Author of the Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles, that go under the Name of 
(w) Apertum est nunc Imagines videri per Fidem, tunc Res ipsas. Ambros. in Loc.  St. Ambrose, It is plain that now we behold Images by Faith, but than [we shall see] the very things themselves. And as Tertullian 
(x) Tertul. Adu. Praxtam, cap. 14▪ Non in aenigmate, id est, non in imagine. Aenigma, Figura, sive Typus, sive Sprcies. Isidor. in Glossis.  interprets the word which our Translators render darkly, in an Image, and as Ecclesiastical Writers commonly style the Types of the Old Law, 
(y) Veteris literae putruerunt aenigmata. Author de Vnctione Chrismatis apud Cyprianum. Vide Origen. Hom. 7. in Num.  Aenigmata, so the Sacramental Symbols are called 
(z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dion. Areop. de Hierarch. cap. 3.  Enigmatical vails; so that the former Antithesis imports a denial that the Visible Object is the TRUE Body of Christ. And then the latter Antithesis between the Sacramental feeding on him here on Earth, and the True and Real enjoyment of him in Heaven, as plainly implieth, that it is the Sacrament, and not the Real Body of Christ, which is Orally received, and our Spiritual repast on Earth, and that the TRUE and REAL enjoyment of Christ is reserved for our entertainment in Heaven. These things I thought good briefly to observe: but the design on which I cited this Prayer, is only to prove, 
(a) Veraciter & realiter, conjunctio & exegeticè usurpatur.  that TRULY and REALLY are Terms equivalent, and here the former is expounded by the latter.  
I have been the more prolix on this Term, because M. Boileau layeth the stress of the whole Controversy upon its true Sense, in which I persuade myself that any impartial Reader must needs perceive him to have been grossly misled by Prejudice.  
I shall now proceed to show how gross an Error he is guilty of in expounding another Term of no less moment in this Controversy, which is the word SPECIES, which he makes to signify the 
(b) I'll signify appearance, & non pas la Substance & la Nature des choses, comme les Philosophes le prennent ordinairement. Praef. p. 41. Remarq. p. 220, & p. 250. I'll n'entend pas la Verite de la Nature— mais seulement— ce que l'on appellè les Accidents qui tombent sous le sens. p. 253, 254.  Appearance, and not the Substance and Nature of things, in which Exposition, if I prove him deceived, he must for ever renounce his confident claim of Ratram for a Patron of Transubstantiation.  
Let us then, before we offer any thing to evince the contrary, see what Proof M. Boileau brings to make out his Assertion, that by Species in this Tract must be understood, the Sensible Apearance or Accidents, and not the Nature or Substance of things. Now for Proof hereof, he sends the Reader to his Remarks, and upon a careful perusal of the places to which he refers, I protest, I cannot observe the least Show or Appearance either of Reason or Authority to countenance the sense which he imposeth on the Term: and the Truth is, I have always had more trouble to find out his Arguments, than to Answer them.  
The former of the two places to which he refers, is a Remark on these words. 
(c) Rem. p. 220. on n. xii: Quoniam secundum veritatem Species creaturae quae fuerat ante, permansisse cognoscitur.  It is well known that the Species of the Creature remains in Truth what it was before. This Passage, I confess, deserved a Remark, and unless our Translator make out his sense of Species very clearly, it will stand in direct Opposition to the Trent Doctrine, That the Substance of Bread and Wine remain not after Consecration.  
To clear this Passage, he therefore citys another by which it may be expounded, in which Ratram saith, 
(d) Non enim secundum quod videtur, vel carnis Species in illo pane cognoscitur, vel in illo vino Cruoris unda monstratur. num. x.  That we see not the Form or Appearance of Flesh and Blood in this Mystery. How honestly that Passage is thus rendered by him, hath been already shown; but how he proves Species in that place to signify Appearance I am still to learn; for as I noted before, unda cruoris imports the Liquid Substance of Blood, and gives us fair ground to conclude that Species Carnis signifieth the Substance, and not the mere Accidents of Flesh.  
He further addeth, 
(e) Rem. p. 220.  That Ratram learned this use of the word from the Books of the Sacraments ascribed to St. Ambrose, whence he citys this Passage following for an Example of it. 
(f) Spiritus enim Sanctus in Specie Columbae, non in Veritate columbae— descendit de Coelo. lib. 1. cap. 3.  The Holy Ghost descended from Heaven in the Species or likeness of a Dove, not in the Verity or Real Substance of a Dove. I freely grant the word in this place imports the Likeness or Appearance in opposition to Truth of Nature, but then withal, I deny that it signifieth any thing like what they make Species of Bread and Wine in the Holy Eucharist to be. It doth not import all the Sensible Qualities of a True Dove, which was miraculously converted into the Holy Ghost; nor yet doth it imply the Sensible Accidents of a Dove existing, without a Subject. For though the generality of the Fathers are express in denying the Holy Spirit to have assumed the Nature or Real Body of a Dove, yet some of them 
(g) 
Surgenti manifesta Dei praesentia claret  
Scinditur auricolor coeli septemplicis aethra  
Corporeamque gerens Speciem, descendit ab alto  
Spiritus, aeream simulans in nube columbam.  
Jnvencus Evang. Hist. l. 1. inter Poet. Vet. Eccles. Basil. 1564. in Quarto.  
Non tamen de avibus sumpsisse columbam, sed ex aere minime dubitatur. l. 3. de mirabil. Script. c▪ 5. apud August. Tom. 3.   make him to have assumed a Body like a Dove form of Air condensed; of which matter, it is ordinarily believed, the Bodies assumed by Angels do consist. And if so, the Accidents which affect the Senses have a Real and Corporeal, as the Colours and Features of a well-made Effigies subsist in a Real Subject, though not in the Very Person whom it resembles. So that this Citation is no Authority for the sense he imposeth on the Term, and upon examination of these Books, whence he makes Bertram to have learned this use of the word Species, many undeniable Examples of its being used for the Substance and Specific Nature will appear.  
This is all the Proof he offers, unless the ipse dixit of a Sorbon Doctor must pass for a Demonstration; 
(h) Ad num. 54.  the other Remark to which he sends us, contains neither Argument nor Authority to bear out his Exposition of that Term.  
I shall therefore now take leave to inquire into the true sense thereof, and in a short Digression give a probable Account how it came into use with Ecclesiastic Authors. And had M. Boileau taken the same method to search out the true meaning of Species, which he took to justify his forced Interpretation of Veritas, that is, had been pleased to consult the Learned M. du Cange, I might have spared my pains. From him he might have learned, that it is 
(i) Species. Vox J. C. notissima, quibus idem sonat quod veteribus fruges, etc. Glossar. Tom. 3. col. 918.  a Term wherewith the Lawyers are well acquainted, and signifieth all that the Ancient Latin Writers include in the Notion of Fruges, Wine, Oil, Corn, Pulse, etc. And the Glossary at the end of the Theodosian Code, published by Gothofred, extend its Signification 
(k) Species sunt res seu corpora quaecunque quorum usus est aliquis in humana conversatione, & quidem quae tributi annonarumque nomine Fisco penduntur. Glossar. Nomic. tit. Species.  to all Necessaries of Life, Tributes, Public Stores of Provisions, and not only for the Belly, but the Back also, Rich , and Householdstuff, Jewels, as also Materials for Building, Timber and Iron, passing by that Name in both the Theodosian and Justinian Codes, in the Writers of the Imperial History, Vegetius, Cassiodorus etc. In the Theodosian Code there are many Laws concerning the public Species, 
(l) Tributa in ipsis Speciebus inferri. Non sunt pretia Specierum, sed ipsae quae postulantur Species inferendae, Cod. Theod. l. xi. Tit. 2. Leg. 4.  requiring them to be brought in kind, and not a composition for them in Money; Particularly that the 
(m) Speciem Vini, Ibid. Leg. 2.  Species of Wine be paid in Kind: There are Laws to compel all Farmers to furnish their proportions of all Species, to oblige Men, and Ships, and Wagons for the Carriage of them to Rome and other places, Laws also directing the mixing of sweet and fresh, with the Species decayed and corrupted by long lying in public Granaries and Cellars. Cassiodorus 
(n) 
1. Speciem Laridi, lib. 2. Ep. 12. (2.) Tritici Speciem, l. 3. Ep. 41. Vini, tritici, panici Speciem, l. 12. Ep. 26. Vini, olei vel tritici Species, l. 12. Ep. 23.  
(3. 4.) Casei & Vini Palmatiani— Species, l. 12. Ep. 12. (5.) De ferro, l. 3. Ep. 25. Convenit itaque hanc Speciem diligenti indagatione rimari.   in his Epistles issues out orders for the providing of the Species, (1) of Bacon, (2) wheat (3, 4) Cheese, wine, and (5) Iron. And the Law-Notion of the Term, I conceive took its rise, from the great variety of Necessaries of several sorts and kinds, that are requisite for the subsistence of Armies, or great Cities, or else from the variety of such Provisions paid in the Nature of Rents or Tribute.  
Now as the word Sacrament is generally acknowledged to be a term borrowed from the Roman Military Laws, so probably was the word Species; and as Corn and Wine and other stores for the public use either of the Prince, the City, or Army go by that Name, especially what came in by way of Pension 
(o) Species praeterea, quae mensis Regiis apparentur,— perquirite, l. 12. Ep. 18.  or Tribute, so it is not unlikely that the Oblations of the Faithful brought to the Altar, as a Tribute to God, for the use of his Holy Table consisting of Bread and Wine, the two main supports of Life, might in allusion thereunto be called Species by Ecclesiastic Writers.  
Now this premised, I shall attempt to show two things 1. That Species in Bertram, imports the same thing, which' its used to signify in the first 
(p) Bestias terra juxta Species suas, Gen. l. 25.  of Genesis by the Author of the Vulgar Latin Version, viz. the Specific Nature, the Substance as well as the Appearance.  
2. That the word bears the same sense in other Authors, and particularly in the Books de Sacramentis falsely ascribed to St. Ambrose.  
To evince the former I shall present you with some passages, which will appear very absurd, if the word be understood in Mr. Boileau's sense. And I shall begin with that, on which he himself hath bestowed a Remark. 
(q) Quoniam secundum veritatem Species Creaturae quae fuerat ante permansisse cognoscitur, n. 12.  For' its well known that, the Species of the Creature, remains in Truth what it was before. Now if by Species we are with Mr. Boileau, to understand the sensible Appearance, these absurdities will follow.  
1. Ratram will contradict himself, in what he had said in the very Sentence next before. viz. 
(r) Hic quoque non iste transitus [sc. ab esse ad non esse] factus esse cognoscitur, Ibid.  That in the Sacrament nothing is changed by way of Corruption, nothing passeth from being into a state of Non Existence: If in these words he intended only to affirm, that the Accidents of Bread and Wine, and not their Substance do remain after Consecration. How can he say that nothing here is Corrupted, if he thought that Accidents only remained, and that their Specific Nature perished?  
2. Whereas Ratram proposeth a distinction consisting of three Members, if Species import only the sensible Qualities, the two latter Members will be Coincident. For in the next Paragraph, 
(s) Nihil enim hic vel tactu vel colore vel sapore permutatum esse deprehenditur, n. 13.  he proves there is no alteration, because we perceive no Alteration either as to Touch, Colour, or Taste. Now if in the preceding Paragraph he designed only to assert, that the sensible Qualities remain after Consecration; I desire to be informed what other sensible qualities the Holy Elements have besides those here mentioned?  
3. It is plain that as passing from Non Entity into being, is a substantial Change, so the contrary is a substantial Change, whereas if Species do not import the substance, instead of the universally received distinction of two sorts of Substantial Mutation, and one Accidental, he makes Ratram the Author of a Novel and unknown Distinction of two kinds of Accidental Mutation, and one Substantial. And I might add, that the Emphatical word in Truth, which I take to signify verity of Nature must stand for just nothing; whereas the true meaning of the place is, That the Creatures of Bread and Wine remain in Reality after Consecration what they were before.  
Again, 
(t) Figurae sunt secundum speciem visibilem, n. 49.  They are Figures in respect of the Visible Species: In this place if we understand him of the Sensible Qualities, the Assertion is false, for it is the substance of Bread and Wine, which have any resemblance of the Body and Blood of Christ; the Accidents have no Analogy to it, or the Benefits of our Saviour's Death. It is not Whiteness, or Roundness, or Dryness, or Moistness, but the substance of Bread and Wine which feeds the Body, and therefore aptly represents the Spiritual Improvements which the Soul finds in the worthy participation of the Holy Eucharist; and therefore what Ratram calls the Visible Species in the former part of the Paragraph, is styled the Visible Creature in the latter.  
Again, 
(u) Quod illa Caro secundum quam & Crucifixus est Christus & sepultus, non sit Mysterium, sed Veritas Naturae; haec vero Caro quae nunc similitudinem illius in Mysterio continet, non sit Specie caro sed Sacramento. Si quidem in Specie Panis est, etc. n. 57  where he tells us, That the Flesh in which Christ suffered was no Mystery, but the Truth of Nature, whereas his Body in the Holy Eucharist is not Flesh in Specie, but in Sacrament or Mystery, for in Specie its Bread: There will be no Antithesis unless we understand him to deny the Sacrament to be Flesh, in the same sense wherein he affirmed his Body born of the Virgin to be Flesh, viz. in verity of Nature.  
Also where he declareth, 
(w) Ast nunc Sanguis Christi, quem Credentes ebibunt. & Corpus quod comedunt, aliud sunt in specie, & aliud in significatione, n. 69.  That what the Faithful do Orally receive, is one thing in Specie, and another in Signification; if Species imply only the outward appearance, the Antithesis is frigid and without force. For in Sacramental Discourses, Things are opposed to their Mystical signification, so that the force of such Antithesis lies in the difference between the Being, the Essence, the Substance, and the Signification, to which they stand opposed.  
This I shall make very plain from two or three Authorities of St. Austin, 
(x) Quoniam signa sunt rerum, aliud EXISTENTIA & aliud SIGNIFICANTIA, Aug. contra Maximin. l. 3. c. 22.  speaking of Sacraments, he saith, That they are signs of Things, which signs ARE one thing, and signify another: There Existence or Being, and signifying are opposed.  
Again, 
(y) Hinc est quod dictum est, Petra erat Christus; non enim dixit Petra significat Christum, sed tanquam hoc esset, quod utique per SUBSTANTIAM hoc non erat, sed per SIGNIFICATIONEM, Aug. Quaest. super Levit. 57  Therefore it is said that Rock WAS Christ, he did not say it SIGNIFIED Christ, as though it had been what indeed it was not in SUBSTANCE, but in SIGNIFICATION; what Ratram called Species, St. Augustin calleth Substance.  
And if any doubt it, I hope to satisfy him by a third Authority, where affirming that the Fathers and We had the same Spiritual Meat and Drink, he explains himself, in what sense he called it the same, 
(z) Idem itaque in Mysterio cibus & potus illorum qui noster, sed SIGNIFICATIONE idem, non SPECIE, Aug. in Ps. 77. Aliud illi, aliud nos, sed Specie visibili, quod tamen hoc idem significaret, virtute Spirituali, n. 78. ex Tract. 26. in Joan.  viz. The same in SIGNIFICATION, not in SPECIE or Substance. And to these I might add the Testimony cited by Ratram, N. 78. where he states the difference in the same Terms.  
Now by this we may understand what he means, when above, N. 54. 
(a) Panis & Vinum prius extitere, in qua etiam Specie, jam consecrata permanere videntur, n. 54.  he saith, That Bread and Wine continue in the same Species, that is, Specific Nature after Consecration, which they had before; though that place is clear enough without borrowing Light hence; for what is here called Species, is in the sentence immediately preceding called 
(b) Nam secundum creaturarum substantiam quod fuerunt ante Consecrationem, hoc & postea consistunt, etc.  the Substance of the Creatures; so that Species here is what Ratram in a place before cited out of another Work of his, 
(c) In substantiae suae specie, Ratr. de Praed. lib. 2.  calleth the Species of its Substance. And as in this Tract, by the 
(d) Corpus in quo semel passus est Christus, non aliam Speciem praeferebat quam in qua consistebat, n. 69. id est quam eam Speciem in qua consistebat, quae est natura specifica.  Species in which Christ's Natural Body consisted, he meant a REAL Humane Body; so in this place, N. 54. where he saith the Consecrated Elements, were Bread and Wine before, and consist, or remain in the same Species after Consecration, he must necessarily mean, that they continue REAL Bread and Wine.  
There are other Passages, where the 
(e) Intelliges quod non in SPECIE, sed in VIRTUTE Corpus & Sanguis Christi existunt, quae cernuntur, n. 56.  Species and Virtue, and the Corporeal 
(f) N. 93, 94. Speciem corporalem, & Fructum spiritualem.  Species and Spiritual Fruit, stand opposed which would illustrate this Matter, which I pass over, that I be not tedious to the Reader. And shall only add,  
That if in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries, Species had born M. Boileau's sense, and our Saxon Ancestors had believed nothing but the Appearances of Bread and Wine to remain, it had been of great moment carefully to have expressed it in those very Terms, in Translating the 72 Paragraph of Bertram, where he saith, the Spiritual Body of Christ, [as to the Species it outwardly bears] is made of several Grains of Wheat by the Baker's hand, etc. Whereas Aelfric in rendering that place, omits the words 
(g) See the Saxon Hom. Fol. 35, 36.  Secundum speciem quam gerit exterius, and saith without any such restriction, or limiting Exposition, That Christ's Spiritual Body which we call the Housel, is gathered of many Corns 
(h) Buton blood.  without Blood, etc. Where by the way also observe, that our Saxon Ancestors held not the Doctrine of that Concomitance which was devised since, to justify the Sacrilegious Practice of depriving the People of the Cup.  
I shall now consider in what sense the word Species is used by other Ecclesiastical Writers.  
I will begin with Tertullian, the most Ancient of the Latin Fathers, who expounds the word Species by Res and Veritas. For Instance 
(i) Per fidem incedentes, non per Speciem, id est, spe, non Re, Tertul. De●Res. Carn. c. 43. , Walking by Faith and not by Species, that is, saith he, in Hope and not in [Fruition of] the thing. And elsewhere, having occasion to quote, Numb. 12.8. in which place God expresseth his extraordinary favour to Moses, and promiseth to admit him, to more familiar Conversation with himself, than he would other Prophets; he thus glosseth upon the words 
(k) Os ad os loquar illi in Specie, id est, in Veritate, & none in aenigmate, id est, non in imagine, Adu. Praxeam. c. 14. vide etiam Contra Martion. l. 4. c. 22. in Specie utique hominis quam gesturus erat.— : To him will I speak Mouth to Mouth, in Specie, that is, in Truth, and not Enigmatically, that is, in an Image.  
Likewise Origen, or some 
(l) Hoc liquet ex Hom. 18. ubi haec leguntur. In Libro qui apud NOS quidem inter Salomonis volumina haberi solet, & Ecclesiasticus, dici: apud GRAECOS vero sapientia Jesu filii Sirach appellatur.  Latin Writer, whose Homilies on the Book of Numbers are found among origen's Works, expounding the same place, doth at least ten times over make Species to import Truth, and Aenigma the Type or Figure. Hereof take these Instances, 
(m) Lex Dei jam non in figuris & in imaginibus sicut prius, sed in ipsa Specie veritatis agnoscitur: Et quae prius in aenigmate designabant, nunc in Specie & Veritate complentur, Origen. Hom. VII. in Numeros.  Those things which were formerly designed in the way of an Image, are now fulfilled in Reality and Truth. And again, 
(n) Vides quomodo aenigmata legis Paulus absolvit, & Species aenigmatum docet, Ibid.  You see how Paul cleareth the Figures of the Law, and teacheth the Things signified by those Figures. 
(o) Antea in aenigmate fuit baptismus in nube & in mari, nunc autem in Specie regeneratio est in aqua & in Spiritu Sancto, Ibid.  Anciently there was a Figurative Baptism, in the Cloud and in the Sea, now there is True Regeneration in Water and the Holy Ghost. In all the forementioned Instances the word Species doth import the very Thing, the Reality, the Truth, and not the 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 signify the Natural substance of Wine, and not the mere 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 Create. 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 
(s) 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 learned 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, etc. de Trin. l. 3. c. 4.  he useth the same Expression, with relation to unconsecrated 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 mere 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 mere 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 easy 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 itself.  
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 SUBSTANTIA, eisdem Discipulis Tradidit, Nihil ergo Congruentius his SPECIEBUS, 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 ●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 SUBSTANCE of Bread and Wine; and taught them to Celebrate it in remembrance of his most Holy Passion. He adds, That nothing could be found out more proper to signify the Unity 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 United Multitude of Saints. Observe, that in the words immediately preceding, our Author styles 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 signify 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 & Wae benedici.— Alias autem diversarum SPECIES rerum statutum est ubilibet benedici a sacerdotibus, etc. Ibid. cap. 18. Fruges, & Species pro Synonymis habuit Walafridus.  useth the word Species for the Fruits of the Earth, and citys for it a forged Decretal Epistle under the name of Pope Eutychian, which order 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 altar, 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 & Was & Oleum & Thymiama, id est, incensum.— Can. 5. Reliqua poma omnia ad domum Episcopi vel Presbyteri dirigantur, etc.  Ears of new Corn, Grapes, Oil and Incense. Now in these Instances none can doubt but by Species, the Specific 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 Oil.  
And it appears, that the Unconsecrated Elements were styled Species, from a Prayer in the Gothick Missal, to be used after the Sanctus, which is before Consecration. 
(e)  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 Sanctify by the Inspiration of his Heavenly Grace, this SPECIES which is TO BE Consecrated, etc. 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 learned 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 falsehood and indecent confidence of that Assertion. That the Instance produced by M. Boileau is Impertinent, and Mistaken, I have already shown, and shall now make some Instances to disprove his pretence entirely.  
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 Specific Nature, or Substance. 
(f) SPECIEM autem pro VERITATE legimus, & de Christo, & Specie inventus ut Homo, & d● Patre Deo: Neque Speciem ejus vidistis. Ambr. de iis qui Mist. initiantur, c. 4.  He tells us, That the word Species is sometimes used to signify 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. Augustine's 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 citys 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, etc. l. 4. c. 4. Dixi vobis quod ante verba Christi, quod offertur PANIS dicatur, etc. 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, than 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, etc. Amb. in Psal. 118. Oct. 5.  The Pillar went before in the Species of a Cloud, but it Mystically signified the Lord Jesus, etc. Who ever doubted it to be a Real Cloud? Again, speaking of the Water turned into Wine by our Saviour, he saith, 
(w)  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 Specific 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 allege 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 Doctrine 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 satisfy any Impartial Reader who is tolerably skilled in the Latin Tongue, that the sense which he gives them, is very unnatural, and absurd.  
I took notice elsewhere, 
(z) Dissert. Ch. IU. 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 joined with Bread, sometimes with Species, sometimes with Creature, Sacrament, Food, is by our Translator so rendered as though it did signify 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. nouriture 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 Heresy revive, its Proselytes might as plausibly wrest the Terms of this Author to prove that Christ had only the Species or external Appearances of an Humane Body, as M. Boileau doth to show, that he believed only the accidents of Bread and Wine to remain in the Sacrament after Consecration.  
It is plain that Bertram by Visible Bread means Material Bread, and by the Visible Creature, he means a Corporeal Creature, and by Visible Food, Bodily Food. It's very well known, that the 
(c) Graeci passim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 opponunt▪ & per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Substantias Corporeas intelligunt. Ita & Latini per Visibilia.  Fathers both Greek and Latin commonly distinguish all beings into Visible, and Invisible, or Sensible, which is all one with 
(d) Greg. Nyssen. in Cant. Hom. 6. sic dividit rerum Naturam & exponit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Material, and Intelligible or Spiritual. And accordingly in the Nicene Creed we find all God's Creatures divided into things Visible and Invisible, that is, Corporeal and Incorporeal, Bodies and Spirits. So that there is no room to doubt, but Bertram useth the Word Visible in the Vulgar, and received Sense, for Corporeal and Material Bread.  
2. And the same doubtless he means by that which the eye beholds, which the bodily sense perceives, that which outwardly appears. For he speaks in the same manner concerning 
(e) In eo tamen fonte si consideretur solummodo quod Corporeus aspicit sensus, elementum fluidum conspicitur, etc. n. 17.  the Water in Baptism, if you consider ONLY what the bodily Sense beholds, it is a fluid Element, or Substance. And again, 
(f) Erat namque eyes & Visibilis forma quae corporis sensibus appareret. N. 21.  of the Cloud and Red-Sea, they had a Visible form which appeared to the bodily Senses, which we are to understand of the Substance of the Sea and Cloud, for this latter expression, is in effect the same which he had said before, 
(g) Igitur Mare & Nubes non secundum hoc quod Corpus extiterant, etc. Ibid.  that the Cloud and Sea were Bodies, and soon after 
(h) Similiter Manna— & Aqua— Corporales extiterant: & 22. Inerat Corporeis istis Substantiis Spiritualis Verbi potestas. Ibid. Verba Visibilis, & Corporalis. Rabanus De Instit. Cler. l. 1. c. 30. pro synonymis habet.— Aqua enim Sacramenti, Visibilis est: Aqua Spiritus, invisibilis est.— Sicut etiam Aqua Corporalis corpus lavat & potat, ita Spiritualis Spiritum abluit & pascit.  of the Manna and Rock Water that they were Bodily Substances, and that both the one and the other had a Spiritual Virtue, a Sanctifying Power, upon which he illustrates this Question touching the Eucharist, by comparing it with those Sacraments of the Old Testament.  
And the last of these three Phrases, That which outwardly appears, or which appears to the Bodily Sense, though it look a little suspiciously, yet in Truth, no way favours M. Boileau's Hypothesis. For even in the Celebrated Catacheses' of Cyril, which our Adversaries produce in Triumph against us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Apparent or Visible Bread signifieth true and real Bread, the Substance, and not the mere appearance of it, as much as 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Catech. Myst. 3.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Apparent or Visibile ointment, signifieth true ointment or the Substance of the Chrism. And indeed the Phrases above mentioned in Ratram designed to express the outward part of the Sacrament, are equivalent to an Expression of Origen, 
(k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. in Matth. p. 254. Edit. Huet.  who saith, that Holy Eucharist as to the material part, is digested and passeth into the draught.  
For Bertram expresseth himself in the same manner, and makes all the several Phrases which follow, equivalent, viz. 
(l) Num secundum hoc quod videtur, quod Corporaliter sumitur, quod dente premitur, quod fauce glutitur, quod receptaculo ventris suscipitur, etc. n. 52.  As it is seen, as it is Corporally received, pressed by the Teeth, and passed down the Throat, into the Belly. Now what this material part of the H. Eucharist is, Origen himself very expressly declares, viz. 
(m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  the Material Substance of Bread.  
3. M. Boileau makes the word Body to imply only the 
(n) Corporaliter & Secundum corpus en ce que paroist aux sens corporels. n. 15. See the Remarks.  sensible Qualities and corporally to be in a sensible way. The Exposition is very harsh yet to justify it, he doth not allege so much as one Instance in which these are so used by any Father or other good Author. It were easy for me to produce an hundred instances of its being taken otherwise: but to save both myself and the Reader trouble, I will content myself to offer two or three places in this Tract in which it cannot without falsehood and absurdity be so rendered.  
N. 15. We see there is nothing CORPORALLY changed in them, therefore they must needs acknowledge that they are changed in some other respect than that of the BODY, etc.  
I presume none will deny that in this place the Terms Corporally, and in respect of the Body are equivalent, and are opposed to Figuratively, in Signification or Spiritually, and sometimes to Virtually, or in respect of its Efficacy. Now there lies no Antithesis between an Appearance and a Figure, or between, Sensible Qualities and Signification; but there is a manifest Antithesis between in Verity of Nature and in Figure, between the Substance and Signification of the Consecrated Elements, and such as is authorized by many examples, some whereof have been lately produced: whereas I dare challenge M. Boileau and all his Brethren of the Sorbon to make a single instance in St. Ambrose, Jerome, Augustin, Fulgentius, or Isidore (which are all the Fathers cited in this Tract) of an Antithesis between Appearance, and Signification.  
Again, if corporally changed be no more than Sensibly or in outward Appearance changed, than Ratrams Discourse is impertinent upon two accounts. 1. For labouring to confute an Absurd Doctrine which no Body maintained; for it is not pretended, that Ratrams Adversaries affirmed that Consecration made any change in the sensible Appearances of the Hallowed Bread and Wine. And 2dly. For proving more than was needful, he mentions all the three kinds of Physical Changes, he proves that Consecration doth not work any of the three, whereas it had been sufficient for him to have shown that it made no Alteration. And indeed by proving, that nothing is Generated, or Corrupted, he proves effectually that Bread and Wine remain after Consecration, which will not consist with the Council of Trent.  
Besides, if this were his meaning, that nothing is Sensibly changed, when he denieth a Corporal Change, it is very wonderful, that he should no where 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, etc.  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 humour corruptibilis. n. 18.  in Propriety of Nature, or 
(r) Nam Substantialiter nec Panis Christus etc.  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 easy 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 itself 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, etc.  
Will M. Boileau say, that Ratram believed, the Water to be Really and Substantially, though not Sensibly and in outward Appearance turned into the Blood of the People? If Corporally doth not signify Sensibly but in Bodily Substance, when he denieth the Water to be Corporally changed, than neither doth it signify 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 (though he saith the Calvinists confess it to be sometimes used Improperly) he hath Mustered 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 show of Authority is mere empty Appearance, for in those few of his Citations, where Substantiae is used for the Qualities of any Substance, it implieth them Subsisting in their Subject, and not of themselves their Subject being destroyed. Besides, what though 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 citys, 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  Judgement 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 CONSISTUNT. PANIS & VINUM 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 Specific 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 Saviour's 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 entire Body, and every drop of my Blood, 
(y) Sed Verè PER MYSTERIUM, PANEM ET VINUM in Corporis & Sanguinis mei conversa SUBSTANTIAM a Credentibus Sumenda. n. 30.  Than 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 Saviour's Flesh. This I did not observe when I Corrected the Latin Text according to the Lobez MS. and therefore have not altered the Translation. 2. He saith it is 
(a) Vere per Mysterium.  Mystically turned into the Substance of his Body and Blood, whence we may learn that it is not properly changed, it is a Mystical not a Natural and Substantial change, and therefore doth not change the H. Elements from their own Natural Substance, into the Proper Substance of our Saviour's Flesh and Blood. There may appear some Emphasis in the Adverb Vere in Truth, but the Addition of Per Mysterium mystically, clears the Author's meaning, who useth the Word to import the Sacramental Verity, not the Natural; For Sacraments give a true Representation, and the Real Benefits and Virtue of the thing signified, though they do not Exhibit the very thing itself. And this sense of the word True in Opposition to False, or Imaginary also to the Natural Sustance is clearly expressed by the Author of the Books 
(b) De Sacram. l. 6. c. 1. In Similitudine quidem accipis Sacramentum, Sed verè Naturae GRATIAM VIRTUTEMQVE consequeris. Suspicor legendum verae; sed nil ex conjectura statuo.  de Sacramentis, who to an Objection which I have mentioned before, I see the Similitude, not the Truth of Blood, Answers; Tho thou receivest the Sacrament in a Similitude, yet thou truly obtainest the Grace, and Virtue of the Natural Substance, which may improperly be styled the Substance of his Blood. And good Authority I find for this improper use of the word Substance in Sacramental changes in the Old Gallican Missal, published first at Rome by Thomasius, and after at Paris by F. Mabillon, in which we have this Collect. 
(c) Confirma, Domine, famulos tuos quos ex Aqua & Spiritu sancto propitius redemisti, ut veterem hominem cum suis actionibus deponentes, in ipsius conversatione vivamus, ad cujus SUBSTANTIAM per haec Pasc halia Mysteria TRANSTULISTI. Per. Miss. Gallic. Miss. Paschal. Fer vi.  Confirm, O Lord, us thy Servants whom thou hast graciously redeemed with water, and the Holy Ghost, that putting off the Old Man with his works, we may live after the Conversation of him, into whose SUBSTANCE thou hast by these Paschal Mysteries TRANSLATED us etc. This Prayer was made in the name of the New Baptised Persons on the Friday in Easter week. And you may observe that it speaks of those Neophytes as turned into the Substance of Christ, by the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper received immediately upon it. Which cannot be understood of the Natural Substance of his Flesh, but of his Mystical Body into which they were Incorporated by the Sacrament of Baptism, and made true Members of Christ, not in Verity of Nature, but in Veritate Mysterii vel Sacramenti, deriving true Grace and Spiritual strength from Christ their Head.  
I shall but in a word show how vainly he baulks the Adverb Figurement, Figuratively in Translating Figurate, and constantly renders it in a Figure, which I should not have noted, but that there is a manifest design to Insinuate, that the Accidents are the outward Sign and Figure under which not Bread and Wine, but the Natural Substance of Christ's Body and Blood do exist. And F. Mabillon 
(d) A.B. Sec. iv. p. 2. n. 116. Vno in versu duo sunt facinora, Primum quod Sub Figura vertit Figurement, uti etiam pag. 2. non enim ait Auctor haec Mysteria in Figura celebrari, sed Sub Figura quae Corpus Christi velet, non excludat.  imputes it a great Crime to the Huguenot Translator, that he hath rendered Sub Figura Figuratively; whereas to any Man who will consult this Author throughout, it will soon appear that the good Father departed from his usual Candour, in passing that severe Censure on his Countryman. For Ratram doth indifferently use the following Phrases, viz. 
(e) Mysteria Corporis & Sanguinis Sub Figura dicit celebrari, n. 34. Verba autem St. Augustini ita se habent. Figura ergo est, n. 33. quibus contraria esse affirmat Ratramnus placita eorum qui docent non in Figura▪ n. 32. Aliud exterius per Figuram ostentans, n. 92. Figurate Christi Corpus & Sanguis existunt, n. 10. Secundum quendam modum Corpus Christi esse cognoscitur, & modus iste in Figura est, n. 84.  Under a Figure, in a Figure, by a Figure, Figuratively, and it is a Figure, affirming in all these various ways of Expression, that the Holy Eucharist is Christ's Body, as may be seen, by the Instances in the Margin, and indeed the words in a Figure, do not imply the Holy Eucharist to consist of the Person of our Saviour under the Accidents of Bread and Wine, which our Adversaries call the Figure, or Veil: For St. Austin 
(f) Petra Christus in Signo, Verus Christus in Verbo & in Carne, n. 78. i. e. Signum Christi, non Verus Christus.  cited by Ratram, saith, That the Rock was Christ in Signo, which imports not, that it was Christ personally present under the Appearance of a Rock, but that the Rock was a Sign or Type of Christ. So in his Exposition of the LIV 
(g) David in Figura Christus est, Tom. 8. in Ps. 54.  Psalms, he saith, David was Christ in a Figure, that is, a Figure of Christ, or Figurately styled the Christ, or Anointed of God.  
2. He likewise amuseth us, as though there were some special Mystery in those Verbs, which according to the Tumid Style of the Middle Ages, Ratram useth instead of the Verb Substantive Est. And therefore he renders 
(h) N. 12. Et alibi passim.  Cognoscitur, is sensibly known. Cernitur and Videtur, appears to our Bodily sense; in the like manner Ostenditur and Monstratur: Now if there were any Emphasis intended in the use of these words, as perhaps sometimes there was, though not generally, yet the Emphasis is directly contrary to what M. Boileau makes it; for the Author doth not use those Terms by way of Reserve and Caution, or to express an uncertainty, as this Translator very ridiculously makes him rendering Videntur, it seems, N. 54. For where there is an Emphasis, they do vehemently affirm or deny, and imply the highest assurance of the Truth of what is said; the Evidence of Sense, and certain Knowledge, being the best grounds upon which we can conclude a thing either to be, or not to be. So that in the place newly mentioned, Ratram doth expressly say, That we see the Consecrated Bread and Wine remain in the former Species, or Kind, and not as our 
(i) Et depuis il semble qu'elles demeurent dans la meme espece, c'est a dire apparences. Remark p. 250.  Translator hath it; it seems they remain after Consecration in the same Appearance. And he useth promiscuously Videtur, Ostenditur, and Cernitur, which last is not capable of that doubtful sense, which the first may sometimes bear.  
However, I say commonly these Verbs are not Emphatical, but used for the Verb Substantive, as in the following Instances. 
(k) Non parva diversitas inter eos esse dinoscitur, n. 2. In quo nulla permutatio facta esse cognoscitur, n. 12. Non iste transitus factus esse cognoscitur, ibid.  There is no small difference [known to be] among them. Again, How can that be called Christ's Body, in which no change is [known to be] made. And the same Occurs at least four times over in the same and the next Paragraph, and is expounded by the Author himself, saying expressly, 
(l) Si ergo nihil hic EST permutatum, etc. n. 13. Nihil HABENT in se permutatum, n. 14.  that there IS nothing changed, and that the Bread and Wine HAVE NOTHING changed in them. Again, 
(m) Num mare secundum quod Elementum VIDEBATUR, i. e. fuit, Baptismi potuit habere virtutem? Vel Nubes juxta quod densioris crassitudinem aeris OSTENDEBAT, i. e. aer crassus & condensatus fuit, n. 20.  could either the Sea, as it was [seen to be] an Element, have a Baptismal virtue, or the Cloud as it did show condensed Air, sanctify the People. Did the Sea only seem to be Water, or had the Cloud only an Appearance of condensed Air, or were they in substance, the one Water, and the other thick Air? I must needs say, M. Boileau plays at small Games, when he lays so much stress on nothing, and hath the confidence, because Ratram saith, That the Body and Blood of Christ celebrated in the Church, are different from that Body and Blood which now is [known to be] Glorified, to aver that 
(n) Toute la difference qu'il y etablit entre le Corps de J. C. dans la gloire est que ce dernier per resurrectionem jam glorificatum cognoscitur, ae lieu qu'il n'avoit qu' a dire jam glorificatum existit, qui est un mot en usage, etc. Pref. p. 40.  all the Difference that Ratram makes between Christ's Body in Heaven, and on the Altar, is, that [both being his Glorified Body] the former Glorificatum Cognoscitur, is known to be Glorified, whereas he might as easily have said simply, IS Glorified. Now if by Cognoscitur, M. Boileau means, is sensibly Glorified, as I presume he doth, Christ's Body in Heaven to us, appeareth not Glorious, being received up out of our sight.  
He likewise mightily vapours with the word 
(o) P. 40. Pref. p. 224. Rem. etc. Iste Panis & Calix qui Corpus & Sanguis Christi nominatur & EXISTIT, n. 99  Existit, as though it imported the Existence of Christ's Natural Body in the Sacrament, and ten times over twits us with these words, The Bread and Cup is called the Body and Blood of Christ, and IS SO.  
Now all this Flourish hath nothing in it. For first, Our Author 
(p) N. 21. Baptismum tamen extitisse pro fuisse, n. 26. Angelorum cibus existit, n. 40. Mortis & Passionis— cujus existunt repraesentationes.  useth the word Existit, for Est, in forty places of this Book, of which see two or three Examples in the Margin, 2. Where he useth the word Existit, he generally addeth something that is Inconsistent with their Notion of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament: 
(q) Spirituale Corpus, Spiritualisque Sanguis existit, n. 16. Existum repraesentationes— ejus sumunt appellationem cujus existunt Sacramentum, n. 40. Secundum quid, n. 83. id est, Secundum quendam modum nimirum Figurate, quemadmodum clarius rem exponit Ratramnus, n. 84. Item de Corpore ex Virgin, Proprium salvatoris Corpus existit, de Mystico, Corpus quod per Mysterium existit, n. 97. & 96. Claret quia Panis ille Vinumque Figurate Christi Corpus & Sanguis existunt.  Telling us, either that the Bread and Cup are his Spiritual Body and Blood, or they are the SACRAMENT of his Body and Blood. That in some respect, [not simply,] they are truly his Body and Blood; and elsewhere intimates that they are not his proper Body, but only a Figure, or Mystery thereof; and expressly saith, near the beginning of this Tract, that it is clear, that the Holy Bread and Wine, are FIGURATIVELY the Body and Blood of Christ; by which Exposition of the Author himself, we are satisfied how we must understand that Passage, M. Boileau so much Triumphs in. But what most amazeth me, is to find, that in his Remarks on N. 16. and these words whence it necessarily followeth, that the change is made Figuratively, he makes a Flourish with Authorities, and makes a Parallel between Ratram, Paschase, and the second Nicene Council, 
(r) Rem. p. 225. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  making them all teach the same Doctrine, whereas our Author saith, That the Holy Elements, are Figuratively the Body and Blood of Christ, or the Spiritual Body and Blood, which is all one; and the Nicene Doctors say, that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, properly his Body and Blood. I would gladly be informed, in what Greek Lexicon Mr. Boileau finds that word expounded by Figurate.  
But thirdly, Those words of Ratram overthrow the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and by very firm 
(s) Ab est vel existit adjecti tertii, ad est adjecti secundi valet consequentia; Panis Corpus Christi existit, ergo Panis existit.  consequence infer, that the Bread and Wine do remain after Consecration. For by the Rules of Logic, this Argument is good, M. Boileau is Dean of Sens, therefore M. Boileau IS in being; and in like manner after Consecration, Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ: Therefore after Consecration, Bread and Wine do exist.  
Thus at length, I have done with his Exposition of our Author's controverted Terms, which if true, Mr. Dean would do well to Publish a Glossary on purpose to assist the Reader, who by the help of all the Dictionaries yet extant, will never be able to comprehend this Author's sense. But I must needs say, the difficulties are all Fictions of the Translator, who delights to perplex the most plain Expressions, and by new and bold Figures, and forced Significations invented to serve his design, hath offered manifest violence to our Author's words, in an hundred Passages of this small Piece. I confess he useth so great Licence, and indulgeth his Fancy at so extravagant a Rate, that I was almost tempted to think, that M. Boileau the Poet, had commenced Doctor in the Sorbon, and began unluckily to play the Divine, as Poets commonly do, when they begin their Theological Studies in their Old Age. If it had really been so, I could have pitied and forgiven him many Extravagancies, which are venial Faults in a Poet, but unpardonable in a Professor of Divinity.  
Here I once thought to dismiss him, but upon second Thoughts, I resolved to attend him a little further, and consider the Reflections wherewith he concludeth his Preface: I shall say nothing in defence of Protestant Translators three Reflections, which stand firm after all his weak assaults upon them.  
His first Reflection is, That supposing, though falsely, that Ratram intended to dispute against the Real Presence, yet since he treats his Adversaries as Catholics, and calleth them the Faithful; the Question in dispute must necessarily have been some opinion of less moment than the Real Presence; the belief thereof, or of the contrary, could never have been held indifferent by the Faithful.  
Not to spend time in exposing his absurd pretence to suppose a thing, when he immediately assumes, and concludeth the contrary, I deny this consequence, viz. Ratram doth not call his Adversaries Heretics, but treats them as Brethren, therefore he did not write against the Real Presence. All that can be concluded thence, is, that the Adversaries of that Doctrine were then as they still are, Persons of a more charitable and meek Spirit, than those who maintain and propagate it. There is a great deal of difference between Heresy, and some gross Errors, whose Patrons do not desert the Communion of the Church; and therefore it doth not follow, that because Ratram treats these Erring Brethren as Catholics, and includes them with their Adversaries in the common Notion of Faithful, he must needs esteem the Question in dispute of so little moment, that it was indifferent which way it was held. It's plain, he 
(a) Num. 11.  chargeth them with Consequences very absurd, 
(b) Num. 15.  with contradicting themselves, with subverting what they pretended to believe; 
(c) Num. 32. Sanctorum Scriptis Patrum contraire comprobantur.  and with contradicting the Authority of the Fathers, which are no very slight Accusations, and show plainly, that he did not esteem it a matter of no moment, whether his own or his Adversaries Opinion were embraced.  
His second Reflection is, That Ratram could not possibly write against Paschase, because he takes no notice of the Miracle of Christ's Apparition in the form of Flesh, alleged by Paschase in the fourteenth Chapter of his Book.  
To which I Answer, 1. That there is no necessity that he should take notice of this Miracle any more than he doth of his other Arguments, since, as it hath been before observed, that it is the Notion and not the Book of Paschase, against which he disputeth. He acts the part of an Opponent throughout, and never answers one Argument, save that he once, N. 56. obviates an Objection from St. Ambrose.  
2. That admitting us to pretend, that Ratram encountered the Book of Paschase, we may as fairly from our Author's Silence infer, that there were no such Miracles alleged in it, but that those Fables were since foisted in. M. Boileau saith, that Blondel rejects the whole Chapter as spurious; I have not his Book at command to see his Reasons, but I cannot believe he did it without all Authority, as is pretended. M. Boileau 
(d) Pref. p. 52.  himself saith enough to show, that the two last Miracles were foisted in, when he acquaints us, that one Old Manuscript hath all Three, but another more Ancient, only One. If one Superstitious Monk took liberty to Insert those two, why might not the first (which doubtless was the Fiction of some Greek Monk after the Second Nicene Synod) together with the Discourse that ushers it in, be a Forgery too?  
As for the Story of Gregory the Great, and the Roman Matron (which is likewise foisted into our Saxon Homily) out of the Life of that Pope, it was impossible that Paschase should allege it. Since that Life of Gregory was not written in many years after 
(e) According to F. Maubillon, A. D. 831.  Paschase had Published his Book, and admitting him to have Lived till 865. which is fourteen Years after the time when Sirmondus saith he Died; Paschase must have been at least seven Year in his Grave, before 
(f) Vide Vossium de Hist. Latin. l. 2. c. 36. de Joanne Diacono.  Joannes Diaconus wrote the Life of Gregory, (in which only it occurs) and Dedicated it to Pope John the VIII, who was Advanced to the Papal Throne, A. D. 872. that is, about forty Years after Paschase first Published his Book, and above twenty after his 
(g) A. D. 851.  Resignation of the Abbey, and consequently after his second Publication of it, with an Epistle to Carolus Calvus, in which he styleth himself Abbot.  
As for the story of Plegils the Saxon Presbyter, who prayed to see Christ in the form of a Child, and obtained his Request; it is a shrewd Presumption against the Antiquity, and Authority thereof, that it is omitted by the Interpolator of the Saxon Homily, who would hardly have neglected so remarkable a Miracle wrought in Favour of an English Priest.  
But Thirdly, not to stand exposing the Falsehood and Impudence of these feigned Apparitions, or rather of their Fabulous Author, 
(h) Joannes Diaconus lived near 300 years after. Gregory's Pontificate, is a Fabulous Writer and Author of the story of Trajan's Soul being Prayed out of Hell by that Pope.  they all prove too much, or else just nothing. For either in these Apparitions they saw what really was under the forms of Bread and Wine, and what really was Transacted in the Sacrament, or they did not. If they did not, the whole was a mere Illusion and Fancy. And on the other hand if they did, Then Christ according to the description of the first, and third Miracle is still an Infant, both the Jew and the Saxon Priest are said to have seen a little Child. Again, Christ must be divided into several parts, as the Jew saw his Body broken in Pieces in St. Basil's Hands. Again, every Communicant doth not Receive Christ Entire, but only some part of him, for the Roman Matron saw the Piece which she was to receive, turned 
(i) him bam ƿear ð aeteoƿed seo snaed ðaes husles ðe heo ðicgan sceolde sƿylce ðar laeg on ðam disce anes fingers liþ aeal geblodgod. Hom. Sax. Fol. 38.  into a Joint of the little Finger all Bloody. Again, at this rate Christ must be actually slain, and the Sacrifice of the Altar be a Bloody Sacrifice, for the Jew is said to see his Body divided in S. Basils' hands, and our Saxon Miracle Monger tells us that the two Monks, saw an Angel with a Sword at Consecration divide the Child's Body, and pour his Blood into the Chalice, and if so what becomes of the Doctrine of Concomitancy? So that either these Miracles prove nothing at all, or else they prove what will as little consist with the Romish Belief as with ours.  
His Third Reflection is this, That if Ratram had been against the Real Presence, he would not have failed to have Reproached the Greeks with the Belief of it, in his four Books Written against them,  
But this is a very Trifling Remark, for this was a point upon which the Greek as well as the Latin Church was at that time divided, and as it had been unreasonable to Reproach the whole Church with the Errors of one Party, so it had been Imprudently done to object to the Greek a Reproach which might have been retorton the Latin Church.  
But the true reason of his Silence on that Question is, that he had no occasion to mention it, since it was none of the Ten Points which F. Mabillon saith, were matter of dispute between the two Churches, and the Subject of Ratrams Book; 
(k) Capitula ista numero erant omnino decem, nempe de Processione Spiritus Sancti ex patre Filioque de jejunio Sabbati, de Coelibatu Presbyterorum, de Chrismatione Frontis Baptizatorum Presbyteris vetita, de Abstinentia octo heb domadarum ante Pascha non inchoata, de Barbae rasione Clericorum, de Episcoporum Ordinatione per saltum, de Primate Romani Pontificis, de Confectione Chrismatis ex aqua fluminis, & de Ob●atione agni in Festo Paschae. A. B. Sec. 4. p. 2. Praef. n. 160.  what they were you may see in the Margin.  
As for what he saith touching the Adoration of the Eucharist, it is not my Province to consider it, though I see nothing but what hath been long since objected by their Writers, and often Answered by ours; but my Appendix being already grown to more than double the Bulk first designed, I shall desire the Reader to consult our Authors who handled that Question at large, and particularly the Answer 
(l) A Discourse of the Adoration of the H. Eucharist. quarto London, 1686.  published about two years since, to M. Boileau's Book on that Subject which he mentions twice or thrice in the Preface.  
And at parting give me leave to offer one Reflection which any man, though of no very profound Reach must naturally make upon M. Boileau's design and methods in this Edition of Ratram.  
As there is nothing the Church of Rome boasts more of than a sure Rule of Faith, an Infallible Judge in Controversies, and their great Unity and agreement in Doctrine, so our late Deserters pretend, that our Dissensions which can never be Composed for want of a Supreme Tribunal in our Church, and our Uncertainty in matters of Faith, and want of any certain Rule for the direction either of our Belief or Conscience was ●he Cause why they left our Communion, for one in which they pretend there are none of these defects, and private Spirits, no such liberty of Interpreting the H. Scriptures as among us.  
Now who ever Reads M. Boileau's Preface must needs see, that there is nothing like that Unity which Mr. Sclater 
(m) Consens●s Vet. p. 6, 7. etc.  Celebrates in such Raptures of Joy, as would make a man imagine, that he had been upon his Conversion taken up into the third Heaven, and in an excess of Charity when he came down again, would have given all he was worth to find in one single Family in England, I presume he means his own, where the Father is divided against the Son, and the Son against the Father etc. according to the Letter of our Saviour's Prediction. But I leave him in his New Atlantis to entertain himself at this juncture with his Chimerique 
(n) Consens. Vet. p. 11.  Speculation of France under the Spiritual Tuition of 17 Archbishops, 107 Bishops, etc. Italy under one Supreme Bishop, Head of Unity, Conservator of Peace and Truth etc. and return to consider the wonderful Agreement of the Catholic Doctors.  
This small Tract for sixscore year, together is forbidden, Condemned for Heretical by the general Vote of most of their Great Divines, Popes, Cardinals and others; I may add the Council of Trent too, which had as great an Interest in that Index wherein Bertram stands Condemned, as it had in the Catechism. Now all on a sudden he is acknowledged for a good Catholic. But though he be so in France, I doubt in Spain and Italy, his Doctrine, were he alive to Answer for it, would bring him in danger of the Inquisition. Nay though this Tract be pronounced Orthodox at Paris by M. Boileau and his Brethren, yet at Lions it is Rejected as Spurious, or at least Adulterated with Heretical mixture, such Blessed Agreement is there among their Doctors of this and the last Age, and of those of France, with their Brethren in Italy and Spain; nay in France itself between M. de Marca A. B. of one Metropolitical Church, who saith, it was written by Jo. Scotus, and condemned in the Councils of Rome and Vercellis, and M. Dean of 
(o) See.  another Metropolitical Church, who saith it is Catholic, and written for the real Presence.  
Perhaps it may be said, that this is matter of Fact to which the Infallibility doth not extend, but not of Faith; But by their leave, I look upon it a matter of Faith, and what nearly concerns men's Consciences, especially in an Age of Conversions. For the Question is not whether the Book be  or Spurious, but whether the Doctrine which it contains be Orthodox or Heretical. Suppose a wavering Catholic should come to M. Boileau, and propose his doubts concerning the Trent Doctrine having been shocked in his belief thereof, by that passage of S. Austin, which made Frudegard doubt the Truth of Paschase his Doctrine, and make Confession of his Faith in the words of Bertram, Set your Heart at rest, your Belief is very sound, you are a good Catholic, would M. Boileau say. But then because this is but one Doctor's Opinion, should he Consult M. Paris who supported De Marca's conjecture, he would tell him this is down right Heresy, condemned in several Councils, and every body knoweth the Importance of that Sin, and that such a Declaration must needs disturb the Conscience, which was set at ease by M. Boileau's more favourable Sentence. Such certain direction have men in the Roman Communion for their Faith and Consciences over what we have! I am of opinion, few of their doubting Catholics, or New Converts are able to declare their Faith touching the Sacrament so Intilligibly and distinctly, as Ratram hath delivered his Judgement in this Book, and I fear few of their Spiritual Guides understand what is the Doctrine of their Church better than those Doctors who have Condemned Ratram for an Heretic.  
And withal, Where is the Obedience of private Spirits, and their deference to Church Authority, when three or four Sorbon Doctors confront three Popes, five Cardinals, besides Archbishops, and Bishops, with other Doctors, almost numberless▪ Methinks it looks like an Argument that private Spirits in that Communion, are as Wanton and Ungovernable, as among the Protestants. And methinks, Mr. Sclater seems to resolve his own Conversion into the Dictates of the private Spirit, and that whatever opinion he might have of those Divines, who carried Church Authority highest, yet he had little Reverence for it himself, otherwise he would have listened to the Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies, which are the public Doctrine of our Church, rather than the moderate Declarations of Bishop Forbes, Bishop Andrews, and Bishop Taylor, that is one single Bishop in each of those three Kingdoms, who notwithstanding believed Transubstantiation no more than we now do.  
And though he reproach our private Spirits with sensing the five little Words of our Saviour, any Man that ever looked into Controversy, can tell him, that the private Spirits of his Church have with a much more extravagant Wantonness, sensed those Words contradicting one another almost in the sense of every Word; and whilst they condemn us for admitting one Figure, Authorised by Scripture Examples, and the Authority of the Fathers, in which we all agree, they are forced without any such Authority to admit several, Quarrelling with one another about the sense of almost every Word. See Albertin. de Euchar. lib. 1. c. 9, 10, 11. Bishop Morton, of the Eucharist, Book the Second, Edition 1635. If this be the Unity which Mr. Sclater so much Applauds, let him enjoy it without our Envy.  
As for M. Boileau's part, he hath sensed this Author at such a rate, that using the same Liberty, a Man might make a Calvinist of Paschasius, a Roman Catholic of Barengarius, an Arian of Athanasius: And since Master Sclater 
(f) Consensus Veterum, p. 2.  offers the Hint, by telling of a thoughtful Gentleman, no doubt, who held it worth while to inquire, whether the Alcoran might not have its motives of Credibility; I shall add, that upon the same Privilege of perverting the natural sense of Words, which M. Boileau makes use of, he might Reconcile Mahomet with Christ, and make Gospel of the Alcoran.  
FINIS.   

An Account of the several Editions of Bertram.  
1. AT Cologne, A. D. 1532. in Octavo. Father Cellot saith, That this was Printed at Basil, not Cologne; but I know not why we may not believe it to have been Printed at Cologne, in regard Hermannus was then Archbishop, who favoured the Reformation; and though he did not at that time publicly declare, yet he might secretly encourge it.  
2. At Geneva, A. D. 1541. in Octavo. Wherein the Publisher hath taken upon him to correct the Author's Latin, as to put Servator for Salvator, etc. For which reason I have corrected nothing in Bertrams Text by the Authority of this Edition, nor noted his variations.  
3. In the Micropresbyticon, Printed at Basil, 1550. Fol. we find Bertram, p. 513.  
4. A Second Edition at Cologne, with Paschasius Radbertus, whom the Publisher mistook for Rabanus Maurus, and some other Pieces on that Argument, Octavo, A. D. 1551.  
5. At the end of a Diallacticon (which is said to be written by Bishop Poinet) Printed at Geneva, 1557. is Bertrams Book, Printed after the former Edition, at Geneva.  
6. Feuguereus, a Frenchman, and Professor of Divinity at Leiden, Published it with his Opuscula, in Octavo, Lugd. Bat. 1579.  
7. In the Catalogus Testium Veritatis, printed at Geneva, 1608. in Folio, it is inserted, after the Cologne Impression, Lib. 10.  
8. Lomierus hath Published this Book with Notes, which I have not seen, but have my Information from the Catalogue of Books, Prohibited newly by the French Clergy.  
9 There are two Editions in French and Latin; the latter in the Year 1672. The Latin Text of this Edition, being most accurate, is that which I followed, in the first Edition, save in manifest false Prints, or where F. Mabillon's M. S. hath directed a better Reading.  
10. Dr. Boileau, Dean of Sens, hath Published our Author in French and Latin, from F. Mabillon's Copy, Octavo, Paris 1686.  
11. In English, it was Printed A. D. 1549. which Translation was made either by Bishop Ridley, or his Advice, and is accurate enough, but the Language obsolete.  
12. In Scotland, it was Printed at Aberdeen, A. D. 1622. in Octavo.  
13. A. D. 1623. Sir Humphrey Lynd Published the Translation newly Reprinted.  
Casaubon told Archbishop Usher, that he saw a Manuscript of it in possession of Mr. Gillot, a Senator of Paris. Perhaps it was the same which I find in Thuanus his Library; which F. Mabillon saith, is not a true Copy.  
That Father however acknowledges, that there is an excellent Old Manuscript of it in the Lobe's Library in the Low Countries, upon the Sambre, in the Diocese of Cambray, and that he found another M. S. in a Cistercian Monastery in Germany, called Salem Weiler, written above 700. years since.  
All the Printed Editions I have seen and compared, except the first Cologne, that of Lomierus, and the Scotch Impression, and have noted all material Variations, except false Prints, and the arbitrary Variations of the Geneva Copy, but have followed the Text of D. Boileau, who tells us that he hath Printed after an accurate Copy of the Lobe's M.S. and I have distinguished the Text into Sections or Paragraphs, according to his Partition, that the Reader may without trouble, find our References to the Text of the Author, in either his Edition or mine.   

ERRATA.  

In the Preface.  
PAge 2. Margin, Line 2. Read Octavo. p. 9 l. 21. r. as ancient as, p. 18. marg. l. 12. r. ubi, p. 30. marg. l. 2. r. Ratramni, p. 32. mar. l. 17. r. humanae jure, p. 79. mar. l. 6. r. vestra, l. 7. r. Prostratis, p. 109. l. 24. r. unlikely.   

In the Book.  
Page 133. l. 13. deal the Body, p. 134. mar. l. 4. deal non, p. 136. l. 9 r. aspiciat, p. 138. l. 14. r. ut pote cum, p. 142. l. 15. r. monstratur, i 24. secundum, p. 144. l. 15. r. consideretur, l. 21. ex non esse, p. 146. l. 4. r. quod non fuit, p. 156. l. r. patres, p. 160. l. 14. r. atque potat, p. 164. l. 13. r. hoc non corporco, p. 165. mar. add Ps. 78.25. p. 169. l. 6. r. Corporis l. 18. propinquante, marg. r. Resurrexit, it. aliis, p. 180. l. 12. r. pro Paulus lege Apostolus, mar. l. 1. r. Haec, p. 186. l. 20. deal planissime, p. 188. mar. l. 3. r. Dispensationem, p. 194. mar. (a) r. in Impressis Domini, (b) Ibid. cap. 9 (c) Quod in editis, p. 218. l. 2. r. qui, p. 226. l. 21. deal Paulum, p. 228. l. 13. r. sequente eos petra, p. 229. mar. r. Joh. 6.50. p. 244. l. 18. r. habuere futurorum, sic & hoc, p. 252. l. 3. r. Membrum Corporis Christi, p. 254. l. 17. r. Quoniam.   

In the Appendix.  
Page 275. l. 6. for there, r. that, p. 276. l. 22. r. proved, p. 319. mar. l. 4. r. concessu S. Sedis, p. 328. l. 2. r. can bear, p. 330. l. 4. blot out Substance of, p. 333. l. 20. r. the Bread and Wine daily Consecrated, p. 356. l. 10. r. in the corporeal, p. 359. l. 23. r. these words, p. 371. l. 1. r. we [there] see, p. 373. l. 18. r. but that, p. 386. mar. l. 1. r. que— p. 329. l. 6. r. say that, p. 426. mar. l. 9 r. Species, p. 468. l. ●. for that read the.    

A Catalogue of some Books Sold by Thomas Boomer, at the Surgeons Arms in Fleetstreet, near Temple-Bar.  
1. FOrty Sermons by the Right Reverend Father in God, Ralph Brownrig, late Lord Bishop of Exeter.  
2. A Complete History of England, from the first Entrance of the Romans, under the Conduct of Julius Caesar, unto the end of the Reign of King Henry III comprehending the Roman, Saxon, Danish, and Norman Affairs and Transactions in this Nation, during that time: Wherein is showed the Original of our English Laws; the Differences and Disagreements between the Secular and Ecclesiastic Powers; The true Rise and Grounds of the Contentions and Wars between the Romans and our Ancient Kings: And likewise an Account of our Foreign Wars with France, the Conquest of Ireland, and the Actions between the English, Scots, and Welsh, during the same time; All delivered in plain Matter of Fact, without any Reflections or Remarks, by Robert Brady, Doctor of Physic.  
3. The Parable of the Pilgrim, Written to a Friend, by Simon Patrick, D D. Dean of Peterborough, the 6th. Edition corrected.  
4. Mellificium Chirurgiae, or the Marrow of Chirurgery, an Anatomical Treatise: Institutions of Physic, with Hypocrates Aphorisms, largely Commented upon. The Marrow of Physic, showing the Causes, Signs and Cures of most Diseases incident to Humane Bodies. Choice Experienced Receipts for the Cure of several Distempers. The fourth Edition enlarged with many Additions, and purged from many Faults that escaped in the former Impressions, Illustrated in its several parts, with 12. Brass Cuts, by James Cook of Warwick, Practitioner in Physic and Chirurgery.  
5. Certain Sermons and Homilies appointed to be Read in Churches, in the time of Q. Elizabeth, of Famous Memory, and now Reprinted for the Use of Private Families, in two Parts, in 12s.