A plea for the reall-presence Wherein the preface of Syr Humfrey Linde, concerning the booke of Bertram, is examined and censured. Written by I.O. vnto a gentleman his friend.

A PLEA FOR THE REALL-PRESENCE.

THERE are fiue points about which you may require ſatisfaction touched in Syr Humfreys Preface. Firſt concerning the deuided Iury of the diſſenſion of Catholike Authors about Bertram. Secondly the truth concerning the Author and authority of the booke. Thirdly, concerning the fidelity of the tranſlation therof into Engliſh. Fourthly, concerning the ſentence of Gods word about the Reall-preſence. Fiftly, concerning the belief in this point of the Church of the nynth age wherein Bertram liued, whereof Syr Humfrey doth much preſume, and ſeems to preferre the ſame before the word of Chriſt, as shall appeare. Theſe pointes I will declare with the moſt breuity and clarity I may.

THE FIRST POINT. Syr Humfrey conuicted eyther of falshood or groſſe ignorance about the Iury.

COncerning the Iury of Catholikes about Bertram, the Preface vttereth many vntruths, ſhewing (if this be done wittingly) the falſhood (if vnwittingly) the ignorance of the authour and that aſwell about the nature of thinges, as in the latin tongue.

In the firſt kind, he hath ſix groſſe errours and miſtakings, vpon which are grounded the ſix pretended diſſenſions of the twelue Catholick (by him choſen) Iurors, to goe vpon Bertram his doctrine and booke.

The firſt is, not to diſtinguiſh betwixt writing darkely of the truth, and openly againſt the truth. By this miſtaking he impoſeth a falſhood vpon Cardinall Bellarmine the Foreman of the Iury, and ſo maketh a iarre betwixt him andPreface fol. 7. b. lin 1. & fol. 4. b. lin. 6. 8. fol. 5. lin. 5. F. Perſons, the ſecond of the Iury who ſayth, that Bertram dyed Catholike and neuer taught hereticall doctrine: but this booke after his death hath been corrupted by heretikes. This verdict is the truth as ſhall afterward appeare. Neyther doth Cardinall Bellarmine ſay to the contrary that Bertram was a ſingular Nouelict, or that he was oppoſed for his hereticall doctrine. Theſe are Syr Humfreys miſtakings, not Bellarmines aſſertions. Bellarmine only ſayth, that Bertram (and Scotus before him) writ doubtfully of the truth, & moued questions about the Reall preſence, yet (ſaythBellar. l. 3. de Eu. char. c. 8. §. iam ſententia. he) neither they, nor any other in that age did teach openly againſt it. So that by Cardinall Bellarmines iudgment Bertrā might be Catholicke in his opinion, as F. Perſons ſayth, though for his darke writing he were miſliked.

The ſecond errour, is to thinke that if one write truely in ſenſe, he is not to be condemned for vſing darke & doubtful ſpeech againſt the ſtyle of the church. Vpon this errour is built the ſecond oppoſition betwixt the two next Iurors. Becauſe Langdalius ſayth: Bertram Preface fol. 5. a. circa finē & b. init. for ſenſe held the Catholicke doctrine, Aug. epiſt. 188. but tranſgreſſed in the forme of wordes, Syr Humfrey inferres, that then Garetius had no reaſon to ſay, that Bertram writ fondly or dotingly. As though to croſſe the tradition of the Church though but in forme of words were not Dotage or inſolent madnes, and againſt the preſcript of the Apoſtle:1. Tim. 6.20. Shune prophane nouelty of ſpeech: Vſe 2. Tim. 1.13. the forme of ſound words.

The third errour, is to make the publiſhing of doctrine againſt the truth, and the publiſhing of a booke that writs darkly of the truth, to be the ſame. By this errour, he putteth variācefol. 6. lin. 4. betwixt D. Sanders ſaying: The Sacramentarian doctrine was not published in Bertrās age. And M. Reynoldes, who affirmes, That Bertram (as Scotus had done before him) writ doubtfully of the truth of the Sacramēt. What oppoſitiō I pray you betwixt theſe two ſentences, that Syr Humfrey ſhould ſay they hold togeather, like fol. 5. lin. vltim. a rope of ſande? Yea, doth not the ſaying of M. Reynolds confirme the ſaying of D. Sanders? For if (as M. Reynoldes, ſayth) euen Bertram and Scotus that are moſt challenged in this matter, taught not ſacramentarian doctrine openly, but only writ doubtfully of the truth, then moſt true is the ſaying of D. Sanders, that the ſacramentarian doctrine was not published or taught publiquely in that age. Is it not great ſeelines to challenge thoſe ſpeeches as contradictious and holding togeather as a rope of ſande, which ſo agree, and are ſo knit togeather as the one includeth the other?

The fourth errour, to thinke that one cannot be the diſciple or follower of one that is dead many hundred yeares: according to which errour men now liuing could not be the diſciples and followers of the Apoſtles, and of their doctrine. This is the ground of the diſcord he deuiſeth betwixt the ſeauenth and eighth of the Iury. Becauſe Valentia ſayth, that Bertrams book is taynted with the leuen of Berengarius his errour; Syr Humfrey Fol. 6. a lin. 20. vrgeth his ſaying as oppoſite vnto Poſſeuinus, that Oecolāpadius corrupted the booke, and ſet it out vnder Bertrams name, for (ſayth Syr Humfrey) Berengarius liued 600. yeares agoe, and Oecolampadius an hūdred. As who ſhould ſay Oecolampadius could not be a Berengarian in opinion, & infect bookes with that leuen, becauſe he liued fiue hundred yeares after Berengarius.

The fifth errour, is to thinke, that Catholickes, who ſay Bertram writ a booke of the body & blood of our Lord, do therefore affirme, this booke ſet out by Oecolampadius, to be his booke, & alſo to be pure and incorrupt without any nouell inſertion of hereticall ſtuffe. This errour is tranſcendentall in all this quarell with the Iury, butfol. 6. b. lin. 10. particulerly, it cauſeth him to conceaue a diſſention betwixt Heskins, that ſayth Bertram writ a booke ſuſpiciouſly, and Sixtus Senenſis, who ſaith, that the booke was corrupted and ſet forth by Oecolampadius in Bertrams name. A great contradiction ſure. Might not the booke that was written doubtfully by Bertram, be corrupted afterward by plaine hereticall aſſertions, & ſet out in his name ſo corrupted by Oecolampadius?

The ſixt errour, that a pious and godly man may not write darkely concerning ſome myſtery of fayth. Hence becauſe Eſpencaeus the 11. Iuror ſayth, Bertrams booke to be darke, obſcure, intangling his Reader, he vrgeth him to contradict Tritemius In chronico. the twelfe and the laſt Iurour, ſaying: Bertram was a learned and Godly man, and writ a booke of the body and bloud of our Lord: yea syr Humfrey fol. 7. a lin. 18. to make heere ſome ſhew of contradiction where none is, with more cunning then ſincerity, helpeth the matter. For whereas Tritemius ſayth, Bertram writ a prayſe-worthy worke of Predeſtination, and one booke of the body and blood of our Lord, Syr Humfrey leaueth out the book of predeſtination, and turnes the title of prayſe-worthy from it, on the booke of the body and bloud of Chriſt, making Tritemius ſay: Bertram writ a prayſe-worthy worke, to wit, one booke concerning the body and blood of our Lord. Can this be well excuſed in syr Humfrey from witting miſrelation to deceaue?

In the ſecond kind, to wit concerning syr Humfreys eyther of falſhood or ignorance of latin, I ſet downe theſe ſix examples, which ioyned with the other, ſix make vp a Iury.

Firſt, to winne a few yeares of antiquity vnto Bertram, and to make him ſeeme the great writer of Charles the Great: whereas Tritemius ſayth, that Bertram writ a prayſe-worthy worke Ad Carolii Regem fratrē Lotharij Imperatoris. Vnto King Charles, brother of Lotharius Emperour, he tranſlates, Vnto fol. 7. a lin. 13. Charles the Great the Brother of Lotharius the Emperour, which is groſſe and ridiculous abſurdity in hiſtory, euery man that hath any ſmacke of learning knowing that Lotharius was Grand-child to Charles the Great, not his brother.

Secondly to the ſame purpoſe: Whereas theIudex expurgat Belgic. in Bertramo. Doway-cenſure ſayth, that Bertram was Carus Carolo non tam magno quàm caluo. Deare vnto Charles not ſo great as bald, he tranſlates, Deare fol. 10. a. lin. 2. vnto Charles the Great. Syr Humfrey was loth that this his ſo much eſteemed Bertram, on whoſe head he hath ſet all his credit he hath, or is like to haue, ſhould be thought to haue written to a bald Emperor, fearing ſome ſhould thēce inferre that he was a bald Authour, as they may, with as much reaſon as Syr Humfrey doth conclude,fol. 3. b lin. 5. & 6. that he was a Great authour, and no flye, becauſe he writ to a Great Emperour.

De viſib. monar. l. 7 An. 816.Thirdly, whereas D. Sanders ſayth: Quidam ſuſpicantur, ſome ſuſpect the booke of Bertram to be forged vnder his name, he tranſlatesfol. 5. b lin. 9. ſome ſay, & vpon this, and no better euidencyfol. 6. a lin. 3. accuſeth Doctour Sanders that he ſayth, The booke is not Bertrams, but ſome obſcure Authour. As though there were no difference betwixt doubting and iudging, ſuſpecting and ſaying, whereas when we haue but ſuſpition of a thing, the common phraſe is, I cannot ſay it.

Fourthly, whereas Valentia ſayth: Dubium Valen. de preſen. Chriſti in Euchar. l. 1. cap. 2. est, it may be doubted whether Bertram be authour of this booke, & fieri poteſt, it may be that Bertram writ catholikly, & his booke was afterward corrupted. Notwithſtanding this ſo great cautelouſnes of Valentia, to ſhew he did but coniecture, Syr Humfrey makes him peremptory abſolute, and to ſay without any doubt or feare: The fol. 6. a lin. 13. worke is ſpurious.

Fiftly, whereas Garetius ſayth: Delirare coepit Bertramus: Bertram began to write dotingly. Syr Humfrey tranſlates, He fol. 5. a lin. 20. was an old dotard: fondly and dotingly. For to be a dotard, and to write in one matter dotingly be differēt things ſeeing one act implyeth not the habit, yea a learned man in ſome occaſion may write abſurdly. Neyther doth Garetius miſlike Bertram in regard of his agednes or antiquity, as Syr Humfreys tranſlation inſinuates, by making him ſay: He was not only a Dotard, but an old Dotard, but contrarywiſe in reſpect of the nouelty of his phraſe, and for his new doting, and becauſe the former part of the booke is Catholicke and contrary to the later, which ſoundes of hereſy, a ſigne that eyther the booke is corrupted, or els the Authour when he writ, was not preſent to himſelfe.

Sixtly, whereas the Doway-cenſure ſayth: Non diffitear Bertranum neſciuiſſe exactè. I will confeſſe Bertram knew not exactly, how accidents ſubſiſt without a ſubstance; fol. 10. b. lin. 22. Syr Humfrey tranſlates: I doubt not but Bertram was ignorant, how accidents exactly ſubſiſt. Had Syr Humfrey beene exact and not ignorāt in Latin he would not perchance haue ſo many wayes miſconſtrued a few latin wordes. Eſpecially he would neuer haue ioyned exactly with to ſubſist, which both the text and reaſon ſhew muſt ioyne with to know; for there is difference betwixt knowing and exact knowing, but no difference betwixt ſubſiſting and exact ſubſiſting. So that the Cenſure ſayth not that Bertrā was wholly ignorant, as Syr Humfrey pretendes they ſay, but only that he knew not ſo exactly how to declare the manner of tranſubſtantiation, as Deuines in this age.

I omit many other the like errours committed, as I ſuppoſe not in fraud, but through ignorance of Latine, though Syr Humfrey turne, and make vſe of them to the aduantagement of his hereſy in blindenes of zeale. Theſe I haue noted, ſhew ſufficiently, that the contentions betwixt Catholikes which Syr Humfrey would exhibite in his Preface, haue no other ground, but his ignorance, and miſpriſion, and therefore are like to the battailles of Lucian Lucian verae hiſto. fought by mighty armyes vpon the Iland of Cobb-webs.

THE SECOND POINT. Concerning the truth of the Authour, and authority of this Booke.

THIS queſtion may eaſily be decided among them that will ſet wrangling aſide, & ſeeke ſincerely after the truth, that will diſtinguiſh what is doubtfull from what is probable, and what is probable from what is certaine, euident & agreed vpon, as will appeare by the proofe of theſe aſſertions.

Firſt, it is very probable, that this booke of Bertram was written in the Nynth Age after Chriſt, when Bertram liued. For though there be not any ancient authour that maks mention therof, none I ſay that liued and dyed before Luther (forSee Poſſem. his Apparatus Tritemius the auncienteſt of Syr Humfreys Iury, and to whome he doth attribute moſt, dyed ſince Luthers reuolt from the Church) yetSee Paſchaſ. his booke de corpore & ſangui. Domini. tom. 4. Bibliot. SS. PP. Paſchaſius Abbot that liued in that age of Bertram writes in ſo direct oppoſition againſt this booke, as it is likely he writ of purpoſe againſt it, as will appeare probable vnto any that ſhall compare the two treatiſes togeather. Whence I inferre, that it is great want of iudgement in Syr Humfrey fol. 4. lin. 10. to contend, that Paſchaſ • us writ not againſt this book For heerby he ouerthrowes the very ground of all his diſcourſe; ſeeing Paſchaſius his writing againſt this booke, is the only argument that the ſame was writtē about the tyme of the nynth Age after Chriſt, & affords ſome poſſibility, that it might be Bertrams.

Secondly it is euident, that the booke is darke, doubtfull, intricate. For this is more then apparent vnto all them that are able to iudge, and with any indifferency peruſe the book. And to omit diuers darke paſſages of his booke, and particulerly where heVide l. Bertram. in catalog. Teſt. verit. l. 10. col. 1602. ſeems to teach moſt cleerely the fooliſh and impious Paradoxe of Beza, That In cō cil. Montiſ-belgart &c contra Heſſus. p. Corpus Chriſti nō tantum efficacia ſed etiam eſſentia tempore Abrahae extitit. the body of Chriſt did truly and ſubſtantially exiſt before his incarnation in the wombe of the Virgin. This is a manifeſt ſigne of Bertrams obſcurity, that euen ſome Catholikes thinke the book inclineth vnto the Sacramentarian doctrine, againſt Tranſubſtantiation: & on the other ſide, euen Proteſtants acknowledge, that the booke fauoureth Tranſubſtantiatiō. In ſo much as the famous Proteſtant hiſtorians of Magdeburge write: Semina Cont. 9. c 4. §. de caena. col. 212. tranſubstantiationis habet Bertramus. Bertrams little booke conteyneth the ſeedes and originall ground of Tranſubſtantiation. Which is confirmed by the teſtimony ofDe verbis inſtitut. Paſchaſius, who writing againſt this booke doth teſtify, that though in thoſe dayes ſome ſpake obſcurely about the Reall preſence, and out of ignorance erred, yet ſayth he, no man hitherto hath openly denyed what the whole world doth beleeue and confeſſe, to wit, the Reall preſence, or the change of bread and wine into the body and bloud of our Lord.

Thirdly it is agreed vpon, that additions haue beene made vnto this book, ſince the firſt writing therof in the nynth age. For this no Catholicke denyes, many Catholicks conſtantly affirme, the parts of the book ſo diſſonāt in doctrine, the one from the other confirme: TheIndex expurg. Belg. Non obſcurè infuſa & inſerta. Doway-cenſure vnto which Syr Humfry doth appeale, conſents and giues ſentence, that the booke hath beene corrupted, and that this is manifeſt. FinallyIoſias Simler. in Biblioth. vniuer. & concord. Gen. Proteſtants themſelues confeſſe, that when theycenſura Duacē. in Bertrā. firſt printed the booke in this age, to wit, Coloniae anno 1532. that the ſame was printed with additions: Additis Augustini, Ambroſij, & Euſebij ſuper ea re ſententijs, The ſentences of Auguſtin, Ambroſe, and Euſebe being added thereunto. And if the ſentences of Auguſtine, Ambroſe, Hierome, (for in lieu of Euſebe they ſhould haue ſayd Hyerome out of whome ſome ſentences are challenged in this treatiſe, but none out of Euſebe) if I ſay theſe ſentences were added vnto the booke, as Proteſtants confeſſe, then alſo the inferences and conſequences framed thereupon were added, and conſequently the greateſt and moſt ill-ſounding part of the booke.

Fourthly, it is exceeding doubtfull, whether Bertram were the Authour of this booke, whereof neyther Syr Humfrey, nor any man els hath brought ſo much, as a good coniecturall proofe. For though it be probable the booke was written in Bertrams age, yet it doth not thereupon ſtrayghte follow, it was written by Bertram, yea there be better coniectures for the contrarary. For if Bertram had beene authour of this booke written againſt the Reall Preſence, as Syr Humfrey thinkes: certainly Berengarius would haue named Bertram for his predeceſſour, and which yet he neuer did. For why not Bertram aſwell as Ioannes Scotus that was in the ſame age with Bertram, whoſe booke the ſayd Berengarius did magnify, becauſe written doubtfully of the Reall preſence, calling him his maiſter, andLanfrancus in libro cont Berenga. extolling him aboue the more ancient Fathers. Agayne if that booke had beene publiſhed in that age with Bertrams name, Paſchaſius who wrote againſt that booke, would not haue ſpared Bertrams name, but haue written againſt him by name, ſo to haue impayred his credit, that otherwiſe might giue authority to the errour. Specially ſeeing he named ſome of that age, that ſpoke and wrote darkely of the Reall Preſence, as Feuedardus the knight. Why, was there neuer any mention of Bertram as inclining vnto the Doctrine of Berengarius if he were authour of this booke? yea the Proteſtant Pantaleoncronograph. p. 65. making a Catalogue of the workes of Bertram, leaueth out this pretended booke.

Finally it is certaine, that though Bertram were authour of this booke, and the ſame written directly againſt Tranſubſtantiation, yet this is a matter of ſmal moment for Proteſtants, and not a ſufficient warrant that there hath beene ſo much as one Proteſtant of the now Engliſh religion before Luther or Caluin. For certain it is that Bertram (put caſe he erred in this point of the Reall preſence) was Catholike, and againſt Proteſtants in other, as appeares euen by this treatiſe, where he vrgeth Mingling Pag. 56. lin. 23. water with wine, affirming, that it is not lawfull to offer wine not mingled with water, as a thing ſacramentall & myſterious: hePag. 27 lin. 14. doth acknowledge the dayly ſacrificing and immolating of Chriſt on the Altar in the Sacrament of his body and bloud. He ranckes Chriſme or confirmation in the number of the Sacraments with Baptiſm and the Euchariſt, giuing it the middle place, and finally priuate Maſſes, or celebration with adminiſtration and communion.

Hence we may conclude two things. Firſt the great vanity of Syr Hū frey his preface, who ingageth his credit, to wit,Preface fol. 3. lin. 21. the credit of a pure profeſſour of the Ghoſpel, that is his fayth his Religiō vpon the worthynes of this tract, who ſo earneſtly and conſtantly affirmes Bertram to haue beene the authour thereof, and ſo triumphs againſt vs for a ſuppoſed diſſenſion among our writers about this toye. This I ſay is great vanity, the diſſenſiō being greater in his owne Church (to omit more mayne matters) euen about this book of Bertram, which though Syr Humfrey vrge as written by Bertram, as neuer ſince corrupted, as confuting Tranſſubstantiation: yet Proteſtants of greater credit, are of another mind. Some reiect the book from the number of Bertrās, as Pantaleon: ſome confeſſe the ſame to haue beene corrupted with new additions, as Ioſias Simlerus. Some contemne it as ſauouring of Papiſtry, namely of Tranſubſtantiation, as Illyritus. And ſeeing Syr Hūfrey knew this well enough as appeares by hisPraefa. fol. 5. b. lin 12. Reynold treatiſe againſt Bruſe c. 5. fol. 27. māgling a ſentence of M. Reynolds, wherein this is diſcouered; I wonder he could be ſo ſeely and blind, as not ſee that this furious blaſt of bitter inuection againſt vs coms backe by reflexion throughly v • on his owne ſelfe, againſt whome rather then vs, he thus thūders: How preface fol. 11. a. lin. 20. & ſequent. comes it to paſſe, there is ſo much difference of opinions concerning Bertram? How is it their kingdome is ſo deuided againſt it ſelfe that they cānot by any glew of concord, nor bond of vnity be conioyned? Some hold with Paul, ſome with Apollo, ſome allow the booke, others deny the Authour, Is the workeman, and the worke deuided? Is this the wiſedome and pollicy of the Church to crye ſome one thing, ſome another? Thus Syr Humfrey, and more of the like ſtuffe vttered in the ſame tune, floriſhing blindfold in his ignorant zeale, with euery word wounding himſelfe, and his owne diſagreeing religion.

Secondly, hence appeares Syr Humfrey his extreme & intollerable ignorance in matters of fact in ſaying: That Preface fol. 8. a. lin 18. & b. lin. 1. P. Clemēt the eight, and the Councell of Trent cōdemned Bertrā without a fol. 8. b. lin. 9. & fol. 9. a. lin. 7. legall, proceeding without triall of the party, without hearing him, or his aduocate to ſpeake for him, ſeauen hundred yeares after his death, a ſtrange thinge neyther allowable in Church, nor ſtate. Thus he. And it is ſtrange that a man no better learned, would vndertak to be a writer, vnto whome we may ſay what S. Auguſtine Lib. 1. cont. Creſcon. Grā mat. c. 3. Si non penitus inſtructus es cur non potius taces? ſayd to the lay-Donatiſt Creſconius. Though want of learning in a layman be not blame-worthy, yet being no better learned who forced thee to write? Being voyd of learning, why didſt thou vndertake the taske of writing, not being thereunto obliged by calling? Firſt for (to examine his ſpeech a little) is it not groſſe ignorance in ſtate, and ſtate-matters, to thinke that men may not be condemned after their death? wherein I will referre Syr Humfrey vnto Lawyers more learned them himſelfe, and vnto that famous Proceſſe of their Ghoſpell,Sander. de ſchiſm. Anglican. whereby S. Thomas of Canterbury, foure hundred yeares after his Martyrdome was ſolemnely arraigned and condemned of Treaſon.

Secondly concerning the Church and her affaires, I dare ſay there is not any man of learning that knowes not this doctrine of Syr Humfrey, that bookes and their authours after death may not be challenged and cenſured of hereſy, to be Neſtorian. Which doctrine was accordingly condemned in theVide Concil. Sanctum General. collat. 3. 4. 5. 6. fifth general Councel almoſt in euery action therof called of purpoſe, to cōdemneCollat 8. can. 12. 13. 14. Theodorus Bishop of Mopſueſtia, and his Neſtorian workes with ſome bookes of Theodoret, and of Ibas Biſhop of Edeſſa. In which Councell likewiſe the Fathers anathematizedCollat. 8. can. 11. Origenes foure hundred yeares after his death, curſing them that ſhould thinke this not to be a practiſe allowable in the Church. But alas, good Syr Humfrey dreamed not of this Councell, but ſpake of condemning men after their death only out of his mothers wit, according to which, that proceeding ſeemed to him vniuſtifiable. Beſids what more falſe, then that the Councel did not heare Bertram ſpeake, ſeeing the Cōmiſſioners read his booke, and ſo heard him ſpeake, as plainely as dead men can ſpeake, to wit, by their writings? Fourthly, who that knowes of what he ſpeakes would ſay, that Proteſtāts, Bertrams pretendedPreface fol. a. can. 19. Aduocats, were not admitted to ſpeake for him? For were they not cyted and ſummoned thither with licence, liberty, yea intreatyes to ſpeake freely their mind and produce the proofes of their doctrine? And becauſe they made ſhew to feare danger, had they notSee this ſafe conduct ſeſſ. 13. 14. 15. eos omnibus charitatis officijs vt inuitat, ita etiam cō plectetur. ſecurity from the Pope, from he Emperour, from the Councell, from the Catholike Princes? The truth is, that being guilty of the falſhood & impiety of their Religion, they durſt not appeare, though Syr Humfrey telleth vs a tale of a Tubb, or, which is as good, of a Puritā pulpit: That they were not admitted to ſpeake. Finally his whole diſcourſe is framed and founded vpon this falſhood, that Bertam and his booke was in the Councell, and by the Pope condemned of hereſy, whereas the perſon of the author was not touched with any cenſure, nor the booke condemned as hereticall, but only forbidden not by the Councell, but by a commiſſion frō the Councell, as being darke, obſcure, ful of ignorant phraſes, corrupted by heretikes.Fol 8. a. lin. 14. And this is alſo the iudgement of the Doway-cenſure, to which from the Councell, and Pope, Syr Humfrey doth appeale in Bertrams name; for it cēſureth that booke,See this cenſure in Indice expurgat. ſet out by Iunius ann. 1699. as of no worth, as darke, as full of ignorances, as corrupted by heretikes, not fit to be read vulgarely by Catholikes. Then add, which the Coùcell did neuer deny, that the booke being purged from hereticall inſertions, & cleared by the ſtarres of marginall annotation ſet ouer againſt the darke paſſages therof, may be read without danger. Whence appeares the ſeelines of Syr Humfreys ſayd appeale from Pope and Councell vnto theſe Doway-cenſurers, concerning whome he hath this ſentēce wherin euery mā that knows any thing, wil ſee there is not one true word as may likewiſe be ſeen by the references in the margent: They heare Who was choſē Pope 20. years after the Popes ſentence, the Councels That neuer was made. decree, the Who made no iudgment, but asked counſell of Doway. Inquiſitours ſeuere iudgment: they weigh ſoberly his accuſers reaſons: they examine diligently the authour himſelf, & finding the former doome Which they confirme. too heauy for ſo ſleight errours committed by him Condēning the booke, as darke, ignorant, corrupted by heretikes. they repeale the ſentence, and vpon more mature deliberation had of the They hold his doctrine, not to be againſt the Romā. authour, and of the doctrine, with the conſent He forſooth, gaue his conſent, that Doway ſhould repeale the decree of pope and Councell. of Philip the ſecond, and the Duke of Alba, to all The booke of Index expurgatorius for Inquiſitours not for all Catholiks. the Romish Catholikes in his behalfe ſend greeting. And then hauing ſet down the cenſure of Doway, corruptedly, omitting that part, wherein they affirme, that it is manifeſt that the booke was corrupted by Proteſtants in their firſt editiō thereof at Colen, he concludes: Heere then is their laſt definitiue ſentence: which ſaying of his is ſufficient to define (wher the matter is otherwiſe doubtfull) that Syr Humfrey his ignorance is intollerable, & euen ridiculous in one that preſumes to be a writer.

THE THIRD POINT. That Syr Humfrey in his tranſlatiō, hath moſt groſſely corrupted the booke of Bertram.

NOW let vs paſſe frō the Preface to the Tranſlation which I take to be Syr Hūfreys; for though he not directly ſo affirme, yet he inſinuates ſo much, and his adorning the ſame with a Dedicatory, with a long Preface, his ingaging all the credit he hath, and is like to haue in his church, vpon the worthynes thereof, ſhewes him the Authour. And makes me feare that he would take it ill, ſhould I ſuſpect the Tranſlation to be any others then his owne. Wherefore that Syr Humfrey may receaue his doome from Bertrams owne mouth, of whome he doth ſo bragge, I will in lieu of a Iury produce twelue places of Bertrams book, making ſo clearly for tranſubſtantiation & Catholik doctrine,Catalog. Teſtium veritatis, l. 10. anno 1568 apud Iacobum Staer, & Ia. cobum Chouet. as Syr Humfrey had no other way to hide the matter, but to tranſlate the places falſely, and that with exceſſiue audacity. The latin, according to which I examine Syr Humfrey his tranſlation, is ſet forth by Proteſtants in their booke tearmed Catalogus Testium veritatis.

The firſt place is pag. 4. lin. 19. That bread which by the Miniſtery of the Prieſt is made the Body of Chriſt, Catalogus teſtiū col. 1058. circa finem. doth shew one thing outwardly to mans ſenſes, and ſoundeth another thing inwardly to the mind of the faythfull; outwardly indeed the Forme of bread, which Subſtance it was before, is ſet out, the colour thereof is shewed, the ſauour tasted, but inwardly a thing farr differing is ſet forth, yea much more pretious and excellent, becauſe diuine, becauſe heauenly, to wit, the body of Chriſt. Fittly doth Bertram ſpeake in the behalfe of Tranſubſtantiation: and Syr Humfrey aſhamed to ſee ſuch papiſtry in him, ſeekes by miſ-tranſlation to lay a couer ouer it. Firſt, whereas Bertram ſayth, efficitur, bread is made, by the power of the Prieſt, the body of Chriſt, he tranſlates, becomes the body. Secondly whereas Bertram ſayth: Aliud longè pretioſius & excellentius oſtēditur, another more pretious and more excellent thing is ſhewed, he tranſlates, Is more pretious and excellently shewed. Thirdly and principally, wheras Bertram ſayth: Exteriùs quidem panis quod ante fuerat forma, pretenditur. The forme of bread (which thing or ſubstance before it was) is shewed, he trannſlats, Outwardly the forme of bread which it had before is shewed. Moſt falſely and groſſely. Firſt he makes the ſubſtantiall verbe fuerat, which ſignifyes ſubſtātially to be, to ſuppoſe, for habuerat the accidē tall verbe, which ſignifyes the being of thinges as adiacent vnto ſubſtance, not the prime and ſubſtantiall being. Secō dly quod, which is heere taken ſubſtantiuely, and ſignifyes the thing or ſubſtance of bread, which quiddity, or eſſence of bread, Bertram ſayth before conſecration was, but after conſecration is not. Syr Humfrey taks quod adiectiuely, referring the ſame vnto forma, the forme and ſhape of bread, ſo conſtruing the text, Forma quod ostenditur, which is ſuch childiſh and ſhamefull ignorance, as it is vnworthy to be noted: yet by this ignorance he peruerts the ſubſtāce of the Authours meaning.

The ſecond place is pag. 7. lin. 11. VVhat I pray you, In Catal. col. 1059. circa medium. can be more abſurd then to take Bread to be flesh, and to affirme VVine to be bloud? And a myſtery it cannot be, in which there is no ſecret or hidden thing contayned. And how can it be ſayd to be Chriſts body, in which is not knowne that there is any change made. Thus Bertram. Syr Humfrey in the margent noteth, that heere Bertram proues, that no change is made in the elements of the ſupper: cleare againſt the drift of Bertram, who by all meanes labours to proue, that the bread is changed not by change according to ſenſible accidents apparantly, but in the inward ſubſtance inuiſibly.

This is proued more cleerly by the third place pag. 9.In Catal. col. 1059. circa finē. lin. 12. This change (to wit according to outward qualityes) is not knowne heere to be made; for nothing heer can be found to be changed, eyther in touching, In Catal. col. 1059. circa finē. or colour, or taſt, or ſauour. Therefore if nothing be changed herein, it is not then any other thing or ſubſtance, then what it was before, but it is another thing, or ſubstance, becauſe bread is Syr Hū frey heere tranſlates becomes the body not made, which word he ſtill carefully auoides. In catal. col. 1060. l. 6. & ſeq. Made the body of Chriſt, and wine his blood: for ſo himſelfe ſayth: Take yee and eate yee, for this is my body; and ſpeaking of the cup, he ſayth likewiſe: This is the bloud of the new testament. Thus Bertram, cleerly ſhewing, that the Bread is changed ſubſtantially, but not ſo that the ſame outwardly appeare, but is hidden and couered with the figure and forme of bread.

This is againe made cleere by the fourth place pag. 11. lin. 4. Seeing then this cannot be denyed, let them tell vs how, & in what reſpect the elements are changed, for corporally Syr Hū frey tranſlates ſubſtantially to ſignify there is no ſubſtantial change. nothing is ſeene to be changed in them. Therefore they muſt of neceſſity confeſſe, eyther that they are changed otherwiſe then according to the body, and ſo not to be the thing that in verity they ſeeme, but another thing or ſubstance, which they are not Heer Syr Humfrey vnderſtood nor the latin ſeene to be according to their owne proper being. Or if they will not confeſſe this, they are compelled to deny, that they are the body of Christ, which is wicked not only to ſay, but alſo to thinke. This place is plaine, and Syr Humfrey doth many wayes by tranſlation obſcure it, as I haue noted in the margēt.

The fifth place pag. 22. lin. 5. VVe are truely perſwaded that no faythfull man doubteth, In catal. col. 1062. lin. 41. & ſequent. but that bread was made the body of Chriſt, of which he himſelfe giuing it to his diſciples, ſayth: This is my body. Syr Humfrey tranſlates quite contrary. For we thinke truely that any faythfull man doubteth whether that Bread becomes Christs body, making Bertram to affirme, that euery man doubts of this chāge of bread into Chriſts body.

In catal. col. 1063. lin. 6. & 7.The ſixth, pag. 24. lin. 1. Bertram makes Chriſt ſpeake in this ſort: Doe not thinke you shall corporally eate my flesh deuided into parts or drinke my bloud. Syr Humfrey tranſlates: Thinke not I pray you, that you must eyther bodily eate my flesh, or bodily drinke my bloud. So that Bertram his deniall of carnall eating, by tearing Chriſts fleſh into peeces, Syr Humfrey turnes into a deniall of ſubſtantiall eating thereof, by reall ſūption, wherasCyril. 10. in Ioā. c. 13. corporaliter & ſecundū carnem. In catal. vbi ſupra lin. 12. 13. 14. the Fathers in this ſenſe ſay expreſly: we take in the Sacrament the fleſh of Chriſt corporally.

The ſeauenth, pag. 24. lin 13. Bertram bringes Chriſt ſaying: Then (after my aſcenſion) the bread and wine turned into the Subſtance of my body and bloud, shall by the mystery, or Sacrament be truely eaten of the Faythfull. A place ſo cleare, that Syr Hū frey like a bat that endures not the light, would beate the ſame out by miſtranſlation. For thus it pleaſeth him to make Bertram ſpeake, Bread and wine being turned into my body, and bloud All this is added. the ſubstance thereof shall in a myſtery Verè omitted. be receaued. Firſt he addeth the word Substance, bread turned into the ſubſtāce of Chriſts body ſhall be eaten, ſayth Bertram, bread being turned into the ſubſtāce of Chriſts body, the ſubſtance of bread ſhall be eaten Syr Humfrey will haue him ſay. Is this to tranſlate, & not rather to peruert the meaning of Authours, and make thē to ſpeake fōdly? For if bread be turned in the ſubſtāce of Chriſt body, how can the ſubſtāce therof remaine & be eatē. Secō dly he leaueth out the word truly, ſaying only it is eaten, whereas Bertram ſayth: it is truely eaten, which is a ſubſtantiall omiſſion in Bertram: becauſe Bertram in the beginning of his booke, declares that he takes truly, to ſignify the ſame, as in ſubſtance, really, & not only in figure, ſo that if the body of Chriſt be truly eatē in Bertrams opinion, it is eaten in the ſubſtance thereof really, and not only in figure.

The eight Bertrā ſaith pag. 27. lin. 13. VVas not Chriſt immolated in himſelfe only once, Catal. col. 1063. circa finem. and that about Eaſter: and yet in the Sacrament not only in all the feſtiuall dayes of Eaſter, but alſo euery day he is ſacrificed, or immolated by the people. Thus Bertram, which is ranke papiſtry. Now heare Syr Humfrey tranſlating Bertram not into Engliſh, but into Proteſtancy. VVas not Chriſt offered about that tyme: And yet notwithstāding he is not only euery feast of Easter but euery day offered vnto the faythfull people. Thus is Bertram trimmed by Syr Humfrey according to the Proteſtant cut.

In Catal. col. 1064. circa medium.The ninth, Bertram ſayth pag. 30. lin. 8. It is not ſayd, that Christ doth ſuffer in himſelf euery day which he did but once? Syr Humfrey to make this place ſound againſt the Maſſe, or dayly oblation of Chriſts body, tranſlates, It is not ſayd that Chriſt offers himſelfe euery day, becauſe he did it but once.

The tenth, Bertram ſayth pag. 41. lin. 6.Catal. col. 1066. circa finem. According to the ſubstance (or corporall Maſſe) the creatures what they were before, the ſame they afterward remaine. But they were before bread and wine, according to which forme & shape they are ſeene ſtill to remayne. Therefore the thing is inwardly changed by the mighty power of the holy Ghoſt, which change fayth beholdeth. This place is too perſpicuous for Tranſubſtantiation, therefore Syr Humfrey in his tranſlation makes a Tranſubſtantiation thereof, changing the very ſubſtance of the ſenſe into his owne contrary meaning: VVhatſoeuer they were before conſecration they are euen the ſame afterwards, but they were bread and wine before, and therefore they remayne the ſame, which is proued, becauſe we ſee that euen whē they are conſecrated, they remayne in the ſame kind or forme. Surely Syr Humfrey, this is not to tranſlate Authours out of Latin into Engliſh, but to tranſlate fancyes out of your owne head into their Treatiſes. For Bertram was wiſer, then to make this fooliſh argument, which you foyſt into his booke; Bread remaynes in forme and ſhape, therefore it remaynes in ſubſtance.

The eleuenth, Bertram often in this Treatiſe names the dayly celebration of the myſteryes, ſignifying the cuſtome of priuate maſſes, or celebrations without communion, which Syr Humfrey not ē during, ſtill aſwell in Bertram as in the ſentences of other Fathers tranſlates celebration and adminiſtration, by this addition to make Bertram a Proteſtant.

The twelfe and laſt place pag. 42. is moſt notoriouſly corrupted,Catal. col. 1067. init. where for fourty lines togeather, he tranſlates not one ſentence, line, or almoſt word with correſpondēce vnto the latin text. I will note only his corruptiō of one line therof. Bertram hath this ſentence: Corpus eſt Chriſti quod cernitur, & ſanguis qui bibitur; nec quaerendum quomodo factum ſit, ſed tenendum quod ſic factum fit. VVhat is ſeene is Chriſts body, what is drūk is his bloud, neyther ought we to ſearch the manner how it is done, but beleeue that ſo it is done. Syr Humfrey thus tranſlates: That is Chriſts body which is ſeene, that is bloud which is drunke, and we muſt not enquire how it is made, or becomes his body, but beleeue and hold, and ſo it is become his body. Thus he thruſts into Bertrams booke his Puritanicall fayth, Crede quod habes & habes: I now appeale vnto the iudgement of any indifferent Reader to giue ſentēce. Firſt whether Syr Hūfrey haue not manifeſtly corrupted the book of his Bertram? Secondly, whether the booke can be cleare againſt Tranſubſtā tiation, and vtterly ouerthrow the ſame, as Syr Humfrey boaſtes, that in ſo many places makes ſo clearely for it. Thirdly, whether it be not the greateſt vanity in the world to build a Religion againſt the Roman Catholicke, and ſaluation out of their Church, vpon this tract which is ſo papiſticall, as syr Humfrey his Engliſh tranſlation is euen aſhamed therof. Finally, whether the Proteſtants be not in extreme miſery and beggary for want of profeſſors and recorders of their Religion before Luther, that can find no better then this Booke, and this Authour, wherof they bragge beyond meaſure?

THE FOVRTH POINT. A grand Iury againſt Syr Humfrey, shewing the Reall preſence, which he terames, a dead letter to be the doctrin of Gods holy word and the perpetull doctrine of the Church.

THE infinite wiſedom of Gods holy ſpirit foreſeeing with what difficulty the Reall preſence of Chriſts ſacred fleſh, and pretious bloud in the Sacrament would be beleeued of carnall men, in regard of the repugnance with reaſon, the ſame ſeemes to haue in their iudgement, would haue all the holy Scriptures to ſet downe this truth, more often, and ſequently, more ſolemnely, & of ſet purpoſe, more cleerely & expreſſely, then the truth of any other chriſtiā doctrine. Out of which I gather theſe twelue expreſſe and formall ſentences in this behalfe from Chriſt Ieſus his own mouth.

Ioan. 6.51The firſt. The bread which I will giue, is my flesh, which I will giue for the life of the world.

Ibid. 53. The ſecond. Verily, verily, except you eate the flesh, and drinke the bloud of the ſon of Man, you shall not haue life in you.

Ibid. 54.The third. VVhoſoeuer eateth my flesh, and drinketh my bloud, hath eternall life, and I will rayſe him vp at the laſt day.

Ibid. 55.The fourth. My flesh is meate indeed, my bloud is drinke indeed.

Ibid. 58.The fifth. This is the bread that comes downe from heauen.

Ibid. 57.The ſixt. As the liuing Father hath ſent me, and I liue by the Father: ſo he that eateth me, he shall liue by me.

The ſeauenth.Ibid. 56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

The eight.Ibid. 59. Not as your Fathers did eate the Manna in the wildernes, and are dead: He that eateth this bread, shall liue for euer.

The nynth.Mat. 26. v. 26. 27. & 28. And as they were eating, Ieſus tooke bread, bleſsed, brake, gaue to his diſciples, ſaying: Take, eate, This is my Body. And he tooke the cup, and gaue thankes, and gaue to them ſaying: Drinke yee all of this; for this is my Bloud which shall be shed for many vnto the remiſsion of ſinnes.

The tenth.Marc. 14. v. 22. 23. & 24. And as they did eate, Ieſus tooke bread, and bleſſed, and brake, and gaue to them, ſaying: This is my Body. And he tooke the cup, and when he had giuen thā kes, he gaue to them, and they drunke all thereof, and he ſayd to them: This is my Bloud of the new Teſtament, that is shed for many.

The eleuenth.Luke 22.7 19. & 20, He tooke bread & gaue thankes, and brake, and gaue to them, ſaying: This is my Body, which is giuen for you. Likewiſe alſo the cup, after ſupper, ſaying: This cup is the new Teſtament in my Bloud, the cup that is shed for you.

The twelfth.1. Cor. 11. v. 24. 25. Our Lord Ieſus the ſame night in which he was betrayed, tooke bread, and when he had giuen thankes, brake, and ſayd: This is my Body that shall be giuen for you. This doe in remēbrance of me. In like mā ner the Cup, when he had ſupped, ſaying: This cup is the new teſtament in my Bloud.

What could be ſpoken more cleare, more expreſſe? wherein will Proteſtāts beleeue Chriſt vpon his bare word, ſubmitting thereunto their carnall fancyes, ſince they contradict the truth of this his text ſo reiterated in Scripture? Reiecting the ſame as a dead letter that killeth, as doth our Syr Humfrey? Againſt whome, to proue theſe wordes are to be taken in the litterall ſenſe, I will bring one only argument, but that vſed by all the anciēt Fathers, and conuincing. The word of holy Scripture is to be vnderſtood in the litterall ſenſe, when that ſenſe is neyther wicked, nor abſurde. This is a rule deliuered byLib. 3. de doctr. chriſtian. cap. 7. S. Auguſtine, and receaued of all handes, els if it be lawfull by metaphore to deſtroy the literall ſenſe of Scripture, when without inconuenience the ſame may be vnderſtood litterally; we ſhall neuer be certaine of any ſenſe, but men wil turne and toſſe the word of God by figuratiue conſtruction, as they pleaſe. But the litteral ſenſe of this word of Chriſt, This is my body, is neyther wicked nor abſurd, as I thus demonſtrate. The ſenſe of Scripture, that is poſſible vnto God, is neyther wicked nor abſurd; for God can neyther be authour of a wicked thing, becauſe he is infinitly good, nor of an abſurd thing, becauſe he is infinitly wiſe: but the litteral ſenſe of this place, to wit, that bread is become really and ſubſtantially the body of Chriſt, being changed into the ſubſtance therof, is poſſible vnto God. Who dares deny this? Proteſtants though ſomeCalu. lib. 4. inſt. c. 17. §. 24. of thē mutter between the teeth againſt the omnipotency of God, yet I haue not read any that doth in plaine terrmes affirme, that God cannot turne the ſubſtance of bread into the ſubſtance of his body. YeaConf. Wittemb. cap. 144. ſome profeſſe they beleeue this to be poſſible, and that they wouldMelan. epiſt. ad Carolum Geralit. rather burne then ſay that God cannot put the ſame body in many places at once. Therfore the Catholicke, that is the litterall ſenſe of Chriſt his word, This is my body, is poſſible vnto God. And this is the argument (as I ſayd) vſed by the FathersCyril. Ambroſ. Gaudent. Euſeb. & alij apud Claud. Zants repetit. 3. c. 4 who proue the Reall Preſence, becauſe Chriſt being God can do it, to wit, can conuert the ſubſtance of bread and wine into the ſubſtance of his body and bloud. For if this literall ſenſe be poſſible vnto God, then it is neyther wicked nor abſurd; if neyther wicked nor abſurd, then to be receaued as the true ſenſe: if to be receaued as the true ſenſe, then alſo to be receaued as an article of fayth, being the true litterall ſenſe of Gods word, cōcerning the ſubſtāce of a moſt mayne myſtery of Religion; & conſequently the Proteſtant Metaphore that deſtroyes this litterall ſenſe, is an accurſed Hereſy.

But the fault of our Aduerſaryes in this affaire, is not to beleeue more then they can vnderstand: and to colour with fine words foule infidelity of hart. Thus then yeelding vnto carnall imagination againſt the litterall ſenſe of Gods holy word, they chriſten, and cal by the ſtyle of following the quickning ſpirit. They are ſo blinded, as they cannot diſcerne the ſuggeſtions of the fleſh, from the motions of the ſpirit. For wherein they differ from vs about this Sacrament, doe they not therein agree with all Infidels that are in the world? Do not heretiks, Iews, Turkes, Pagans, beleeue as Proteſtants do againſt vs, that the Chriſtian Sacrament is really and ſubſtantially bread, & that the body of Chriſt is not really and ſubſtantially preſent therein? Yea their doggs that ſometymes lick vp the crums and bits that fall from their communion table, could they ſpeake, would they not profeſſe with their Maiſters ſo far as their ſayd maſters differ from vs; to wit, that it is bread, and not changed really into Chriſts body? And yet this carnall Proteſtant-fancy, wherein Infidels, yea brut beaſts conſpire with them, is forſooth the quicenkning ſpirit, a doctrine which only the holy Ghoſt teacheth, & we wāt fayth, & the ſpirit of heauēly life, becauſe we do not beleeue that to be bread that ſo ſeemeth to fleſh and bloud, following the letter of Gods word, rather then the ſeeming of ſenſe. What can be more abſurd? or what alſo more wicked, then to ſay, as Syr Humfrey doth, that the Reall Preſence, that is the body of the ſon of God, taken by fayth and really is, a dead letter, and a thing that killeth.

THE FIFTH POINT. Concerning the iudgment of the Nynth Age, about the litterall ſenſe of Chriſt his word, This is my Body.

FROM this litterall and expreſſe word of Chriſt, Syr Humfrey dares appeale vnto the iudgment of the Chriſtian Catholicke Roman Church of the nynth age wherein Bertram liued, whō therefore he tearmes his Mother; her worde he preferres before the word of Chriſt, and commends her, refuſing the word of Chriſt, as being but a dead letter, euen3. Reg. 3. as one of the two ſtrumpets that ſtroue before Salomon, being the true mother of the liuing child, did wel not to allow of the word of her fellow-ſtrumpet offering her a dead body. Theſe are his wordes: The Preface fol. 6. lin. 19. & ſeq. mother of the child, although she were a strumpet, yet would she by no meanes ſuffer her ſon to be deuided, nor accept of a dead child, though it was preſented to her, as her owne. Bertrams mother (the Catholicke church of this age) although at the tyme of his byrth, she had lost much of her wonted modeſty, yet would she not agree to haue her bleſſed Body of the Sacrament, to be deuided, or giuen by the halfes, yea although what was offered her, Chriſt told her it was her Body, yet by no meanes would she allow of the dead letter which killeth, but of the quickening ſpirit, that giueth life. Thus Syr Humfrey applyeth the Metaphore, & (though he ſpeake of the credit he hath, or is like to haue in his Church) yet I feare, if he come to be tryed by ſome Puritan Claſsis, he may receaue the like doome and diſgrace, as one M. Hockenell, whome, hauing preached before them, for his approbation, they reiected, Vntill B. Bā croft danger. poſit. l. 3. cap. 14 he had taken more paynes at his booke, becauſe he iumped not meete in deliuering the Metaphore of his text. For I dare ſay, that neuer foule Metaphore was more vnhādſomly trimmed to the purpoſe, then this is by syr Humfrey. His comparing the Church vnto a ſtrūpet, & ſaying, that with time she loſt much of her wonted and former modeſty, that is, the pure profeſſion of ſauing truth, is not this againſt chriſts expreſſe promiſe: That Ioā. 14.17. and Matt. 28.20. Cypr. de vnit. Eccl. Adulterari non poteſt ſponſa Chriſti. the ſpirit of truth should remayne with his Church for euer? His reprehending the deuiding of the bleſſed Body of the Sacrament, is it not moſt groſſe, vttered in direct tearmes againſt Chriſt his command: Take, Luc. 22.17. deuide this among you? This 1. Cor. 41.24. is my body that is broken for you? Againſt the practiſe of the primitiue Church: The 1. Cor 10.16. & Act. 5.28. bread which we deuide, is it not the communion or the body of our Lord? yea againſt the Proteſtant Engliſh Church, which deuides her bleſſed body of the ſacrament, her Euchariſticall loafe into halfes quartars, yea ſometymes into twēty or forty peeces? His ſaying that Chriſt told the Church the Sacramēt was her body, is it not incredible boldnes, rather then not apply a foule Metaphore, thus to chā ge and effeminate Gods moſt holyword, by changing his Body into her body? But that which ſurpaſſeth in blaſphemy all that can be ſpoken, is to compare the word of Chriſt, telling the Church, This is my body, with their words that preſented a dead child to the mother of the liuing child, which was the word only of her fellow-ſtrumpet, conteſting with her and ſpeaking falſly againſt her conſciēce. Thus openly doth Syr Humfrey profeſſe that it is not the Church of Rome, but Chriſt Ieſus and his word, with whom he and his Ptoteſtant Church ſtandes at defiance about the Reall preſence. For although Chriſt himſelfe telles the Church, what is offered her in the Sacrament, is his Body, yet ſayth he: VVe Proteſtants will by no meanes beleeue, nor need we beleeue him more then that mother beleeued her lying Stratagoniſt.

Verily, rather then to oppoſe ſo openly, and with ſo foule, and irreuerent compariſon diſgrace our Sauiours word, and this word the moſt ſacred & venebrable of all other, This is my body, they might with leſſe ſhame and ſhew of blaſphemy follow the councel that their Father M. Luther gaue thē. VVhat Luth. defenſ. verb. coen. tom. 7. Wittemb. fol. 411. haue you no wit? You muſt venture. Say then that the wordes, This is my body, were firſt writen in the margent, and thence by ſome Papiſt thrust into the text. For you haue a good rule to proue this, and your rule is, that that is not written which ſeemeth ſuperflous vnto you. Now without theſe wordes your ſupper is full and completly ſet downe in the Ghoſpell: Christ tooke breade, gaue thanks, brake it, and gaue it to his Diſciples, ſaying: Doe this in remembrance of me. Theſe wordes alon cōtaine as much as you beleeue, to wit, that bread is to be eaten by fayth and remembrance of Chriſt his body, paſſion and death. Why then do you not raze theſe wordes, This is my body, out of your Bibles, & Cōmunion-books, wherof you haue not any need, or vſe, as touching the fayth, and the celebration of your ſupper?

But becauſe the high conceit of the Church Bertrams mother, and his perſuaſion that ſhe by no meanes would allow of the Reall preſence, or the litterall ſenſe of Chriſts word, This is my body, is ſo great a ſcandall vnto Syr Humfrey, I wil ſhew how much he is heerin deceaued, and how earneſt the Church of that age was for Tranſubſtantiation, and againſt the Proteſtant metaphoricall expoſition; by producing the verdicts of twelue principall Authours that then wrote.

Paſchaſius Corbeyenſis, Anno 880.

In this Inqueſt, Paſchaſius may iuſtly challenge the firſt place, ſeeing he hath written a whole Treatiſe of this argument,Paſcha. de corpor. & ſang. Domini. c. 1. wherein he may ſeeme to confute the phraſe of Bertram, that in the Sacrament there is not the ſame fleſh that was borne of the Virgin. In this treatiſe there are as many verdicts for Tranſubſtantiation, as there are chapters, or ſentences; but this one, the firſt in his booke, may ſuffice. Although in the sacrament there is the figure of bread and wine, yet after conſecratiō it is to be beleeued, that they are no other thinge or Subſtance, but the Body and bloud of Chriſt. Hence verity it ſelfe vnto his diſciples ſayth: This is my flesh for the life of the world: and that I may ſpeake a thing yet more wonderful, not any other fleſh, but that which was borne of the B. Virgin, that ſuffered on the Croſſe, that roſe vp from the graue: This is the ſelfe ſame fleſh, and therefore the very fleſh of Chriſt it is, which euen to this day is offered for the life of the world.

2. Strabus 840.

Laying aſide thinges doubtfull,In cap. 11. prioris ad Cor. being aſſured by moſt certaine authority, we profeſſe, that the Subſtance of bread and wine is conuerted into the Substance of the body and bloud of our Lord: though we do not bluſh to confeſſe that we are ignorant of the manner of this conuerſion. The Accidents that remayne of the former ſubſtance, to wit, the colour, the ſauour, the figure, the weight neyther qualify the body of Chriſt, nor inhere in it.

3. Amalarius Treuirenſis 830.

De officijs Eccleſiaſticis. l. 3. cap. 24. We beleeue the ſingle Nature of bread, and the Nature of wine mingled (with water) to be turned into a reaſonable or intellectuall Nature, to wit, into the nature of the body, and bloud of Chriſt.

4. Remigius Antiſiodorenſis 870.

They are tearmed bread and wine by Chriſtian truth,In pſal. 22. not that they retayne the nature of bread and wine, but only according to figure and ſhape, taſt, and odour. For he that could perſonally & ineffably conioyne by his word fleſh aſſumed in the wombe of the Virgin; he alſo was able to turne the nature of bread and wine, into the Nature of his body & bloud.

5. Hinckmarus Rhemenſis 850.

It is true fleſh, and true bloud of Chriſt,In encomio S. Remigij. which by eating & drinking we take in the Sacrament, as himſelfe doth teſtify. And we that vnder the Sacrament do verily take his body and bloud, are made by them the ſame, euen in Nature with him. In which after cōſecratiō the likenes or ſhape of bread doth remaine, that we may not haue horrour of bloud, but the grace of Redemption abideth in them.

6. Alcuinus 800.

The bread of it ſelfe is an irreaſonable Suſtance, as alſo the wine,Lib. de diuin. offic. c. 29. de celebrat. Miſſae. but the Prieſt prayeth, that the ſame conſecrated by the omnipotency of God, be made a reaſonable Subſtance, by paſſing into the body of his ſonne. For as the diuinity of the word of God is one and the ſame that filleth the whole world; ſo this body, though it be conſecrated in many places and at innumerable tymes, yet are there not many bodyes, nor many cups, but one and the ſame body, one and the ſame bloud, the very ſame that he tooke of the Bleſſed Virgin.

7. Haymo. 820.

Becauſe bread ſtrengthneth the hart of man,In paſſionem Chriſti ſecundū Marcum. and wine breedeth bloud in the body of man, therfore the bread is worthily changed into the fleſh of our Lord and wine is turned into his bloud, not by a figure, not by a ſhadow, but in verity & indeed. For we beleeue, that in verity it is the body and bloud of Chriſt.

8. Elias Cretenſis. 804.

In orat. 1. Nazian. Nazianzen by the externall ſacrifice vnderſtands that which is performed by bread and wine, which being vpon the ſacred Table, are by the ineffable power & ſtrength of the Almighty, truly conuerted into the body & bloud of Chriſt.

9. Florus Magister. 860.

Chriſt is eaten, when the Nature of bread & wine,Ad Canonem Miſſae by the ineffable operatiō of the Holy Ghoſt, is changed into the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Chriſt.

10. Theophilactus. 899.

Our Lord by ſaying, This is my body, ſhews, that bread ſanctified on the Altar is his very body,In cap. 24. Matth. and not a figure and reſemblance therof; for he ſayd not, This is the figure, but This is my body; for howſoeuer it ſeeme bread vnto vs, yet by an ineffable operatiō it is transformed. Again:In cap. 14. Marc. This is my body, this I ſay, which you eate, for bread is not the figure, nor the image of the body of our Lord, but is conuerted into his body. Our Lord ſayth: The bread I will giue is my fleſh, he ſayd not the figure of my fleſh, but my fleſh. But thou mayſt ſay, How is it, that I ſee not fleſh? O man, this is by reaſon of thyne infirmity, vnto which God mercifully condeſcending, retaynes the forme of bread and wine, which thou doſt vſe to feed on, but it is tranſelementated, that is changed euen according to the primordiall ſubſtance thereof, into the vertue of flesh and bloud. And againe:In cap: 6. Ioan, The bread that is eaten of vs in the Sacrament, is not only a certaine figure of the flesh, but alſo the very flesh of our Lord. For he ſayd not, the bread I will giue, is the figure of fleſh, but my very fleſh; for bread by the ſacred wordes, by the myſticall bleſſing, by the aſſiſtance of the holy Ghoſt, is transformed into the fleſh of our Lord. And be not troubled to thinke that bread becomes fleſh: For when our Lord did liue on earth & was nourished by the ſubſtance of bread, the bread that was eaten, was changed into his body, and became of the ſame ſubſtance with his holy fleſh: therefore now alſo bread is changed into the fleſh of our Lord.

11. Valafridus Strabo. 830.

De rebus Eccleſ. c. 17. When the ſonne of God ſayth: My flesh is meate indeed, and my bloud is drinke indeed, it is ſo to be vnderſtood, that we ought to beleeue the myſteryes to be the very body and bloud of our Lord, and gages of that perfect vnity, with our head, whereof now we haue the hope, and ſhall afterward enioy the thing.

12. Altercatio Synagogae & Eccleſie. 890.

Cap 8. We beleeue that before conſecration it is bread and wine, after conſecratiō it is the true body, and the true bloud of Chriſt, not only ſacramentally, but alſo eſſentially. And when we ſay the body of Chriſt, we do not vnderſtand the body without the bloud, nor do ſeparate the bloud from the body, as it was ſhed, and flowed out at his woundes; but we beleeue the ſame body to be whole, vndiuided, vnder ech forme, the ſame whol in heauen, and togeather in all places where it is conſecrated, or receaued by Chriſtian men. And although we can not comprehend by reaſon, how the ſubstance of bread doth paſſe into the body of our Lord, yet we are bound to beleeue it.

The Councel of Nice. 796.

Vnto this Iury of Fathers we add a Iudge to giue ſentence, to wit, the ſeauenth Generall Councell, celebrated about Bertrams age, in the dayes of Charles the Great, thus defining and ſaying:Act. 6. Read as long as thou wilt, thou shalt not find, that eyther our Lord, or the Apostles, or the Fathers did call that vnbloudy ſacrifice offered by the Prieſt, an Image, but the very Body, and the very Bloud of Chriſt.

CONCLVSION.

YOv haue in this ſhort cenſure, Syr Humfrey, and his religion araigned, & condemned by fiue Iuryes & Iudges. Firſt by the Iury of Catholicke Authors, with one conſent auerring, and the Councell of Trent as Iudge, giuing ſentence accordingly, that this Tract on which Syr Humfrey doth engage the credit of his Religion, is darke, obſcure, intricate, corrupted ſince the firſt writing therof, by heretikes, not fit to be vulgarly read.

Secondly, by the Iury of his owne falſhoodes and errours, and the Round Councell-table of the Proteſtant hiſtorians of Magdeburge, as Iudge pronoūcing ſentence, and cenſuring this booke of Bertram to be papiſtical, euē in the point of Tranſubſtantiation; ſo condemning syr Humfrey of want of iudgement, that builds his Religion againſt this point of Papiſtry vpon it.

Thirdly, by the Iury, or rather iniury of miſtranſlations offered vnto the booke, particulerly in twelue (beſides many other) paſſages thereof, Syr Humfreys owne conſcience being Iudge, and condemning both this booke as being ſo papiſtical, as not fit to be truely ſet forth in Engliſh; and himſelfe of vnſincerity, in thus corrupting the works of ancient Authours.

Fourthly, by the Iury of the writers in Bertrams age, profeſſing the ſubstāce of bread and wine to be turned into the ſubſtā ce of the body and bloud of Chriſt, not metaphorically, but litterally; not by figure, but by truth; not by shaddow, but in verity; not only ſacramentally, but eſſentially; The generall Councell of Nice about the ſame tyme as Iudge, pronouncing the ſentence accordingly, that bread and wine to be made the body and bloud of Chriſt, not by figure, not by metaphore, but in verity & really. Whereby Syr Humfrey, that dares write, that the Church would by no meanes take the word of Chriſt, This is my body, in the litterall ſenſe, and for the reall and ſubſtantial preſence of his body in the Sacrament, is condemned of being eyther deſirous to deceaue ſoules in matters of their ſaluation (a thing vnworthy of a Chriſtian, much more of a Chriſtian Knight) or els as exceedingly to blame, to write and ſpeake ſo confidently of thinges he doth not know, nor vnderſtand.

Finally, by the Iury of Chriſts his owne expreſſe depoſition and ſentence, ſo many tymes reiterated in holy Scripture; and his Omnipotency is the Iudge that defines and declares, that heere he meant according to the Letter, or els is vnworthy of the title of Verity it ſelfe. For is it the part of exact and infinite Truth to promiſe a thing often, and earneſtly in plaine and expreſſe wordes, & not to performe the ſame according to the letter, if the performance thereof according to the Letter lye in his power? Chriſt Ieſus doth often and earneſtly promiſe, that bread and wine in the Sacrament ſhould be, and is, in all ages to the worlds end, his Body and Bloud, & it lyes in his power to performe this promiſe according to the letter, by turning the ſubſtance of bread and wine into the ſubſtāce of his body & bloud, ſo making bread & wine to become really and ſubſtātially, & according to the letter his body & bloud in the chriſtiā ſacramēt, vntil the worlds end. And can they think him to be Verity it ſelfe, who thinke that notwithſtanding ſo many his expreſſe promiſes, he doth not performe his word according to the Letter, though it be in his power ſo to performe it? Verily, howſoeuer they may gloze the matter in wordes, they doe not eſteeme of his word, as of the word of Verity in their hart; which Syr Humfrey as being not very dexterous in applying Metaphores, nor wiſe inough to ponder his words as is required in a writer, doth openly profeſſe euen alſo in wordes by comparing the word of Chriſt in this point, vnto that notorious lye of the ſtrumpet, ſo famouſly recorded in Scripture, as hath beene ſayd.

I will end: for what can I ſay? What can I do more? Verily if I might thereby reclayme Syr Humfrey from his oppoſing Chriſt Ieſus, and his Church, I would be glad to looſe as many drops of my bloud, as I haue heere ſpent inke to ſhew his errour. But if I cannot ſo preuaile with him, I muſt leaue him to Gods iuſtice, in the number of them deſcribed by the Apoſtle:Tit. 3.11. Qui delinqunt proprio iudicio condemnati; aſſuring him, that theſe wordes of Chriſt, This is my body, howſoeuer he now would eneruate,Epiſt. ad Freder. Miconium cap. 4. emaſculate, and diſgrace them by foule compariſon, will proue (as Melansthon ſayth) in the day of iudgemēt, Thunderbolts againſt the denyers of the Reall preſence, who flye vnto Metaphores, rather then ſubmit their vnderſtandings vnto the irrefragable euidency of the ſacred Text, becauſe it is aboue the capacity of their carnal Reaſon.