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 and (c) (c) Preface 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 ( sayth (d) (d) Bellar. 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 Bertram 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 (e) (e) Preface fol. 5. a. circa finem & 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 : (g) (g) 1. Tim. 6.20 . Shune prophane nouelty of speech : Vse (h) (h) 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 variance (i) (i) fol. 6. lin. 4. betwixt D. Sanders saying : The Sacramentarian doctrine was not published in Bertrans age . And M. Reynoldes , who affirmes , That Bertram ( as Scotus had done before him ) writ doubtfully of the truth of the Sacrament . What opposition I pray you betwixt these two sentences , that Syr Humfrey should say they hold togeather , like (k) (k) 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 (l) (l) Fol. 6. a lin. 20. vrgeth his saying as opposite vnto Posseuinus , that Oecolampadius corrupted the booke , and set it out vnder Bertrams name , for ( sayth Syr Humfrey ) Berengarius liued 600. yeares agoe , and Oecolampadius an hundred . 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 , but (m) (m) fol. 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 (n) (n) 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 (o) (o) 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 fratrem Lotharij Imperatoris . Vnto King Charles , brother of Lotharius Emperour , he translates , Vnto (p) (p) 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 the (q) (q) Iudex 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 (r) (r) 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 thence inferre that he was a bald Authour , as they may , with as much reason as Syr Humfrey doth conclude , (s) (s) 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 translates (u) (u) fol. 5. b lin. 9. some say , & vpon this , and no better euidency (x) (x) fol. 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 (y) (y) 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 (z) (z) fol. 6. a lin. 13. worke is spurious .

Fiftly , whereas Garetius sayth : Delirare coepit Bertramus : Bertram began to write dotingly . Syr Humfrey translates , He (a) (a) 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 different 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 ignorant 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 Bertram 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 (c) (c) 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 ( for (d) (d) See Possem . his Apparatus Tritemius the auncientest of Syr Humfreys Iury , and to whome he doth attribute most , dyed since Luthers reuolt from the Church ) yet (e) (e) See 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 (f) (f) 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 written 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 he (g) (g) Vide l. Bertram . in catalog . Test . verit . l. 10. col. 1602. seems to teach most cleerely the foolish and impious Paradoxe of Beza , That (h) (h) In concil . Montis-belgart &c contra Hessus . p. Corpus Christi non 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 Transubstantiation . In so much as the famous Protestant historians of Magdeburge write : Semina (i) (i) 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 of (k) (k) De 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 dissonant in doctrine , the one from the other confirme : The (l) (l) Index 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 . Finally (m) (m) Iosias Simler . in Biblioth. vniuer . & concord . Gen. Protestants themselues confesse , that when they (n) (n) censura Duacen . in Bertram . 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 , and (o) (o) Lanfrancus 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 Pantaleon (p) (p) cronograph . 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 (q) (q) 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 : he (r) (r) Pag. 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 Humfrey 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 Religion 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 dissension 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 Bertrans , 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 Humfrey knew this well enough as appeares by his (t) (t) Praefa . fol. 5. b. lin 12. Reynold treatise against Bruse c. 5. fol. 27. mangling 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 thunders : How (u) (u) 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 cannot 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 (x) (x) Preface fol. 8. a. lin 18. & b. lin. 1. P. Clement the eight , and the Councell of Trent condemned Bertram without a (y) (y) 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 (z) (z) Lib. 1. cont. Crescon . Grammat . 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 the (a) (a) Vide Concil. Sanctum General . collat. 3. 4. 5. 6. fifth general Councel almost in euery action therof called of purpose , to condemne (b) (b) Collat 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 anathematized (c) (c) Collat. 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 Commissioners 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 Protestants , Bertrams pretended (d) (d) Preface 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 not (e) (e) See this safe conduct sess. 13. 14. 15. eos omnibus charitatis officijs vt inuitat , ita etiam complectetur . 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 Puritan 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 from 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 censureth 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 sentence wherin euery man 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 (1) (1) Who was chosen Pope 20. years after the Popes sentence , the Councels (2) (2) That neuer was made . decree , the (3) (3) 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 (4) (4) Which they confirme . too heauy for so sleight errours committed by him (5) (5) Condemning the booke , as darke , ignorant , corrupted by heretikes . they repeale the sentence , and vpon more mature deliberation had of the (6) (6) They hold his doctrine , not to be against the Roman . authour , and of the doctrine , with the consent (7) (7) 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 (8) (8) 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 edition 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 translation , hath most grossely corrupted the booke of Bertram .

NOW let vs passe from 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 testium 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 ostenditur , 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 substantially to be , to suppose , for habuerat the accidentall verbe , which signifyes the being of thinges as adiacent vnto substance , not the prime and substantiall being . Secondly 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 substance of the Authours meaning .

The second place is pag. 7. lin. 11. What I pray you , In Catal. col. 1059. circa medium . can be more absurd then to take Bread to be flesh , and to affirme Wine 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 finem . 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 finem . 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 Humfrey 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 Humfrey 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 margent .

The fifth place pag. 22. lin. 5. We 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 change 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 sumption , wheras (a) (a) Cyril . 10. in Ioan . c. 13. corporaliter & secundum 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 Humfrey 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 substance of Christs body shall be eaten , sayth Bertram , bread being turned into the substance 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 them to speake fondly ? For if bread be turned in the substance of Christ body , how can the substance therof remaine & be eaten . Secondly 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 eaten in Bertrams opinion , it is eaten in the substance thereof really , and not only in figure .

The eight Bertram saith pag. 27. lin. 13. Was 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 . Was not Christ offered about that tyme : And yet notwithstanding 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 : Whatsoeuer 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 when 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 enduring , 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 correspondence vnto the latin text . I will note only his corruption 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 . What is seene is Christs body , what is drunk 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 sentence . First whether Syr Humfrey haue not manifestly corrupted the book of his Bertram ? Secondly , whether the booke can be cleare against Transubstantiation , 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 christian doctrine . Out of which I gather these twelue expresse and formall sentences in this behalfe from Christ Iesus his own mouth .

Ioan. 6.51 The 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 . Whosoeuer 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 thankes , 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 remembrance of me . In like manner 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 Protestants 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 ancient 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 by (a) (a) Lib. 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 some (b) (b) Calu. lib. 4. inst. c. 17. §. 24. of them 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 . Yea (c) (c) Conf. Wittemb . cap. 144. some professe they beleeue this to be possible , and that they would (d) (d) Melan. 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 Fathers (e) (e) Cyril . 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 , concerning the substance 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 want fayth , & the spirit of heauenvly 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 , whom 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 , euen (f) (f) 3. 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 (g) (g) 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 (h) (h) B. Bancroft 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 vnhandsomly trimmed to the purpose , then this is by syr Humfrey . His comparing the Church vnto a strumpet , & 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 (i) (i) Ioan . 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 , (k) (k) Luc. 22.17 . deuide this among you ? This (l) (l) 1. Cor. 41.24 . is my body that is broken for you ? Against the practise of the primitiue Church : The (m) (m) 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 twenty or forty peeces ? His saying that Christ told the Church the Sacrament was her body , is it not incredible boldnes , rather then not apply a foule Metaphore , thus to change 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 conscience . 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 : We 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 them . What (n) (n) 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 containe 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 consecration 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 consecration 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 secundum 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 operation 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 operation 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 consecration 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 pronouncing sentence , and censuring this booke of Bertram to be papistical , euen 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 substance of bread and wine to be turned into the substance 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 substance of his body & bloud , so making bread & wine to become really and substantially , & according to the letter his body & bloud in the christian sacrament , 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 iudgement , 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 .