A PLEA FOR THE REALL-PRESENCE. WHEREIN The preface of Sir Humphrey Lined, concerning the book of Bertram, is examined and censured. WRITTEN by I.O. unto a Gentleman his friend. With permission. Anno 1624. TO HIS MUCH HONOURED FRIEND. SIR, I have received the Book of Bertram, translated into English, reprinted by Sir Humphrey Lined, with a dedicatory, and a long Preface before it, and together your request to have my judgement, aswell concerning the credit of the treatise, as the verity of the Preface. Your singular affection and manifold courtesies showed towards me, joined with your so religious love of the Catholic truth, have so obliged myself and my studies unto you, as I may not be backward in yielding unto your so pious and just request. For I know your require this Censure not for your own satisfaction (who are better grounded, then to be removed, or moved with the vanity of such a trifle) but for the more full information of some of your friends, whom Sir Humphrey would engage to run the same unadvised course with himself, who doth (a) Praefa. fol. 3. b. lin 21. & fol. 14. b. lin. 16. engage the credit of his Religion, & the surety of his Salvation upon the worthiness of this Tracte. I have heerin exceeded the brevity of a Censure, as being desirous to lay open not only the insufficiency of this Preface, to prevent the Readers danger, but also briefly the verity of the Reall-presence, for the Prefacers, by me desired, conversion unto the Catholic church. The work being wholly and totally yours by the free & full gift of the Author, you may dispose thereof at your pleasure, and if you judge the same prolix, you may select such particles thereof, as you shall esteem most fit to be sent to your friends, and to accept of the whole (as I know you will) with the same affection as it is offered unto you by him, who doth ever rest, Your servant in Christ jesus. I.O. A PLEA FOR THE REALL-PRESENCE. THERE are five points about which you may require satisfaction touched in Sir Humfreys Preface. First concerning the divided jury of the dissension of Catholic Authors about Bertram. Secondly the truth concerning the Author and authority of the book. Thirdly, concerning the fidelity of the translation thereof into English. Fourthly, concerning the sentence of God's word about the Reall-presence. Fiftly, concerning the belief in this point of the Church of the nynth age wherein Bertram lived, whereof Sir Humphrey doth much presume, and seems to prefer the same before the word of Christ, as shall appear. These points I will declare with the most brevity and clarity I may. THE FIRST POINT. Sir Humphrey convicted either of falsehood or gross ignorance about the Iury. COncerning the jury of Catholics about Bertram, the Preface uttereth many untruths, showing (if this be done wittingly) the falsehood (if unwittingly) the ignorance of the author and that aswell about the nature of things, as in the latin tongue. In the first kind, he hath six gross errors and mistake, upon which are grounded the six pretended dissensions of the twelve Catholic (by him chosen) jurors, to go upon Bertram his doctrine and book. The first is, not to distinguish betwixt writing darkly of the truth, and openly against the truth. By this mistaking he imposeth a falsehood upon Cardinal Bellarmine the Foreman of the jury, and so maketh a jar betwixt him and (c) Preface fol. 7. b. lin 1. & fol. 4. b. lin. 6. 8. fol. 5. lin. 5. F. Persons, the second of the jury who saith, that Bertram died Catholic and never taught heretical doctrine: but this book after his death hath been corrupted by heretics. This verdict is the truth as shall afterward appear. Neither doth Cardinal Bellarmine say to the contrary that Bertram was a singular Novelict, or that he was opposed for his heretical doctrine. These are Sir Humfreys mistake, not Bellarmine's assertions. Bellarmine only saith, that Bertram (and Scotus before him) writ doubtfully of the truth, & moved questions about the Real presence, yet (saith (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 Cardinal Bellarmine's judgement Bertran might be Catholic in his opinion, as F. Persons saith, though for his dark writing he were misliked. The second error, is to think that if one writ truly in sense, he is not to be condemned for using dark & doubtful speech against the style of the church. Upon this error is built the second opposition betwixt the two next jurors. Because Langdalius saith: Bertram (e) Preface fol. 5. a. circa finem & b. init. for sense held the Catholic doctrine, Aug. epist. 188. but transgressed in the form of words, Sir Humphrey infers, that then Garetius had no reason to say, that Bertram writ fond or dotingly. As though to cross the tradition of the Church though but in form of words were not Dotage or insolent madness, and against the prescript of the Apostle: (g) 1. Tim. 6.20. Shun profane novelty of speech: Use (h) 2. Tim. 1.13. the form of sound words. The third error, is to make the publishing of doctrine against the truth, and the publishing of a book that writs darkly of the truth, to be the same. By this error, he putteth variance (i) fol. 6. lin. 4. betwixt D. Sanders saying: The Sacramentarian doctrine was not published in Bertrans' age. And M. Reynoldes, who affirms, 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 Sir Humphrey should say they hold together, like (k) fol. 5. lin. ultim. a rope of sand? Yea, doth not the saying of M. Reynolds confirm the saying of D. Sanders? For if (as M. Reynoldes, saith) even 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 publicly in that age. Is it not great seelines to challenge those speeches as contradictious and holding together as a rope of sand, which so agree, and are so knit together as the one includeth the other? The fourth error, to think that one cannot be the disciple or follower of one that is dead many hundred years: according to which error men now living could not be the disciples and followers of the Apostles, and of their doctrine. This is the ground of the discord he deviseth betwixt the seaventh and eighth of the Iury. Because Valentia saith, that bertram's book is tainted with the leaven of Berengarius his error; Sir Humphrey (l) Fol. 6. a lin. 20. urgeth his saying as opposite unto Possevinus, that Oecolampadius corrupted the book, and set it out under bertram's name, for (saith Sir Humphrey) Berengarius lived 600. years ago, and Oecolampadius an hundred. As who should say Oecolampadius could not be a Berengarian in opinion, & infect books with that leaven, because he lived five hundred years after Berengarius. The fifth error, is to think, that Catholics, who say Bertram writ a book of the body & blood of our Lord, do therefore affirm, this book set out by Oecolampadius, to be his book, & also to be pure and incorrupt without any novel insertion of heretical stuff. This error is transcendental in all this quarrel with the jury, but (m) fol. 6. b. lin. 10. particularly, it causeth him to conceive a dissension betwixt Heskins, that saith Bertram writ a book suspiciously, and Sixtus Senensis, who saith, that the book was corrupted and set forth by Oecolampadius in bertram's name. A great contradiction sure. Might not the book that was written doubtfully by Bertram, be corrupted afterward by plain heretical assertions, & set out in his name so corrupted by Oecolampadius? The sixth error, that a pious and godly man may not write darkly concerning some mystery of faith. Hence because Espencaeus the 11. juror saith, bertram's book to be dark, obscure, entangling his Reader, he urgeth him to contradict Tritemius (n) In chronico. the twelve and the last jurour, saying: Bertram was a learned and Godly man, and writ a book of the body and blood of our Lord: yea sir Humphrey (o) fol. 7. a lin. 18. to make here some show of contradiction where none is, with more cunning than sincerity, helpeth the matter. For whereas Tritemius saith, Bertram writ a praiseworthy work of Predestination, and one book of the body and blood of our Lord, Sir Humphrey leaveth out the book of predestination, and turns the title of praiseworthy from it, on the book of the body and blood of Christ, making Tritemius say: Bertram writ a praiseworthy work, to wit, one book concerning the body and blood of our Lord. Can this be well excused in sir Humphrey from witting misrelation to deceive? In the second kind, to wit concerning sir Humfreys either of falsehood or ignorance of latin, I set down these six examples, which joined with the other, six make up a Iury. First, to win a few years of antiquity unto Bertram, and to make him seem the great writer of Charles the Great: whereas Tritemius saith, that Bertram writ a praiseworthy work Add Caroliis Regem fratrem Lotharij Imperatoris. Unto King Charles, brother of Lotharius Emperor, he translates, Unto (p) fol. 7. a lin. 13. Charles the Great the Brother of Lotharius the Emperor, which is gross and ridiculous absurdity in history, every man that hath any smack of learning knowing that Lotharius was Grandchild to Charles the Great, not his brother. Secondly to the same purpose: Whereas the (q) judex expurgat Belgic. in Bertramo. Doway-censure saith, that Bertram was Carus Carolo non tam magno quàm caluo. Dear unto Charles not so great as bald, he translates, Dear (r) fol. 10. a. lin. 2. unto Charles the Great. Sir Humphrey was loath that this his so much esteemed Bertram, on whose head he hath set all his credit he hath, or is like to have, should be thought to have written to a bald Emperor, fearing some should thence infer that he was a bald Author, as they may, with as much reason as Sir Humphrey doth conclude, (s) fol. 3. b lin. 5. & 6. that he was a Great author, and no fly, because he writ to a Great Emperor. De visib. monar. l. 7 An. 816. Thirdly, whereas D. Sanders saith: Quidam suspicantur, some suspect the book of Bertram to be forged under his name, he translates (u) fol. 5. b lin. 9 some say, & upon this, and no better evidency (x) fol. 6. a lin. 3. accuseth Doctor Sanders that he saith, The book is not bertram's, but some obscure Author. As though there were no difference betwixt doubting and judging, suspecting and saying, whereas when we have but suspicion of a thing, the common phrase is, I cannot say it. Fourthly, whereas Valentia saith: Dubium (y) Valen. de presen. Christi in Euchar. l. 1. cap. 2. est, it may be doubted whether Bertram be author of this book, & fieri potest, it may be that Bertram writ catholikly, & his book was afterward corrupted. Notwithstanding this so great cautelousnes of Valentia, to show he did but conjecture, Sir Humphrey makes him peremptory absolute, and to say without any doubt or fear: The (z) fol. 6. a lin. 13. work is spurious. Fiftly, whereas Garetius saith: Delirare coepit Bertramus: Bertram began to write dotingly. Sir Humphrey translates, He (a) fol. 5. a lin. 20. was an old dotard: fond and dotingly. For to be a dotard, and to write in one matter dotingly be different things seeing one act implieth not the habit, yea a learned man in some occasion may write absurdly. Neither doth Garetius mislike Bertram in regard of his agedness or antiquity, as Sir Humfreys translation insinuates, by making him say: He was not only a Dotard, but an old Dotard, but contrariwise in respect of the novelty of his phrase, and for his new doting, and because the former part of the book is Catholic and contrary to the later, which sounds of heresy, a sign that either the book is corrupted, or else the Author when he writ, was not present to himself. Sixtly, whereas the Doway-censure saith: Non diffitear Bertranum nescivisse exactè. I will confess Bertram knew not exactly, how accidents subsist without a substance; fol. 10. b. lin. 22. Sir Humphrey translates: I doubt not but Bertram was ignorant, how accidents exactly subsist. Had Sir Humphrey been exact and not ignorant in Latin he would not perchance have so many ways misconstrued a few latin words. Especially he would never have joined exactly with to subsist, which both the text and reason show must join with to know; for there is difference betwixt knowing and exact knowing, but no difference betwixt subsisting and exact subsisting. So that the Censure saith not that Bertran was wholly ignorant, as Sir Humphrey pretends they say, but only that he knew not so exactly how to declare the manner of transubstantiation, as Divines in this age. I omit many other the like errors committed, as I suppose not in fraud, but through ignorance of Latin, though Sir Humphrey turn, and make use of them to the advantagement of his heresy in blindness of zeal. These I have noted, show sufficiently, that the contentions betwixt Catholics which Sir Humphrey would exhibit in his Preface, have no other ground, but his ignorance, and misprision, and therefore are like to the battles of Lucian (c) Lucian verae histo. fought by mighty armies upon the Island of Cobb-webs. THE SECOND POINT. Concerning the truth of the Author, and authority of this Book. THIS question may easily be decided among them that will set wrangling aside, & seek sincerely after the truth, that will distinguish what is doubtful from what is probable, and what is probable from what is certain, evident & agreed upon, as will appear by the proof of these assertions. First, it is very probable, that this book of Bertram was written in the Nynth Age after Christ, when Bertram lived. For though there be not any ancient author that makes mention thereof, none I say that lived and died before Luther (for (d) See Possem. his Apparatus Tritemius the ancientest of Sir Humfreys jury, and to whom he doth attribute most, died since Luther's revolt from the Church) yet (e) See Paschas. his book de corpore & sangui. Domini. tom. 4. Bibliot. SS. PP. Paschasius Abbot that lived in that age of Bertram writes in so direct opposition against this book, as it is likely he writ of purpose against it, as will appear probable unto any that shall compare the two treatises together. Whence I infer, that it is great want of judgement in Sir Humphrey (f) fol. 4. lin. 10. to contend, that Paschas●us writ not against this book For hereby he overthrows the very ground of all his discourse; seeing Paschasius his writing against this book, is the only argument that the same was written about the time of the nynth Age after Christ, & affords some possibility, that it might be bertram's. Secondly it is evident, that the book is dark, doubtful, intricate. For this is more than apparent unto all them that are able to judge, and with any indifferency peruse the book. And to omit diverse dark passages of his book, and particularly where he (g) Vide l. Bertram. in cate-log. Test. verit. l. 10. col. 1602. seems to teach most clearly the foolish and impious Paradox of Beza, That (h) In council. 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 womb of the Virgin. This is a manifest sign of bertram's obscurity, that even some Catholics think the book inclineth unto the Sacramentarian doctrine, against Transubstantiation: & on the other side, even Protestants acknowledge, that the book favoureth Transubstantiation. In so much as the famous Protestant historians of Magdeburge write: Semina (i) Cont. 9 c 4. §. de caena. col. 212. transubstantiationis habet Bertramus. bertram's little book containeth the seeds and original ground of Transubstantiation. Which is confirmed by the testimony of (k) De verbis institut. Paschasius, who writing against this book doth testify, that though in those days some spoke obscurely about the Real presence, and out of ignorance erred, yet saith he, no man hitherto hath openly denied what the whole world doth believe and confess, to wit, the Real presence, or the change of bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord. Thirdly it is agreed upon, that additions have been made unto this book, since the first writing thereof in the nynth age. For this no Catholic denies, many Catholics constantly affirm, the parts of the book so dissonant in doctrine, the one from the other confirm: The (l) Index expurg. Belg. Non obscurè infusa & inserta. Doway-censure unto which Sir Humphrey doth appeal, consents and gives sentence, that the book hath been corrupted, and that this is manifest. Finally (m) josias Simler. in Biblioth. univer. & concord. Gen. Protestant's themselves confess, that when they (n) censura Duacen. in Bertran. first printed the book in this age, to wit, Coloniae anno 1532. that the same was printed with additions: Additis Augustini, Ambrosijs, & 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 have said Hyerome out of whom some sentences are challenged in this treatise, but none out of Eusebe) if I say these sentences were added unto the book, as Protestants confess, than also the inferences and consequences framed thereupon were added, and consequently the greatest and most ill-sounding part of the book. Fourthly, it is exceeding doubtful, whether Bertram were the Author of this book, whereof neither Sir Humphrey, nor any man else hath brought so much, as a good conjectural proof. For though it be probable the book was written in bertram's age, yet it doth not thereupon straight follow, it was written by Bertram, yea there be better conjectures for the contrarary. For if Bertram had been author of this book written against the Real Presence, as Sir Humphrey thinks: certainly Berengarius would have named Bertram for his predecessor, and which yet he never did. For why not Bertram aswell as joannes Scotus that was in the same age with Bertram, whose book the said Berengarius did magnify, because written doubtfully of the Real presence, calling him his master, and (o) Lanfrancus in libro cont Berenga. extolling him above the more ancient Fathers. Again if that book had been published in that age with bertram's name, Paschasius who wrote against that book, would not have spared bertram's name, but have written against him by name, so to have impaired his credit, that otherwise might give authority to the error. Specially seeing he named some of that age, that spoke and wrote darkly of the Real Presence, as Fevedardus the knight. Why, was there never any mention of Bertram as inclining unto the Doctrine of Berengarius if he were author of this book? yea the Protestant Pantaleon (p) cronograph. p. 65. making a Catalogue of the works of Bertram, leaveth out this pretended book. Finally it is certain, that though Bertram were author of this book, and the same written directly against Transubstantiation, yet this is a matter of small moment for Protestants, and not a sufficient warrant that there hath been 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 Real presence) was Catholic, and against Protestants in other, as appears even by this treatise, where he urgeth Mingling (q) Pag. 56. lin. 23. water with wine, affirming, that it is not lawful to offer wine not mingled with water, as a thing sacramental & mysterious: he (r) Pag. 27 lin. 14. doth acknowledge the daily sacrificing and immolating of Christ on the Altar in the Sacrament of his body and blood. He ranks Chrism or confirmation in the number of the Sacraments with Baptism and the Eucharist, giving it the middle place, and finally private Masses, or celebration with administration and communion. Hence we may conclude two things. First the great vanity of Sir Humfrey his preface, who engageth his credit, to wit, Preface fol. 3. lin. 21. the credit of a pure professor of the Gospel, that is his faith his Religion upon the worthiness of this tract, who so earnestly and constantly affirms Bertram to have been the author thereof, and so triumphs against us for a supposed dissension among our writers about this toy. This I say is great vanity, the dissension being greater in his own Church (to omit more main matters) even about this book of Bertram, which though Sir Humphrey urge as written by Bertram, as never since corrupted, as confuting Transubstantiation: yet Protestants of greater credit, are of another mind. Some reject the book from the number of Bertrans, as Pantaleon: some confess the same to have been corrupted with new additions, as josias Simlerus. Some contemn it as savouring of Papistry, namely of Transubstantiation, as Illyritus. And seeing Sir Humfrey knew this well enough as appears by his (t) Praefa. fol. 5. b. lin 12. Reynold treatise against Bruse c. 5. fol. 27. mangling a sentence of M. Reynolds, wherein this is discovered; I wonder he could be so silly and blind, as not see that this furious blast of bitter invection against us comes back by reflection throughly v●on his own self, against whom rather then us, he thus thunder's: How (u) preface fol. 11. a. lin. 20. & sequent. comes it to pass, there is so much difference of opinions concerning Bertram? How is it their kingdom is so divided against itself that they cannot by any glue of concord, nor bond of unity be conjoined? Some hold with Paul, some with Apollo, some allow the book, others deny the Author, Is the workman, and the work divided? Is this the wisdom and policy of the Church to cry some one thing, some another? Thus Sir Humphrey, and more of the like stuff uttered in the same tune, flourishing blindfold in his ignorant zeal, with every word wounding himself, and his own disagreeing religion. Secondly, hence appears Sir Humphrey his extreme & intolerable ignorance in matters of fact in saying: That (x) Preface fol. 8. a. lin 18. & b. lin. 1. P. Clement the eight, and the Council of Trent condemned Bertran without a (y) fol. 8. b. lin. 9 & fol. 9 a. lin. 7. legal, proceeding without trial of the party, without hearing him, or his advocate to speak for him, seven hundred years after his death, a strange thing neither allowable in Church, nor state. Thus he. And it is strange that a man no better learned, would undertak to be a writer, unto whom we may say what S. Augustine (z) Lib. 1. cont. Crescon. Grammat. c. 3. Si non penitus instructus es cur non potius taces? said 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 void of learning, why didst thou undertake the task of writing, not being thereunto obliged by calling? First for (to examine his speech a little) is it not gross ignorance in state, and state-matters, to think that men may not be condemned after their death? wherein I will refer Sir Humphrey unto Lawyers more learned them himself, and unto that famous Process of their Gospel, Saunder. de schism. Anglican. whereby S. Thomas of Canterbury, four hundred years after his Martyrdom was solemnly arraigned and condemned of Treason. Secondly concerning the Church and her affairs, I dare say there is not any man of learning that knows not this doctrine of Sir Humphrey, that books and their authors after death may not be challenged and censured of heresy, to be Nestorian. Which doctrine was accordingly condemned in the (a) Vide Concil. Sanctum General. collat. 3. 4. 5. 6. fifth general Council almost in every action thereof called of purpose, to condemn (b) Collatine 8. can. 12. 13. 14. Theodorus Bishop of Mopsuestia, and his Nestorian works with some books of Theodoret, and of Ibas Bishop of Edessa. In which Council likewise the Fathers anathematised (c) Collat. 8. can. 11. Origenes four hundred years after his death, cursing them that should think this not to be a practice allowable in the Church. But alas, good Sir Humphrey dreamt not of this Council, but spoke of condemning men after their death only out of his mother's wit, according to which, that proceeding seemed to him uniustifiable. Besides what more false, then that the Council did not hear Bertram speak, seeing the Commissioners read his book, and so heard him speak, as plainly as dead men can speak, to wit, by their writings? Fourthly, who that knows of what he speaks would say, that Protestant's, bertram's pretended (d) Preface fol. a. can. 19 Advocates, were not admitted to speak for him? For were they not cited and summoned thither with licence, liberty, yea intreatyes to speak freely their mind and produce the proofs of their doctrine? And because they made show to fear danger, had they not (e) See this safe conduct sess. 13. 14. 15. eos omnibus charitatis officijs ut invitat, ita etiam complectetur. security from the Pope, from he Emperor, from the Council, from the Catholic Princes? The truth is, that being guilty of the falsehood & impiety of their Religion, they durst not appear, though Sir Humphrey telleth us a tale of a Tub, or, which is as good, of a Puritan pulpit: That they were not admitted to speak. Finally his whole discourse is framed and founded upon this falsehood, that Bertam and his book was in the Council, and by the Pope condemned of heresy, whereas the person of the author was not touched with any censure, nor the book condemned as heretical, but only forbidden not by the Council, but by a commission from the Council, as being dark, obscure, full of ignorant phrases, corrupted by heretics. Folly 8. a. lin. 14. And this is also the judgement of the Doway-censure, to which from the Council, and Pope, Sir Humphrey doth appeal in bertram's name; for it censureth that book, See this censure in Indice expurgat. set out by junius ann. 1699. as of no worth, as dark, as full of ignorances, as corrupted by heretics, not fit to be read vulgarly by Catholics. Then add, which the Coùcell did never deny, that the book being purged from heretical insertions, & cleared by the stars of marginal annotation set over against the dark passages thereof, may be read without danger. Whence appears the seelines of Sir Humfreys said appeal from Pope and Council unto these Doway-censurers, concerning whom he hath this sentence wherein every man that knows any thing, will see there is not one true word as may likewise be seen by the references in the margin: They hear (1) Who was choose Pope 20. years after the Pope's sentence, the Counsels (2) That never was made. decree, the (3) Who made no judgement, but asked counsel of Douai. Inquisitours severe judgement: they weigh soberly his accusers reasons: they examine diligently the author himself, & finding the former doom (4) Which they confirm. too heavy for so slight errors committed by him (5) Condenning the book, as dark, ignorant, corrupted by heretics. they repeal the sentence, and upon more mature deliberation had of the (6) They hold his doctrine, not to be against the Roman. author, and of the doctrine, with the consent (7) He forsooth, gave his consent, that Douai should repeal the decree of pope and Council. of Philip the second, and the Duke of Alba, to all (8) The book of Index expurgatorius for Inquisitours not for all Catholics. the Romish Catholics in his behalf send greeting. And then having set down the censure of Douai, corruptedly, omitting that part, wherein they affirm, that it is manifest that the book was corrupted by Protestants in their first edition thereof at Colen, he concludes: Hear than is their last definitive sentence: which saying of his is sufficient to define (where the matter is otherwise doubtful) that Sir Humphrey his ignorance is intolerable, & even ridiculous in one that presumes to be a writer. THE THIRD POINT. That Sir Humphrey in his translation, hath most grossly corrupted the book of Bertram. NOW let us pass from the Preface to the Translation which I take to be Sir Hunfreys; for though he not directly so affirm, yet he insinuates so much, and his adorning the same with a Dedicatory, with a long Preface, his engaging all the credit he hath, and is like to have in his church, upon the worthiness thereof, shows him the Author. And makes me fear that he would take it ill, should I suspect the Translation to be any others than his own. Wherefore that Sir Humphrey may receive his doom from bertram's own mouth, of whom he doth so brag, I will in lieu of a jury produce twelve places of bertram's book, making so clearly for transubstantiation & Catholic doctrine, Catalogue. Testium veritatis, l. 10. anno 1568 apud jacobum Staer, & ja. cobum Chovet. as Sir Humphrey had no other way to hide the matter, but to translate the places falsely, and that with excessive audacity. The latin, according to which I examine Sir Humphrey his translation, is set forth by Protestants in their book termed Catalogus Testium veritatis. The first place is pag. 4. lin. 19 That bread which by the Ministry of the Priest is made the Body of Christ, Catalogus testium col. 1058. circa finem. doth show one thing outwardly to man's senses, and soundeth another thing inwardly to the mind of the faithful; outwardly indeed the Form of bread, which Substance it was before, is set out, the colour thereof is showed, the savour tasted, but inwardly a thing far differing is set forth, yea much more precious and excellent, because divine, because heavenly, to wit, the body of Christ. Fitly doth Bertram speak in the behalf of Transubstantiation: and Sir Humphrey ashamed to see such papistry in him, seeks by mistranslation to lay a cover over it. First, whereas Bertram saith, efficitur, bread is made, by the power of the Priest, the body of Christ, he translates, becomes the body. Secondly whereas Bertram saith: Aliud longè pretiosius & excellentius ostenditur, another more precious and more excellent thing is showed, he translates, Is more precious and excellently showed. Thirdly and principally, whereas Bertram saith: Exteriùs quidem panis quod ante fuerat forma, pretenditur. The form of bread (which thing or substance before it was) is showed, he trannslats, Outwardly the form of bread which it had before is showed. Most falsely and grossly. First he makes the substantial verb fuerat, which signify substantially to be, to suppose, for habuerat the accidental verb, which signify the being of things as adjacent unto substance, not the prime and substantial being. Secondly quod, which is here taken substantively, and signify the thing or substance of bread, which quiddity, or essence of bread, Bertram saith before consecration was, but after consecration is not. Sir Humphrey takes quod adiectively, referring the same unto forma, the form and shape of bread, so construing the text, Forma quod ostenditur, which is such childish and shameful ignorance, as it is unworthy to be noted: yet by this ignorance he perverts the substance of the Authors 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 affirm Wine to be blood? And a mystery it cannot be, in which there is no secret or hidden thing contained. And how can it be said to be Christ's body, in which is not known that there is any change made. Thus Bertram. Sir Humphrey in the margin noteth, that here Bertram proves, that no change is made in the elements of the supper: clear against the drift of Bertram, who by all means labours to prove, that the bread is changed not by change according to sensible accidents apparently, but in the inward substance invisibly. This is proved more clearly by the third place pag. 9 In Catal. col. 1059. circa finem. lin. 12. This change (to wit according to outward qualities) is not known here to be made; for nothing here can be found to be changed, either in touching, In Catal. col. 1059. circa finem. or colour, or taste, or savour. Therefore if nothing be changed herein, it is not then any other thing or substance, than what it was before, but it is another thing, or substance, because bread is * Sir Humfrey here translates becomes the body not made, which word he still carefully auoides. In cattle. col. 1060. l. 6. & seq. Made the body of Christ, and wine his blood: for so himself saith: Take ye and eat ye, for this is my body; and speaking of the cup, he saith likewise: This is the blood of the new testament. Thus Bertram, clearly showing, that the Bread is changed substantially, but not so that the same outwardly appear, but is hidden and covered with the figure and form of bread. This is again made clear by the fourth place pag. 11. lin. 4. Seeing then this cannot be denied, let them tell us how, & in what respect the elements are changed, for corporally * Sir Humfrey translates substantially to signify there is no substantial change. nothing is seen to be changed in them. Therefore they must of necessity confess, either that they are changed otherwise then according to the body, and so not to be the thing that in verity they seem, but another thing or substance, which they are not * Here Sir Humphrey understood nor the latin seen to be according to their own proper being. Or if they will not confess this, they are compelled to deny, that they are the body of Christ, which is wicked not only to say, but also to think. This place is plain, and Sir Humphrey doth many ways by translation obscure it, as I have noted in the margin. The fifth place pag. 22. lin. 5. We are truly persuaded that no faithful man doubteth, In cattle. col. 1062. lin. 41. & sequent. but that bread was made the body of Christ, of which he himself giving it to his disciples, saith: This is my body. Sir Humphrey translates quite contrary. For we think truly that any faithful man doubteth whether that Bread becomes Christ's body, making Bertram to affirm, that every man doubts of this change of bread into Christ's body. In cattle. col. 1063. lin. 6. & 7. The sixth, pag. 24. lin. 1. Bertram makes Christ speak in this sort: Do not think you shall corporally eat my flesh divided into parts or drink my blood. Sir Humphrey translates: Think not I pray you, that you must either bodily eat my flesh, or bodily drink my blood. So that Bertram his denial of carnal eating, by tearing Christ's flesh into pieces, Sir Humphrey turns into a denial of substantial eating thereof, by real sumption, whereas (a) Cyril. 10. in joan. c. 13. corporaliter & secundum carnem. In cattle. ubi supra lin. 12. 13. 14. the Fathers in this sense say expressly: we take in the Sacrament the flesh of Christ corporally. The seaventh, pag. 24. lin 13. Bertram brings Christ saying: Then (after my ascension) the bread and wine turned into the Substance of my body and blood, shall by the mystery, or Sacrament be truly eaten of the Faithful. A place so clear, that Sir Humfrey like a bat that endures not the light, would beat the same out by mistranslation. For thus it pleaseth him to make Bertram speak, Bread and wine being turned into my body, and blood * All this is added. the substance thereof shall in a mystery * Verè omitted. be received. First he addeth the word Substance, bread turned into the substance of Christ's body shall be eaten, saith Bertram, bread being turned into the substance of Christ's body, the substance of bread shall be eaten Sir Humphrey will have him say. Is this to translate, & not rather to pervert the meaning of Authors, and make them to speak fond? For if bread be turned in the substance of Christ body, how can the substance thereof remain & be eaten. Secondly he leaveth out the word truly, saying only it is eaten, whereas Bertram saith: it is truly eaten, which is a substantial omission in Bertram: because Bertram in the beginning of his book, 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 bertram's opinion, it is eaten in the substance thereof really, and not only in figure. The eight Bertran saith pag. 27. lin. 13. Was not Christ immolated in himself only once, Catal. col. 1063. circa finem. and that about Easter: and yet in the Sacrament not only in all the festival days of Easter, but also every day he is sacrificed, or immolated by the people. Thus Bertram, which is rank papistry. Now hear Sir Humfrey translating Bertram not into English, but into Protestancy. Was not Christ offered about that time: And yet notwithstanding he is not only every feast of Easter but every day offered unto the faithful people. Thus is Bertram trimmed by Sir Humphrey according to the Protestant cut. In Catal. col. 1064. circa medium. The ninth, Bertram saith pag. 30. lin. 8. It is not said, that Christ doth suffer in himself every day which he did but once? Sir Humphrey to make this place sound against the Mass, or daily oblation of Christ's body, translates, It is not said that Christ offers himself every day, because he did it but once. The tenth, Bertram saith pag. 41. lin. 6. Catal. col. 1066. circa finem. According to the substance (or corporal Mass) the creatures what they were before, the same they afterward remain. But they were before bread and wine, according to which form & shape they are seen still to remain. Therefore the thing is inwardly changed by the mighty power of the holy Ghost, which change faith beholdeth. This place is too perspicuous for Transubstantiation, therefore Sir Humphrey in his translation makes a Transubstantiation thereof, changing the very substance of the sense into his own contrary meaning: Whatsoever they were before consecration they are even the same afterwards, but they were bread and wine before, and therefore they remain the same, which is proved, because we see that even when they are consecrated, they remain in the same kind or form. Surely Sir Humphrey, this is not to translate Authors out of Latin into English, but to translate fancies out of your own head into their Treatises. For Bertram was wiser, then to make this foolish argument, which you foist into his book; Bread remains in form and shape, therefore it remains in substance. The eleventh, Bertram often in this Treatise names the daily celebration of the mysteries, signifying the custom of private masses, or celebrations without communion, which Sir Humphrey 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 forty lines together, he translates not one sentence, line, or almost word with correspondence unto the latin text. I will note only his corruption of one line thereof. 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 seen is Christ's body, what is drunk is his blood, neither ought we to search the manner how it is done, but believe that so it is done. Sir Humphrey thus translates: That is Christ's body which is seen, that is blood which is drunk, and we must not inquire how it is made, or becomes his body, but believe and hold, and so it is become his body. Thus he thrusts into bertram's book his Puritanical faith, Crede quod habes & habes: I now appeal unto the judgement of any indifferent Reader to give sentence. First whether Sir Humfrey have not manifestly corrupted the book of his Bertram? Secondly, whether the book can be clear against Transubstantiation, and utterly overthrew the same, as Sir Humphrey boasts, that in so many places makes so clearly for it. Thirdly, whether it be not the greatest vanity in the world to build a Religion against the Roman Catholic, and salvation out of their Church, upon this tract which is so papistical, as sir Humphrey his English translation is even ashamed thereof. 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 than this Book, and this Author, whereof they brag beyond measure? THE FOURTH POINT. A grand jury against Sir Humphrey, showing the Real presence, which he terames, a dead letter to be the doctrine of God's holy word and the perpetull doctrine of the Church. THE infinite wisdom of God's holy spirit foreseeing with what difficulty the Real presence of Christ's sacred flesh, and precious blood in the Sacrament would be believed of carnal men, in regard of the repugnance with reason, the same seems to have in their judgement, would have all the holy Scriptures to set down this truth, more often, and sequently, more solemnly, & of set purpose, more clearly & expressly, than the truth of any other christian doctrine. Out of which I gather these twelve express and formal sentences in this behalf from Christ jesus his own mouth. joan. 6.51 The first. The bread which I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Ibid. 53. The second. Verily, verily, except you eat the flesh, and drink the blood of the son of Man, you shall not have life in you. Ibid. 54. The third. Whosoever eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. Ibid. 55. The fourth. My flesh is meat indeed, my blood is drink indeed. Ibid. 58. The fifth. This is the bread that comes down from heaven. Ibid. 57 The sixth. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, he shall live by me. The seaventh. Ibid. 56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. The eight. Ibid. 59 Not as your Fathers did eat the Manna in the wilderness, and are dead: He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. The nynth. Mat. 26. v. 26. 27. & 28. And as they were eating, jesus took bread, blessed, broke, gave to his disciples, saying: Take, eat, This is my Body. And he took the cup, and gave thankes, and gave to them saying: Drink ye all of this; for this is my Blood which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins. The tenth. Marc. 14. v. 22. 23. & 24. And as they did eat, jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke, and gave to them, saying: This is my Body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thankes, he gave to them, and they drunk all thereof, and he said to them: This is my Blood of the new Testament, that is shed for many. The eleventh. Luke 22.7 19 & 20, He took bread & gave thankes, and broke, and gave to them, saying: This is my Body, which is given for you. Likewise also the cup, after supper, saying: This cup is the new Testament in my Blood, the cup that is shed for you. The twelfth. 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. 25. Our Lord jesus the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thankes, brake, and said: This is my Body that shall be given for you. This do in remembrance of me. In like manner the Cup, when he had supped, saying: This cup is the new testament in my Blood. What could be spoken more clear, more express? wherein will Protestant's believe Christ upon his bare word, submitting thereunto their carnal fancies, since they contradict the truth of this his text so reiterated in Scripture? Rejecting the same as a dead letter that killeth, as doth our Sir Humphrey? Against whom, to prove these words are to be taken in the literal sense, I will bring one only argument, but that used by all the ancient Fathers, and convincing. The word of holy Scripture is to be understood in the literal sense, when that sense is neither wicked, nor absurd. This is a rule delivered by (a) Lib. 3. de doctr. christian. cap. 7. S. Augustine, and received of all hands, else if it be lawful by metaphor to destroy the literal sense of Scripture, when without inconvenience the same may be understood literally; we shall never be certain of any sense, but men will turn and toss the word of God by figurative construction, as they please. But the literal sense of this word of Christ, This is my body, is neither wicked nor absurd, as I thus demonstrate. The sense of Scripture, that is possible unto God, is neither wicked nor absurd; for God can neither be author of a wicked thing, because he is infinitely good, nor of an absurd thing, because he is infinitely wise: but the literal sense of this place, to wit, that bread is become really and substantially the body of Christ, being changed into the substance thereof, is possible unto God. Who dares deny this? Protestants though some (b) Calu. lib. 4. inst. c. 17. §. 24. of them mutter between the teeth against the omnipotency of God, yet I have not read any that doth in plain terrmes affirm, that God cannot turn the substance of bread into the substance of his body. Yea (c) Conf. Wittemb. cap. 144. some profess they believe this to be possible, and that they would (d) Melan. epist. ad Carolum Geralit. rather burn than say that God cannot put the same body in many places at once. Therefore the Catholic, that is the literal sense of Christ his word, This is my body, is possible unto God. And this is the argument (as I said) used by the Fathers (e) Cyril. Ambros. Gaudent. Euseb. & alij apud Claud. Zants repetit. 3. c. 4 who prove the Real Presence, because Christ being God can do it, to wit, can convert the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his body and blood. For if this literal sense be possible unto God, than it is neither wicked nor absurd; if neither wicked nor absurd, then to be received as the true sense: if to be received as the true sense, than also to be received as an article of faith, being the true literal sense of God's word, concerning the substance of a most main mystery of Religion; & consequently the Protestant Metaphor that destroys this literal sense, is an accursed Heresy. But the fault of our Adversaries in this affair, is not to believe more than they can understand: and to colour with fine words foul infidelity of hart. Thus then yielding unto carnal imagination against the literal sense of God's holy word, they christian, and call by the style of following the quickening spirit. They are so blinded, as they cannot discern the suggestions of the flesh, from the motions of the spirit. For wherein they differ from us about this Sacrament, do they not therein agree with all Infidels that are in the world? Do not heretics, jews, Turks, Pagans, believe as Protestants do against us, that the Christian Sacrament is really and substantially bread, & that the body of Christ is not really and substantially present therein? Yea their dogs that sometimes lick up the crumbs and bits that fall from their communion table, could they speak, would they not profess with their Masters so far as their said masters differ from us; to wit, that it is bread, and not changed really into Christ's body? And yet this carnal 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 faith, & the spirit of heavenly life, because we do not believe that to be bread that so seemeth to flesh and blood, following the letter of God's word, rather than the seeming of sense. What can be more absurd? or what also more wicked, then to say, as Sir Humphrey doth, that the Real Presence, that is the body of the son of God, taken by faith and really is, a dead letter, and a thing that killeth. THE FIFTH POINT. Concerning the judgement of the Nynth Age, about the literal sense of Christ his word, This is my Body. FROM this literal and express word of Christ, Sir Humphrey dares appeal unto the judgement of the Christian Catholic Roman Church of the nynth age wherein Bertram lived, whom therefore he terms his Mother; her word he prefers before the word of Christ, and commends her, refusing the word of Christ, as being but a dead letter, even (f) 3. Reg. 3. as one of the two strumpets that striven before Solomon, being the true mother of the living child, did well not to allow of the word of her fellow-strumpet offering her a dead body. These are his words: The (g) Preface fol. 6. lin. 19 & seq. mother of the child, although she were a strumpet, yet would she by no means suffer her son to be divided, nor accept of a dead child, though it was presented to her, as her own. bertram's mother (the Catholic church of this age) although at the time of his birth, she had lost much of her wont modesty, yet would she not agree to have her blessed Body of the Sacrament, to be divided, or given by the halves, yea although what was offered her, Christ told her it was her Body, yet by no means would she allow of the dead letter which killeth, but of the quickening spirit, that giveth life. Thus Sir Humphrey applieth the Metaphor, & (though he speak of the credit he hath, or is like to have in his Church) yet I fear, if he come to be tried by some Puritan Classis, he may receive the like doom and disgrace, as one M. Hockenell, whom, having preached before them, for his approbation, they rejected, Until (h) B. Bancroft danger. posit. l. 3. cap. 14 he had taken more pains at his book, because he jumped not meet in delivering the Metaphor of his text. For I dare say, that never foul Metaphor was more unhandsomly trimmed to the purpose, than this is by sir Humphrey. His comparing the Church unto a strumpet, & saying, that with time she lost much of her wont and former modesty, that is, the pure profession of saving truth, is not this against Christ's express promise: That (i) joan. 14.17. and Matt. 28.20. Cypr. de unit. Eccl. Adulterari non potest sponsa Christi. the spirit of truth should remain with his Church for ever? His reprehending the deuiding of the blessed Body of the Sacrament, is it not most gross, uttered in direct terms against Christ his command: Take, (k) Luc. 22.17. divide this among you? This (l) 1. Cor. 41.24. is my body that is broken for you? Against the practice of the primitive Church: The (m) 1. Cor 10.16. & Act. 5.28. bread which we divide, is it not the communion or the body of our Lord? yea against the Protestant English Church, which divides her blessed body of the sacrament, her Eucharistical loaf into halves quartars, yea sometimes into twenty or forty pieces? His saying that Christ told the Church the Sacrament was her body, is it not incredible boldness, rather than not apply a foul Metaphor, 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 living child, which was the word only of her fellow-strumpet, contesting with her and speaking falsely against her conscience. Thus openly doth Sir Humphrey profess that it is not the Church of Rome, but Christ jesus and his word, with whom he and his Ptotestant Church stands at defiance about the Real presence. For although Christ himself tells the Church, what is offered her in the Sacrament, is his Body, yet saith he: We Protestant's will by no means believe, nor need we believe him more than that mother believed her lying Stratagonist. Verily, rather than to oppose so openly, and with so foul, and irreverent comparison disgrace our Saviour's word, and this word the most sacred & venebrable of all other, This is my body, they might with less shame and show of blasphemy follow the council that their Father M. Luther gave them. What (n) Luth. defence. verb. coen. tom. 7. Wittemb. fol. 411. have you no wit? You must venture. Say then that the words, This is my body, were first written in the margin, and thence by some Papist thrust into the text. For you have a good rule to prove this, and your rule is, that that is not written which seemeth superflous unto you. Now without these words your supper is full and completly set down in the Gospel: Christ took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to his Disciples, saying: Do this in remembrance of me. These words alone contain as much as you believe, to wit, that bread is to be eaten by faith and remembrance of Christ his body, passion and death. Why then do you not raze these words, This is my body, out of your Bibles, & Communion-books, whereof you have not any need, or use, as touching the faith, and the celebration of your supper? But because the high conceit of the Church bertram's mother, and his persuasion that she by no means would allow of the Real presence, or the literal sense of Christ's word, This is my body, is so great a scandal unto Sir Humphrey, I will show how much he is heerin deceived, and how earnest the Church of that age was for Transubstantiation, and against the Protestant metaphorical exposition; by producing the verdicts of twelve principal Authors that then wrote. Paschasius Corbeyensis, Anno 880. In this Inquest, Paschasius may justly challenge the first place, seeing he hath written a whole Treatise of this argument, Pascha. de corpor. & sang. Domini. c. 1. wherein he may seem 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 book, may suffice. Although in the sacrament there is the figure of bread and wine, yet after consecration it is to be believed, that they are no other thing or Substance, but the Body and blood of Christ. Hence verity itself unto his disciples saith: This is my flesh for the life of the world: and that I may speak a thing yet more wonderful, not any other flesh, but that which was borne of the B. Virgin, that suffered on the Cross, that rose up from the grave: This is the self same flesh, and therefore the very flesh of Christ it is, which even to this day is offered for the life of the world. 2. Strabus 840. Laying aside things doubtful, In cap. 11. prioris ad Cor. being assured by most certain authority, we profess, that the Substance of bread and wine is converted into the Substance of the body and blood of our Lord: though we do not blush to confess that we are ignorant of the manner of this conversion. The Accidents that remain of the former substance, to wit, the colour, the savour, the figure, the weight neither qualify the body of Christ, nor inhere in it. 3. Amalarius Trevirensis 830. De officijs Ecclesiasticis. l. 3. cap. 24. We believe the single Nature of bread, and the Nature of wine mingled (with water) to be turned into a reasonable or intellectual Nature, to wit, into the nature of the body, and blood of Christ. 4. Remigius Antisiodorensis 870. They are termed bread and wine by Christian truth, In psal. 22. not that they retain the nature of bread and wine, but only according to figure and shape, taste, and odour. For he that could personally & ineffably conjoin by his word flesh assumed in the womb of the Virgin; he also was able to turn the nature of bread and wine, into the Nature of his body & blood. 5. Hinckmarus Rhemensis 850. It is true flesh, and true blood of Christ, In encomio S. Remigij. which by eating & drinking we take in the Sacrament, as himself doth testify. And we that under the Sacrament do verily take his body and blood, are made by them the same, even in Nature with him. In which after consecration the likeness or shape of bread doth remain, that we may not have horror of blood, but the grace of Redemption abideth in them. 6. Alcuinus 800. The bread of itself is an irreasonable Sustance, as also the wine, Lib. de diuin. office 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 son. For as the divinity 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 times, yet are there not many bodies, nor many cups, but one and the same body, one and the same blood, the very same that he took of the Blessed Virgin. 7. Haymo. 820. Because bread strengtheneth the hart of man, In passionem Christi secundum Marcum. and wine breedeth blood in the body of man, therefore the bread is worthily changed into the flesh of our Lord and wine is turned into his blood, not by a figure, not by a shadow, but in verity & indeed. For we believe, that in verity it is the body and blood of Christ. 8. Elias Cretensis. 804. In orat. 1. Nazian. Nazianzen by the external sacrifice understands that which is performed by bread and wine, which being upon the sacred Table, are by the ineffable power & strength of the Almighty, truly converted into the body & blood 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 blood of Christ. 10. Theophilactus. 899. Our Lord by saying, This is my body, shows, that bread sanctified on the Altar is his very body, In cap. 24. Matth. and not a figure and resemblance thereof; for he said not, This is the figure, but This is my body; for howsoever it seem bread unto us, yet by an ineffable operation it is transformed. Again: In cap. 14. Marc. This is my body, this I say, which you eat, for bread is not the figure, nor the image of the body of our Lord, but is converted into his body. Our Lord saith: The bread I will give is my flesh, he said 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 thine infirmity, unto which God mercifully condescending, retains the form of bread and wine, which thou dost use to feed on, but it is transelementated, that is changed even according to the primordial substance thereof, into the virtue of flesh and blood. And again: In cap: 6. joan, The bread that is eaten of us in the Sacrament, is not only a certain figure of the flesh, but also the very flesh of our Lord. For he said not, the bread I will give, is the figure of flesh, but my very flesh; for bread by the sacred words, by the mystical blessing, by the assistance of the holy Ghost, is transformed into the flesh of our Lord. And be not troubled to think that bread becomes flesh: For when our Lord did live 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 son of God saith: My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed, it is so to be understood, that we ought to believe the mysteries to be the very body and blood of our Lord, and gauges of that perfect unity, with our head, whereof now we have the hope, and shall afterward enjoy the thing. 12. Altercatio Synagogae & Ecclesie. 890. Cap 8. We believe that before consecration it is bread and wine, after consecration it is the true body, and the true blood of Christ, not only sacramentally, but also essentially. And when we say the body of Christ, we do not understand the body without the blood, nor do separate the blood from the body, as it was shed, and flowed out at his wounds; but we believe the same body to be whole, undivided, under each form, the same whole in heaven, and together in all places where it is consecrated, or received by Christian men. And although we can not comprehend by reason, how the substance of bread doth pass into the body of our Lord, yet we are bound to believe it. The Council of Nice. 796. Unto this jury of Fathers we add a judge to give sentence, to wit, the seaventh General Council, celebrated about bertram's age, in the days of Charles the Great, thus defining and saying: Act. 6. Read as long as thou wilt, thou shalt not find, that either our Lord, or the Apostles, or the Fathers did call that unbloody sacrifice offered by the Priest, an Image, but the very Body, and the very Blood of Christ. CONCLUSION. You have in this short censure, Sir Humphrey, and his religion arraigned, & condemned by five juryes & judges. First by the jury of Catholic Authors, with one consent averring, and the Council of Trent as judge, giving sentence accordingly, that this Tract on which Sir Humphrey doth engage the credit of his Religion, is dark, obscure, intricate, corrupted since the first writing thereof, by heretics, not fit to be vulgarly read. Secondly, by the jury of his own falshoodes and errors, and the Round Council-table of the Protestant historians of Magdeburge, as judge pronouncing sentence, and censuring this book of Bertram to be papistical, even in the point of Transubstantiation; so condemning sir Humphrey of want of judgement, that builds his Religion against this point of Papistry upon it. Thirdly, by the jury, or rather injury of mistranslations offered unto the book, particularly in twelve (besides many other) passages thereof, Sir Humfreys own conscience being judge, and condemning both this book as being so papistical, as not fit to be truly set forth in English; and himself of unsincerity, in thus corrupting the works of ancient Authors. Fourthly, by the jury of the writers in bertram's age, professing the substance of bread and wine to be turned into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, not metaphorically, but literally; not by figure, but by truth; not by shadow, but in verity; not only sacramentally, but essentially; The general Council of Nice about the same time as judge, pronouncing the sentence accordingly, that bread and wine to be made the body and blood of Christ, not by figure, not by metaphor, but in verity & really. Whereby Sir Humphrey, that dares write, that the Church would by no means take the word of Christ, This is my body, in the literal sense, and for the real and substantial presence of his body in the Sacrament, is condemned of being either desirous to deceive souls in matters of their salvation (a thing unworthy of a Christian, much more of a Christian Knight) or else as exceedingly to blame, to write and speak so confidently of things he doth not know, nor understand. Finally, by the jury of Christ's his own express deposition and sentence, so many times reiterated in holy Scripture; and his Omnipotency is the judge that defines and declares, that here he meant according to the Letter, or else is unworthy of the title of Verity itself. For is it the part of exact and infinite Truth to promise a thing often, and earnestly in plain and express words, & not to perform the same according to the letter, if the performance thereof according to the Letter lie in his power? Christ jesus doth often and earnestly promise, that bread and wine in the Sacrament should be, and is, in all ages to the world's end, his Body and Blood, & it lies in his power to perform this promise according to the letter, by turning the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his body & blood, so making bread & wine to become really and substantially, & according to the letter his body & blood in the christian sacrament, until the world's end. And can they think him to be Verity itself, who think that notwithstanding so many his express promises, he doth not perform his word according to the Letter, though it be in his power so to perform it? Verily, howsoever they may gloze the matter in words, they do not esteem of his word, as of the word of Verity in their hart; which Sir Humphrey as being not very dexterous in applying Metaphors, nor wise enough to ponder his words as is required in a writer, doth openly profess even also in words by comparing the word of Christ in this point, unto that notorious lie of the strumpet, so famously recorded in Scripture, as hath been said. I will end: for what can I say? What can I do more? Verily if I might thereby reclaim Sir Humphrey from his opposing Christ jesus, and his Church, I would be glad to lose as many drops of my blood, as I have here spent ink to show his error. But if I cannot so prevail with him, I must leave him to God's justice, in the number of them described by the Apostle: Tit. 3.11. Qui delinqunt proprio iudicio condemnati; assuring him, that these words of Christ, This is my body, howsoever he now would enervate, Epist. ad Freder. Miconium cap. 4. emasculate, and disgrace them by foul comparison, will prove (as Melansthon saith) in the day of judgement, Thunderbolts against the deniers of the Real presence, who fly unto Metaphors, rather than submit their understandings unto the irrefragable evidency of the sacred Text, because it is above the capacity of their carnal Reason. Faults escaped in the Printing. Pag. Lin. Fault Correction. 4. 7. your you Ibid. in m. fol. 3. b. lin. 21. fol. 3. a. lin. 21. Ibid. in m. fol. 14. b. lin. 16. fol. 14. a. lin. 16. 9 in m. Preface fol. 7. b. lin. 1. fol. 4. b. lin. 6. 8. fol. 5. lin. 5. Preface fol. 4. b. & fol. 5. Ibid. over against lin. 10 fol. 7. b. lin. 1. 10. in m. fol. 6. lin. 4. fol. 5. b. lin. 5. Ibid. 9 shun shun 11. 11. error to error is, to Ibid. in m. lin. 20. lin. 10. 12. 9 this his Ibid. 22. error that error Is, that 13. in m. lin. 18. lin. 16. Ibid. 20. either of falsehood either falsehood 20. in m. Concord Gen. Conrade ge. Ibid. 26. challenged alleged 21. 19 predecessor & which predecessor which 23. in m. lin. 14. lin. 16. Ibid. in m. lin. 21. lin. ultim. Ibid. 9 with administration without administration 24. 11. this his Ibib. in m. lin. 12. lin. 13. Ibib. in m. fol. 11. a. fol. 21. a 25. 19 First for (to examine First (to examine Ibid. in m. fol. a. can. 19 fol. 9 lin. 19 Ibid. in m. fol. 8. a. fol. 9 a 29. 21. he not he doth. 31. 1. Fitly doth Thus fitly doth 32. 17. made. made? 33. 13. appear appears 35. 7. 8. the substance thereof (the substance thereof) Ibib. 17. in into Ibid. 18. Christ Christ's 39 11. recorders records 40. 8. sequently frequently 42. 11. text truth 44. 18. than their 46. in m. fol. 6. lin. 19 fol. 1. lin. 19 49. 8. Stratagonist Antagonist 53. 13. sustance. substance. FINIS.