not to be against the Romā authour and of the doctrine with the consent (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) The booke of Index expurgatorius for Inquisitours not for all Catholiks the Romish Catholikes in his behalfe send greeting And then hauing set down the censure of Doway corruptedly omitting that part wherein they affirme that it is manifest that the booke was corrupted by Protestants in their first editiō thereof at Colen he concludes Heere then is their last definitiue sentence which saying of his is sufficient to define wher the matter is otherwise doubtfull that Syr Humfrey his ignorance is intollerable euen ridiculous in one that presumes to be a writer THE THIRD POINT That Syr Humfrey in his translatiō hath most grossely corrupted the booke of Bertram NOW let vs passe frō the Preface to the Translation which I take to be Syr Hūfreys for though he not directly so affirme yet he insinuates so much and his adorning the same with a Dedicatory with a long Preface his ingaging all the credit he hath and is like to haue in his church vpon the worthynes thereof shewes him the Authour And makes me feare that he would take it ill should I suspect the Translation to be any others then his owne Wherefore that Syr Humfrey may receaue his doome from Bertrams owne mouth of whome he doth so bragge I will in lieu of a Iury produce twelue places of Bertrams book making so clearly for transubstantiation Catholik doctrine Catalog Testium veritatis l. 10. anno 1568 apud Iacobum Staer Ia. cobum Chouet as Syr Humfrey had no other way to hide the matter but to translate the places falsely and that with excessiue audacity The latin according to which I examine Syr Humfrey his translation is set forth by Protestants in their booke tearmed Catalogus Testium veritatis The first place is pag. 4. lin 19. That bread which by the Ministery of the Priest is made the Body of Christ Catalogus testiū col 1058. circa finem doth shew one thing outwardly to mans senses and soundeth another thing inwardly to the mind of the faythfull outwardly indeed the Forme of bread which Substance it was before is set out the colour thereof is shewed the sauour tasted but inwardly a thing farr differing is set forth yea much more pretious and excellent because diuine because heauenly to wit the body of Christ Fittly doth Bertram speake in the behalfe of Transubstantiation and Syr Humfrey ashamed to see such papistry in him seekes by mis-translation to lay a couer ouer it First whereas Bertram sayth efficitur bread is made by the power of the Priest the body of Christ he translates becomes the body Secondly whereas Bertram sayth Aliud longè pretiosius excellentius ostēditur another more pretious and more excellent thing is shewed he translates Is more pretious and excellently shewed Thirdly and principally wheras Bertram sayth Exteriùs quidem panis quod ante fuerat forma pretenditur The forme of bread which thing or substance before it was is shewed he trannslats Outwardly the forme of bread which it had before is shewed Most falsely and grossely First he makes the substantiall verbe fuerat which signifyes substātially to be to suppose for habuerat the accidētall verbe which signifyes the being of thinges as adiacent vnto substance not the prime and substantiall being Secōdly quod which is heere taken substantiuely and signifyes the thing or substance of bread which quiddity or essence of bread Bertram sayth before consecration was but after consecration is not Syr Humfrey taks quod adiectiuely referring the same vnto forma the forme and shape of bread so construing the text Forma quod ostenditur which is such childish and shamefull ignorance as it is vnworthy to be noted yet by this ignorance he peruerts the substāce of the Authours meaning The second place is pag. 7. lin 11. VVhat I pray you In Catal. col 1059. circa medium can be more absurd then to take Bread to be flesh and to affirme VVine to be bloud And a mystery it cannot be in which there is no secret or hidden thing contayned And how can it be sayd to be Christs body in which is not knowne that there is any change made Thus Bertram Syr Humfrey in the margent noteth that heere Bertram proues that no change is made in the elements of the supper cleare against the drift of Bertram who by all meanes labours to proue that the bread is changed not by change according to sensible accidents apparantly but in the inward substance inuisibly This is proued more cleerly by the third place pag. 9. In Catal. col 1059. circa finē lin 12. This change to wit according to outward qualityes is not knowne heere to be made for nothing heer can be found to be changed eyther in touching In Catal. col 1059. circa finē or colour or tast or sauour Therefore if nothing be changed herein it is not then any other thing or substance then what it was before but it is another thing or substance because bread is * Syr Hūfrey 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 Hūfrey translates substantially to signify there is no substantial change nothing is seene to be changed in them Therefore they must of necessity confesse eyther that they are changed otherwise then according to the body and so not to be the thing that in verity they seeme but another thing or substance which they are not * Heer Syr Humfrey vnderstood nor the latin seene to be according to their owne proper being Or if they will not confesse this they are compelled to deny that they are the body of Christ which is wicked not only to say but also to thinke This place is plaine and Syr Humfrey doth many wayes by translation obscure it as I haue noted in the margēt The fifth place pag. 22. lin 5. VVe are truely perswaded that no faythfull man doubteth In catal col 1062. lin 41. sequent but that bread was made the body of Christ of which he himselfe giuing it to his disciples sayth This is my body Syr Humfrey translates quite
same seemes to haue in their iudgement would haue all the holy Scriptures to set downe this truth more often and sequently more solemnely of set purpose more cleerely expressely then the truth of any other christiā doctrine Out of which I gather these twelue expresse and formall sentences in this behalfe from Christ Iesus his own mouth Ioan. 6.51 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 VVhosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life and I will rayse him vp at the last day Ibid. 55. The fourth My flesh is meate indeed my bloud is drinke indeed Ibid. 58. The fifth This is the bread that comes downe from heauen Ibid. 57. The sixt As the liuing Father hath sent me and I liue by the Father so he that eateth me he shall liue by me The seauenth Ibid. 56. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him The eight Ibid. 59. Not as your Fathers did eate the Manna in the wildernes and are dead He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer The nynth Mat. 26. v. 26. 27. 28. And as they were eating Iesus tooke bread blessed brake gaue to his disciples saying Take eate This is my Body And he tooke the cup and gaue thankes and gaue to them saying Drinke yee all of this for this is my Bloud which shall be shed for many vnto the remission of sinnes The tenth Marc. 14. v. 22. 23. 24. And as they did eate Iesus tooke bread and blessed and brake and gaue to them saying This is my Body And he tooke the cup and when he had giuen thākes he gaue to them and they drunke all thereof and he sayd to them This is my Bloud of the new Testament that is shed for many The eleuenth Luke 22.7 19. 20 He tooke bread gaue thankes and brake and gaue to them saying This is my Body which is giuen for you Likewise also the cup after supper saying This cup is the new Testament in my Bloud the cup that is shed for you The twelfth 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. 25. Our Lord Iesus the same night in which he was betrayed tooke bread and when he had giuen thankes brake and sayd This is my Body that shall be giuen for you This doe in remēbrance of me In like māner the Cup when he had supped saying This cup is the new testament in my Bloud What could be spoken more cleare more expresse wherein will Protestāts beleeue Christ vpon his bare word submitting thereunto their carnall fancyes since they contradict the truth of this his text so reiterated in Scripture Reiecting the same as a dead letter that killeth as doth our Syr Humfrey Against whome to proue these wordes are to be taken in the litterall sense I will bring one only argument but that vsed by all the anciēt Fathers and conuincing The word of holy Scripture is to be vnderstood in the litterall sense when that sense is neyther wicked nor absurde This is a rule deliuered by (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) Calu. lib. 4. inst c. 17. §. 24. of thē mutter between the teeth against the omnipotency of God yet I haue not read any that doth in plaine terrmes affirme that God cannot turne the substance of bread into the substance of his body Yea (c) Conf. Wittemb cap. 144. some professe they beleeue this to be possible and that they would (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) 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 cōcerning the substāce of a most mayne mystery of Religion consequently the Protestant Metaphore that destroyes this litterall sense is an accursed Heresy But the fault of our Aduersaryes in this affaire is not to beleeue more then they can vnderstand and to colour with fine words foule infidelity of hart Thus then yeelding vnto carnall imagination against the litterall sense of Gods holy word they christen and cal by the style of following the quickning spirit They are so blinded as they cannot discerne the suggestions of the flesh from the motions of the spirit For wherein they differ from vs about this Sacrament doe they not therein agree with all Infidels that are in the world Do not heretiks Iews Turkes Pagans beleeue as Protestants do against vs that the Christian Sacrament is really and substantially bread that the body of Christ is not really and substantially present therein Yea their doggs that sometymes lick vp the crums and bits that fall from their communion table could they speake would they not professe with their Maisters so far as their sayd masters differ from vs to wit that it is bread and not changed really into Christs body And yet this carnall Protestant-fancy wherein Infidels yea brut beasts conspire with them is forsooth the quicenkning spirit a doctrine which only the holy Ghost teacheth we wāt fayth the spirit of heauēly life because we do not beleeue that to be bread that so seemeth to flesh and bloud following
and therefore the very flesh of Christ it is which euen to this day is offered for the life of the world 2. Strabus 840. Laying aside thinges doubtfull In cap. 11. prioris ad Cor. being assured by most certaine authority we professe that the Substance of bread and wine is conuerted into the Substance of the body and bloud of our Lord though we do not blush to confesse that we are ignorant of the manner of this conuersion The Accidents that remayne of the former substance to wit the colour the sauour the figure the weight neyther qualify the body of Christ nor inhere in it 3. Amalarius Treuirensis 830. De officijs Ecclesiasticis l. 3. cap. 24. We beleeue the single Nature of bread and the Nature of wine mingled with water to be turned into a reasonable or intellectuall Nature to wit into the nature of the body and bloud of Christ 4. Remigius Antisiodorensis 870. They are tearmed bread and wine by Christian truth In psal 22. not that they retayne the nature of bread and wine but only according to figure and shape tast and odour For he that could personally ineffably conioyne by his word flesh assumed in the wombe of the Virgin he also was able to turne the nature of bread and wine into the Nature of his body bloud 5. Hinckmarus Rhemensis 850. It is true flesh and true bloud of Christ In encomio S. Remigij which by eating drinking we take in the Sacrament as himselfe doth testify And we that vnder the Sacrament do verily take his body and bloud are made by them the same euen in Nature with him In which after cōsecratiō the likenes or shape of bread doth remaine that we may not haue horrour of bloud but the grace of Redemption abideth in them 6. Alcuinus 800. The bread of it selfe is an irreasonable Sustance as also the wine Lib. de diuin offic c. 29. de celebrat Missae but the Priest prayeth that the same consecrated by the omnipotency of God be made a reasonable Substance by passing into the body of his sonne For as the diuinity of the word of God is one and the same that filleth the whole world so this body though it be consecrated in many places and at innumerable tymes yet are there not many bodyes nor many cups but one and the same body one and the same bloud the very same that he tooke of the Blessed Virgin 7. Haymo 820. Because bread strengthneth the hart of man In passionem Christi secundū Marcum and wine breedeth bloud in the body of man therfore the bread is worthily changed into the flesh of our Lord and wine is turned into his bloud not by a figure not by a shadow but in verity indeed For we beleeue that in verity it is the body and bloud of Christ 8. Elias Cretensis 804. In orat 1. Nazian Nazianzen by the externall sacrifice vnderstands that which is performed by bread and wine which being vpon the sacred Table are by the ineffable power strength of the Almighty truly conuerted into the body bloud of Christ 9. Florus Magister 860. Christ is eaten when the Nature of bread wine Ad Canonem Missae by the ineffable operatiō of the Holy Ghost is changed into the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ 10. Theophilactus 899. Our Lord by saying This is my body shews that bread sanctified on the Altar is his very body In cap. 24. Matth. and not a figure and resemblance therof for he sayd not This is the figure but This is my body for howsoeuer it seeme bread vnto vs yet by an ineffable operatiō it is transformed Again In cap. 14. Marc. This is my body this I say which you eate for bread is not the figure nor the image of the body of our Lord but is conuerted into his body Our Lord sayth The bread I will giue is my flesh he sayd not the figure of my flesh but my flesh But thou mayst say How is it that I see not flesh O man this is by reason of thyne infirmity vnto which God mercifully condescending retaynes the forme of bread and wine which thou dost vse to feed on but it is transelementated that is changed euen according to the primordiall substance thereof into the vertue of flesh and bloud And againe In cap 6. Ioan The bread that is eaten of vs in the Sacrament is not only a certaine figure of the flesh but also the very flesh of our Lord. For he sayd not the bread I will giue is the figure of flesh but my very flesh for bread by the sacred wordes by the mysticall blessing by the assistance of the holy Ghost is transformed into the flesh of our Lord. And be not troubled to thinke that bread becomes flesh For when our Lord did liue on earth was nourished by the substance of bread the bread that was eaten was changed into his body and became of the same substance with his holy flesh therefore now also bread is changed into the flesh of our Lord. 11. Valafridus Strabo 830. De rebus Eccles c. 17. When the sonne of God sayth My flesh is meate indeed and my bloud is drinke indeed it is so to be vnderstood that we ought to beleeue the mysteryes to be the very body and bloud of our Lord and gages of that perfect vnity with our head whereof now we haue the hope and shall afterward enioy the thing 12. Altercatio Synagogae Ecclesie 890. Cap 8. We beleeue that before consecration it is bread and wine after consecratiō it is the true body and the true bloud of Christ not only sacramentally but also essentially And when we say the body of Christ we do not vnderstand the body without the bloud nor do separate the bloud from the body as it was shed and flowed out at his woundes but we beleeue the same body to be whole vndiuided vnder ech forme the same whol in heauen and togeather in all places where it is consecrated or receaued by Christian men And although we can not comprehend by reason how the substance of bread doth passe into the body of our Lord yet we are bound to beleeue it The Councel of Nice 796. Vnto this Iury of Fathers we add a Iudge to giue sentence to wit the seauenth Generall Councell celebrated about Bertrams age in the dayes of Charles the Great thus defining and saying Act. 6. Read as long as thou wilt thou shalt not find that eyther our Lord or the Apostles or the Fathers did call that vnbloudy sacrifice offered by the Priest an Image but the very Body and the very Bloud of Christ CONCLVSION YOv haue in this short censure Syr Humfrey and his religion araigned condemned by fiue Iuryes Iudges First by the Iury of Catholicke Authors with one consent auerring and the Councell of Trent as Iudge giuing sentence accordingly