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) 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) 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) fol. 7. a lin 18. to make heere some shew of contradiction where none is with more cunning then sincerity helpeth the matter For whereas Tritemius sayth Bertram writ a prayse-worthy worke of Predestination and one booke of the body and blood of our Lord Syr Humfrey leaueth out the book of predestination and turnes the title of prayse-worthy from it on the booke of the body and bloud of Christ making Tritemius say Bertram writ a prayse-worthy worke to wit one booke concerning the body and blood of our Lord. Can this be well excused in syr Humfrey from witting misrelation to deceaue In the second kind to wit concerning syr Humfreys eyther of falshood or ignorance of latin I set downe these six examples which ioyned with the other six make vp a Iury. First to winne a few yeares of antiquity vnto Bertram and to make him seeme the great writer of Charles the Great whereas Tritemius sayth that Bertram writ a prayse-worthy worke Ad Carolii Regem fratrē Lotharij Imperatoris Vnto King Charles brother of Lotharius Emperour he translates Vnto (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) Iudex expurgat Belgic in Bertramo Doway-censure sayth that Bertram was Carus Carolo non tam magno quà m caluo Deare vnto Charles not so great as bald he translates Deare (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 thēce inferre that he was a bald Authour as they may with as much reason as Syr Humfrey doth conclude (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) fol. 5. b lin 9. some say vpon this and no better euidency (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) 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) 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) fol. 5. a lin 20. was an old dotard fondly and dotingly For to be a dotard and to write in one matter dotingly be differēt things seeing one act implyeth not the habit yea a learned man in some occasion may write absurdly Neyther doth Garetius mislike Bertram in regard of his agednes or antiquity as Syr Humfreys translation insinuates by making him say He was not only a Dotard but an old Dotard but contrarywise in respect of the nouelty of his phrase and for his new doting and because the former part of the booke is Catholicke and contrary to the later which soundes of heresy a signe that eyther the booke is corrupted or els the Authour when he writ was not present to himselfe Sixtly whereas the Doway-censure sayth Non diffitear Bertranum nesciuisse exactè I will confesse Bertram knew not exactly how accidents subsist without a substance fol. 10. b. lin 22. Syr Humfrey translates I doubt not but Bertram was ignorant how accidents exactly subsist Had Syr Humfrey beene exact and not ignorāt in Latin he would not perchance haue so many wayes misconstrued a few latin wordes Especially he would neuer haue ioyned exactly with to subsist which both the text and reason shew must ioyne with to know for there is difference betwixt knowing and exact knowing but no difference betwixt subsisting and exact subsisting So that the Censure sayth not that Bertrā was wholly ignorant as Syr Humfrey pretendes they say but only that he knew not so exactly how to declare the manner of transubstantiation as Deuines in this age I omit many other the like errours committed as I suppose not in fraud but through ignorance of Latine though Syr Humfrey turne and make vse of them to the aduantagement of his heresy in blindenes of zeale These I haue noted shew sufficiently that the contentions betwixt Catholikes which Syr Humfrey would exhibite in his Preface haue no other ground but his ignorance and misprision and therefore are like to the battailles of Lucian (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) 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) 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) fol. 4. lin 10. to contend that Paschasâ—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 writteÌ„ 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) 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) In coÌ„cil Montis-belgart c contra Hessus p. Corpus Christi noÌ„ 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 TransubstantiatioÌ„ In so much as the famous Protestant historians of Magdeburge write Semina (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) 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 dissonaÌ„t in doctrine the one from the other confirme The (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) Iosias Simler in Biblioth vniuer concord Gen. Protestants themselues confesse that when they (n) censura DuaceÌ„ in BertraÌ„ 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) 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) 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) 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) 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 HuÌ„frey his preface who ingageth his credit to wit Preface fol. 3. lin 21. the credit of a pure professour of the Ghospel that is his fayth his ReligioÌ„ 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
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 VVith permission Anno 1624. TO HIS MVCH HONOVRED FRIEND SYR I haue receaued the Booke of Bertram translated into English reprinted by Syr Humfrey Linde with a dedicatory and a longe Preface before it and togeather your request to haue my iudgement aswell concerning the credit of the treatise as the verity of the Preface Your singular affection and manifold curtesies shewed towards me ioyned with your so religious loue of the Catholike truth haue so obliged my selfe and my studyes vnto you as I may not be backeward in yeelding vnto your so pious and iust request For I know your require this Censure not for your own satisfaction who are better grounded then to be remoued or moued with the vanity of such a trifle but for the more full information of some of your friends whome Syr Humfrey would engage to run the same vnaduised course with himselfe who doth (a) Praefa fol. 3. b. lin 21. fol. 14. b. lin 16. engage the credit of his Religion the surety of his Saluation vpon the worthines of this Tracte I haue heerin exceeded the breuity of a Censure as being desirous to lay open not only the insufficiency of this Preface to preuent the Readers danger but also briefly the verity of the Reall-presence for the Prefacers by me desired conuersion vnto the Catholike church The worke being wholly and totally yours by the free full gift of the Authour you may dispose thereof at your pleasure and if you iudge the same prolixe you may select such particles thereof as you shall esteeme 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 vnto you by him who doth euer rest Your seruant in Christ Iesus I.O. 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) 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) 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 Bertrā might be Catholicke in his opinion as F. Persons sayth though for his darke writing he were misliked The second errour is to thinke that if one write truely in sense he is not to be condemned for vsing darke doubtful speech against the style of the church Vpon this errour is built the second opposition betwixt the two next Iurors Because Langdalius sayth Bertram (e) Preface fol. 5. a. circa finē b. init for sense held the Catholicke doctrine Aug. epist 188. but transgressed in the forme of wordes Syr Humfrey inferres that then Garetius had no reason to say that Bertram writ fondly or dotingly As though to crosse the tradition of the Church though but in forme of words were not Dotage or insolent madnes and against the prescript of the Apostle (g) 1. Tim. 6.20 Shune prophane nouelty of speech Vse (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 variāce (i) fol. 6. lin 4. betwixt D. Sanders saying The Sacramentarian doctrine was not published in Bertrās age And M. Reynoldes who affirmes That Bertram as Scotus had done before him writ doubtfully of the truth of the Sacramēt What oppositiō I pray you betwixt these two sentences that Syr Humfrey should say they hold togeather like (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) Fol. 6. a lin 20. vrgeth his saying as opposite vnto Posseuinus that Oecolāpadius corrupted the booke and set it out vnder Bertrams name for sayth Syr Humfrey Berengarius liued 600. yeares agoe and Oecolampadius an hūdred
supposed dissension among our writers about this toye This I say is great vanity the dissensioÌ„ 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 BertraÌ„s 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 HuÌ„frey knew this well enough as appeares by his (t) Praefa fol. 5. b. lin 12. Reynold treatise against Bruse c. 5. fol. 27. maÌ„gling 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 vâ—on his owne selfe against whome rather then vs he thus thuÌ„ders How (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 caÌ„not 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) Preface fol. 8. a. lin 18. b. lin 1. P. ClemeÌ„t the eight and the Councell of Trent coÌ„demned BertraÌ„ without a (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) Lib. 1. cont Crescon GraÌ„mat c. 3. Si non penitus instructus es cur non potius taces sayd to the lay-Donatist Cresconius Though want of learning in a layman be not blame-worthy yet being no better learned who forced thee to write Being voyd of learning why didst thou vndertake the taske of writing not being thereunto obliged by calling First for to examine his speech a little is it not grosse ignorance in state and state-matters to thinke that men may not be condemned after their death wherein I will referre Syr Humfrey vnto Lawyers more learned them himselfe and vnto that famous Processe of their Ghospell Sander de schism Anglican whereby S. Thomas of Canterbury foure hundred yeares after his Martyrdome was solemnely arraigned and condemned of Treason Secondly concerning the Church and her affaires I dare say there is not any man of learning that knowes not this doctrine of Syr Humfrey that bookes and their authours after death may not be challenged and censured of heresy to be Nestorian Which doctrine was accordingly condemned in the (a) Vide Concil Sanctum General collat 3. 4. 5. 6. fifth general Councel almost in euery action therof called of purpose to coÌ„demne (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) 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 CoÌ„missioners 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 ProtestaÌ„ts Bertrams pretended (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) See this safe conduct sess 13. 14. 15. eos omnibus charitatis officijs vt inuitat ita etiam coÌ„plectetur security from the Pope from he Emperour from the Councell from the Catholike Princes The truth is that being guilty of the falshood impiety of their Religion they durst not appeare though Syr Humfrey telleth vs a tale of a Tubb or which is as good of a PuritaÌ„ 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 froÌ„ 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 ceÌ„sureth 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 senteÌ„ce wherin euery maÌ„ 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) Who was choseÌ„ Pope 20. years after the Popes sentence the Councels (2) That neuer was made decree the (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) Which they confirme too heauy for so sleight errours committed by him (5) CondeÌ„ning the booke as darke ignorant corrupted by heretikes they repeale the sentence and vpon more mature deliberation had of the (6) They hold his doctrine