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
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
contrary For we thinke truely that any faythfull man doubteth whether that Bread becomes Christs body making Bertram to affirme that euery man doubts of this chāge of bread into Christs body In catal col 1063. lin 6. 7. The sixth pag. 24. lin 1. Bertram makes Christ speake in this sort Doe not thinke you shall corporally eate my flesh deuided into parts or drinke my bloud Syr Humfrey translates Thinke not I pray you that you must eyther bodily eate my flesh or bodily drinke my bloud So that Bertram his deniall of carnall eating by tearing Christs flesh into peeces Syr Humfrey turnes into a deniall of substantiall eating thereof by reall sūption wheras (a) Cyril 10. in Ioā c. 13. corporaliter secundū carnem In catal vbi supra lin 12. 13. 14. the Fathers in this sense say expresly we take in the Sacrament the flesh of Christ corporally The seauenth pag. 24. lin 13. Bertram bringes Christ saying Then after my ascension the bread and wine turned into the Substance of my body and bloud shall by the mystery or Sacrament be truely eaten of the Faythfull A place so cleare that Syr Hūfrey like a bat that endures not the light would beate the same out by mistranslation For thus it pleaseth him to make Bertram speake Bread and wine being turned into my body and bloud * All this is added the substance thereof shall in a mystery * Verè omitted be receaued First he addeth the word Substance bread turned into the substāce of Christs body shall be eaten sayth Bertram bread being turned into the substāce of Christs body the substance of bread shall be eaten Syr Humfrey will haue him say Is this to translate not rather to peruert the meaning of Authours and make thē to speake fōdly For if bread be turned in the substāce of Christ body how can the substāce therof remaine be eatē Secōdly he leaueth out the word truly saying only it is eaten whereas Bertram sayth it is truely eaten which is a substantiall omission in Bertram because Bertram in the beginning of his booke declares that he takes truly to signify the same as in substance really not only in figure so that if the body of Christ be truly eatē in Bertrams opinion it is eaten in the substance thereof really and not only in figure The eight Bertrā saith pag. 27. lin 13. VVas not Christ immolated in himselfe only once Catal. col 1063. circa finem and that about Easter and yet in the Sacrament not only in all the festiuall dayes of Easter but also euery day he is sacrificed or immolated by the people Thus Bertram which is ranke papistry Now heare Syr Humfrey translating Bertram not into English but into Protestancy VVas not Christ offered about that tyme And yet notwithstāding he is not only euery feast of Easter but euery day offered vnto the faythfull people Thus is Bertram trimmed by Syr Humfrey according to the Protestant cut In Catal. col 1064. circa medium The ninth Bertram sayth pag. 30. lin 8. It is not sayd that Christ doth suffer in himself euery day which he did but once Syr Humfrey to make this place sound against the Masse or dayly oblation of Christs body translates It is not sayd that Christ offers himselfe euery day because he did it but once The tenth Bertram sayth pag. 41. lin 6. Catal. col 1066. circa finem According to the substance or corporall Masse the creatures what they were before the same they afterward remaine But they were before bread and wine according to which forme shape they are seene still to remayne Therefore the thing is inwardly changed by the mighty power of the holy Ghost which change fayth beholdeth This place is too perspicuous for Transubstantiation therefore Syr Humfrey in his translation makes a Transubstantiation thereof changing the very substance of the sense into his owne contrary meaning VVhatsoeuer they were before consecration they are euen the same afterwards but they were bread and wine before and therefore they remayne the same which is proued because we see that euen whē they are consecrated they remayne in the same kind or forme Surely Syr Humfrey this is not to translate Authours out of Latin into English but to translate fancyes out of your owne head into their Treatises For Bertram was wiser then to make this foolish argument which you foyst into his booke Bread remaynes in forme and shape therefore it remaynes in substance The eleuenth Bertram often in this Treatise names the dayly celebration of the mysteryes signifying the custome of priuate masses or celebrations without communion which Syr Humfrey not ēduring still aswell in Bertram as in the sentences of other Fathers translates celebration and administration by this addition to make Bertram a Protestant The twelfe and last place pag. 42. is most notoriously corrupted Catal. col 1067. init where for fourty lines togeather he translates not one sentence line or almost word with correspondēce vnto the latin text I will note only his corruptiō of one line therof Bertram hath this sentence Corpus est Christi quod cernitur sanguis qui bibitur nec quaerendum quomodo factum sit sed tenendum quod sic factum fit VVhat is seene is Christs body what is drūk is his bloud neyther ought we to search the manner how it is done but beleeue that so it is done Syr Humfrey thus translates That is Christs body which is seene that is bloud which is drunke and we must not enquire how it is made or becomes his body but beleeue and hold and so it is become his body Thus he thrusts into Bertrams booke his Puritanicall fayth Crede quod habes habes I now appeale vnto the iudgement of any indifferent Reader to giue sentēce First whether Syr Hūfrey haue not manifestly corrupted the book of his Bertram Secondly whether the booke can be cleare against Transubstātiation and vtterly ouerthrow the same as Syr Humfrey boastes that in so many places makes so clearely for it Thirdly whether it be not the greatest vanity in the world to build a Religion against the Roman Catholicke and saluation out of their Church vpon this tract which is so papisticall as syr Humfrey his English translation is euen ashamed therof Finally whether the Protestants be not in extreme misery and beggary for want of professors and recorders of their Religion before Luther that can find no better then this Booke and this Authour wherof they bragge beyond measure THE FOVRTH POINT A grand Iury against Syr Humfrey shewing the Reall presence which he terames a dead letter to be the doctrin of Gods holy word and the perpetull doctrine of the Church THE infinite wisedom of Gods holy spirit foreseeing with what difficulty the Reall presence of Christs sacred flesh and pretious bloud in the Sacrament would be beleeued of carnall men in regard of the repugnance with reason the