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
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
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
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