that this Tract on which Syr Humfrey doth engage the credit of his Religion is darke obscure intricate corrupted since the first writing therof by heretikes not fit to be vulgarly read Secondly by the Iury of his owne falshoodes and errours and the Round Councell-table of the Protestant historians of Magdeburge as Iudge pronoūcing sentence and censuring this booke of Bertram to be papistical euē in the point of Transubstantiation so condemning syr Humfrey of want of iudgement that builds his Religion against this point of Papistry vpon it Thirdly by the Iury or rather iniury of mistranslations offered vnto the booke particulerly in twelue besides many other passages thereof Syr Humfreys owne conscience being Iudge and condemning both this booke as being so papistical as not fit to be truely set forth in English and himselfe of vnsincerity in thus corrupting the works of ancient Authours Fourthly by the Iury of the writers in Bertrams age professing the substāce of bread and wine to be turned into the substāce of the body and bloud of Christ not metaphorically but litterally not by figure but by truth not by shaddow but in verity not only sacramentally but essentially The generall Councell of Nice about the same tyme as Iudge pronouncing the sentence accordingly that bread and wine to be made the body and bloud of Christ not by figure not by metaphore but in verity really Whereby Syr Humfrey that dares write that the Church would by no meanes take the word of Christ This is my body in the litterall sense and for the reall and substantial presence of his body in the Sacrament is condemned of being eyther desirous to deceaue soules in matters of their saluation a thing vnworthy of a Christian much more of a Christian Knight or els as exceedingly to blame to write and speake so confidently of thinges he doth not know nor vnderstand Finally by the Iury of Christs his owne expresse deposition and sentence so many tymes reiterated in holy Scripture and his Omnipotency is the Iudge that defines and declares that heere he meant according to the Letter or els is vnworthy of the title of Verity it selfe For is it the part of exact and infinite Truth to promise a thing often and earnestly in plaine and expresse wordes not to performe the same according to the letter if the performance thereof according to the Letter lye in his power Christ Iesus doth often and earnestly promise that bread and wine in the Sacrament should be and is in all ages to the worlds end his Body and Bloud it lyes in his power to performe this promise according to the letter by turning the substance of bread and wine into the substāce of his body bloud so making bread wine to become really and substātially according to the letter his body bloud in the christiā sacramēt vntil the worlds end And can they think him to be Verity it selfe who thinke that notwithstanding so many his expresse promises he doth not performe his word according to the Letter though it be in his power so to performe it Verily howsoeuer they may gloze the matter in wordes they doe not esteeme of his word as of the word of Verity in their hart which Syr Humfrey as being not very dexterous in applying Metaphores nor wise inough to ponder his words as is required in a writer doth openly professe euen also in wordes by comparing the word of Christ in this point vnto that notorious lye of the strumpet so famously recorded in Scripture as hath beene sayd I will end for what can I say What can I do more Verily if I might thereby reclayme Syr Humfrey from his opposing Christ Iesus and his Church I would be glad to loose as many drops of my bloud as I haue heere spent inke to shew his errour But if I cannot so preuaile with him I must leaue him to Gods iustice in the number of them described by the Apostle Tit. 3.11 Qui delinqunt proprio iudicio condemnati assuring him that these wordes of Christ This is my body howsoeuer he now would eneruate Epist ad Freder Miconium cap. 4. emasculate and disgrace them by foule comparison will proue as Melansthon sayth in the day of iudgemēt Thunderbolts against the denyers of the Reall presence who flye vnto Metaphores rather then submit their vnderstandings vnto the irrefragable euidency of the sacred Text because it is aboue the capacity of their carnal Reason Faults escaped in the Printing Pag. Lin. Fault Correction 4. 7. your you Ibid. in m. fol. 3. b. lin 21. fol. 3. a. lin 21. Ibid. in m. fol. 14. b. lin 16. fol. 14. a. lin 16. 9. in m. Preface fol. 7. b. lin 1. fol. 4. b. lin 6. 8. fol. 5. lin 5. Preface fol. 4. b. fol. 5. Ibid. ouer against lin 10  fol. 7. b. lin 1. 10. in m. fol. 6. lin 4. fol. 5. b. lin 5. Ibid. 9. shune shunne 11. 11. errour to errour is to Ibid. in m. lin 20. lin 10. 12. 9. this his Ibid. 22. errour that error Is that 13. in m. lin 18. lin 16. Ibid. 20. eyther of falshood eyther falshood 20. in m. Concord Gen. Conrad Ges Ibid. 26. challenged alleadged 21. 19. predecessor which predecessor which 23. in m. lin 14. lin 16. Ibid. in m. lin 21. lin vltim Ibid. 9. with administration without administration 24. 11. this his Ibib. in m. lin 12. lin 13. Ibib. in m. fol. 11. a. fol. 21. a 25. 19. First for to examine First to examine Ibid. in m. fol. a. can 19. fol. 9. lin 19. Ibid. in m. fol. 8. a. fol. 9. a 29. 21. he not he doth 31. 1. Fittly doth Thus fittly doth 32. 17. made made 33. 13. appeare appeares 35. 7. 8. the substance thereof the substance therof Ibib. 17. in into Ibid. 18. Christ Christs 39. 11. recorders recordes 40. 8. sequently frequently 42. 11. text truth 44. 18. then their 46. in m. fol. 6. lin 19. fol. 1. lin 19. 49. 8. Stratagonist Antagonist 53. 13. sustance substance FINIS
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
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