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
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
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