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
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
the letter of Gods word rather then the seeming of sense What can be more absurd or what also more wicked then to say as Syr Humfrey doth that the Reall Presence that is the body of the son of God taken by fayth and really is a dead letter and a thing that killeth THE FIFTH POINT Concerning the iudgment of the Nynth Age about the litterall sense of Christ his word This is my Body FROM this litterall and expresse word of Christ Syr Humfrey dares appeale vnto the iudgment of the Christian Catholicke Roman Church of the nynth age wherein Bertram liued whō therefore he tearmes his Mother her worde he preferres before the word of Christ and commends her refusing the word of Christ as being but a dead letter euen (f) 3. Reg. 3. as one of the two strumpets that stroue before Salomon being the true mother of the liuing child did wel not to allow of the word of her fellow-strumpet offering her a dead body These are his wordes The (g) Preface fol. 6. lin 19. seq mother of the child although she were a strumpet yet would she by no meanes suffer her son to be deuided nor accept of a dead child though it was presented to her as her owne Bertrams mother the Catholicke church of this age although at the tyme of his byrth she had lost much of her wonted modesty yet would she not agree to haue her blessed Body of the Sacrament to be deuided or giuen by the halfes yea although what was offered her Christ told her it was her Body yet by no meanes would she allow of the dead letter which killeth but of the quickening spirit that giueth life Thus Syr Humfrey applyeth the Metaphore though he speake of the credit he hath or is like to haue in his Church yet I feare if he come to be tryed by some Puritan Classis he may receaue the like doome and disgrace as one M. Hockenell whome hauing preached before them for his approbation they reiected Vntill (h) B. Bācroft danger posit l. 3. cap. 14 he had taken more paynes at his booke because he iumped not meete in deliuering the Metaphore of his text For I dare say that neuer foule Metaphore was more vnhādsomly trimmed to the purpose then this is by syr Humfrey His comparing the Church vnto a strūpet saying that with time she lost much of her wonted and former modesty that is the pure profession of sauing truth is not this against christs expresse promise That (i) Ioā 14.17 and Matt. 28.20 Cypr. de vnit Eccl. Adulterari non potest sponsa Christi the spirit of truth should remayne with his Church for euer His reprehending the deuiding of the blessed Body of the Sacrament is it not most grosse vttered in direct tearmes against Christ his command Take (k) Luc. 22.17 deuide this among you This (l) 1. Cor. 41.24 is my body that is broken for you Against the practise of the primitiue Church The (m) 1. Cor 10.16 Act. 5.28 bread which we deuide is it not the communion or the body of our Lord yea against the Protestant English Church which deuides her blessed body of the sacrament her Eucharisticall loafe into halfes quartars yea sometymes into twēty or forty peeces His saying that Christ told the Church the Sacramēt was her body is it not incredible boldnes rather then not apply a foule Metaphore thus to chāge and effeminate Gods most holyword by changing his Body into her body But that which surpasseth in blasphemy all that can be spoken is to compare the word of Christ telling the Church This is my body with their words that presented a dead child to the mother of the liuing child which was the word only of her fellow-strumpet contesting with her and speaking falsly against her consciēce Thus openly doth Syr Humfrey professe that it is not the Church of Rome but Christ Iesus and his word with whom he and his Ptotestant Church standes at defiance about the Reall presence For although Christ himselfe telles the Church what is offered her in the Sacrament is his Body yet sayth he VVe Protestants will by no meanes beleeue nor need we beleeue him more then that mother beleeued her lying Stratagonist Verily rather then to oppose so openly and with so foule and irreuerent comparison disgrace our Sauiours word and this word the most sacred venebrable of all other This is my body they might with lesse shame and shew of blasphemy follow the councel that their Father M. Luther gaue thē VVhat (n) Luth. defens verb. coen tom 7. Wittemb fol. 411. haue you no wit You must venture Say then that the wordes This is my body were first writen in the margent and thence by some Papist thrust into the text For you haue a good rule to proue this and your rule is that that is not written which seemeth superflous vnto you Now without these wordes your supper is full and completly set downe in the Ghospell Christ tooke breade gaue thanks brake it and gaue it to his Disciples saying Doe this in remembrance of me These wordes alon cōtaine as much as you beleeue to wit that bread is to be eaten by fayth and remembrance of Christ his body passion and death Why then do you not raze these wordes This is my body out of your Bibles Cōmunion-books wherof you haue not any need or vse as touching the fayth and the celebration of your supper But because the high conceit of the Church Bertrams mother and his persuasion that she by no meanes would allow of the Reall presence or the litterall sense of Christs word This is my body is so great a scandall vnto Syr Humfrey I wil shew how much he is heerin deceaued and how earnest the Church of that age was for Transubstantiation and against the Protestant metaphoricall exposition by producing the verdicts of twelue principall Authours that then wrote Paschasius Corbeyensis Anno 880. In this Inquest Paschasius may iustly challenge the first place seeing he hath written a whole Treatise of this argument Pascha de corpor sang Domini c. 1. wherein he may seeme to confute the phrase of Bertram that in the Sacrament there is not the same flesh that was borne of the Virgin In this treatise there are as many verdicts for Transubstantiation as there are chapters or sentences but this one the first in his booke may suffice Although in the sacrament there is the figure of bread and wine yet after consecratiō it is to be beleeued that they are no other thinge or Substance but the Body and bloud of Christ Hence verity it selfe vnto his disciples sayth This is my flesh for the life of the world and that I may speake a thing yet more wonderful not any other flesh but that which was borne of the B. Virgin that suffered on the Crosse that rose vp from the graue This is the selfe same flesh