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
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
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