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 [Page 9] Bellarmine the Foreman of the Iu­ry, and so maketh a iarre betwixt him andPreface 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 (saythBellar. 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 Preface fol. 5. a. circa finē & b. init. for [Page 10] 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:1. Tim. 6.20. Shune prophane nouelty of speech: Vse 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 variācefol. 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 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 [Page 11] 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 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. As who should say Oecolampadius could not be a Beren­garian in opinion, & infect bookes with that leuen, because he liued fiue hun­dred [Page 12] 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, butfol. 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 In chronico. the twelfe and the last Iurour, saying: Bertram was [Page 13] a learned and Godly man, and writ a booke of the body and bloud of our Lord: yea syr Humfrey 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. [Page 14] Vnto King Charles, brother of Lotha­rius Emperour, he translates, Vnto 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 theIudex expurgat Belgic. in Bertramo. Doway-censure sayth, that Bertram was Carus Carolo non tam ma­gno quàm caluo. Deare vnto Charles not so great as bald, he translates, Deare 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,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 translatesfol. 5. b lin. 9. some say, & vpon this, and no better euidencyfol. 6. a lin. 3. accuseth [Page 15] 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 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 fol. 6. a lin. 13. worke is spu­rious.

Fiftly, whereas Garetius sayth: De­lirare coepit Bertramus: Bertram began to write dotingly. Syr Humfrey translates, He 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 [Page 16] 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 [Page 17] 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 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 [Page 18] what is 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 (forSee Possem. his Apparatus Tritemius the auncientest of Syr Humfreys Iury, and to whome he doth attribute most, dyed since Luthers reuolt from the Church) yetSee 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 fol. 4. lin. 10. to contend, that Paschas [...]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 writtē about the tyme of the nynth Age after Christ, & affords some possibility, that it might be Ber­trams.

[Page 19]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 heVide l. Bertram. in catalog. Test. verit. l. 10. col. 1602. seems to teach most cleerely the foolish and impious Pa­radoxe of Beza, That In cō ­cil. Mon­tis-belgart &c contra Hessus. p. Corpus Christi nō 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 Transubstantiatiō. In so much as the fa­mous Protestant historians of Magdeburge write: Semina 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 ofDe 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 [Page 20] 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 dissonāt in doctrine, the one from the other confirme: TheIndex 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. FinallyIosias Simler. in Biblioth. vniuer. & concord. Gen. Protestants themselues confesse, that when theycensu­ra Duacē. in Bertrā. 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 [Page 21] 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, andLan­francus 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 [Page 22] 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 Pantaleoncrono­graph. 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 Pag. 56. lin. 23. water with wine, affirming, that it is not lawfull to offer wine not mingled with water, as a thing [Page 23] sacramentall & mysterious: hePag. 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 Hū ­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 Religiō 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 supposed dis­sension among our writers about this toye. This I say is great vanity, the dis­sensiō being greater in his owne Church (to omit more mayne matters) euen a­bout this book of Bertram, which though Syr Humfrey vrge as written by Bertram, as neuer since corrupted, as confuting Trans­substantiation: yet Protestants of greater credit, are of another mind. Some reiect the book from the number of Bertrās, as [Page 24] Pantaleon: some confesse the same to haue beene corrupted with new additi­ons, as Iosias Simlerus. Some contemne it as sauouring of Papistry, namely of Transubstantiation, as Illyritus. And seeing Syr Hūfrey knew this well enough as appeares by hisPraefa. fol. 5. b. lin 12. Reynold treatise a­gainst Bruse c. 5. fol. 27. māgling a sentence of M. Reynolds, wherein this is discoue­red; I wonder he could be so seely and blind, as not see that this furious blast of bitter inuection against vs coms backe by reflexion throughly v [...]on his owne selfe, against whome rather then vs, he thus thūders: How preface fol. 11. a. lin. 20. & sequent. comes it to passe, there is so much difference of opinions concerning Bertram? How is it their kingdome is so deui­ded against it selfe that they cānot by any glew of concord, nor bond of vnity be conioyned? Some hold with Paul, some with Apollo, some allow the booke, others deny the Authour, Is the workeman, and the worke deuided? Is this the wisedome and pollicy of the Church to crye some one thing, some another? Thus Syr Humfrey, and more of the like stuffe vt­tered in the same tune, florishing blind­fold in his ignorant zeale, with euery word wounding himselfe, and his owne disagreeing religion.

Secondly, hence appeares Syr Humfrey [Page 25] his extreme & intollerable ignorance in matters of fact in saying: That Preface fol. 8. a. lin 18. & b. lin. 1. P. Clemēt the eight, and the Councell of Trent cōdemned Bertrā without a fol. 8. b. lin. 9. & fol. 9. a. lin. 7. legall, proceeding with­out triall of the party, without hearing him, or his aduocate to speake for him, seauen hun­dred yeares after his death, a strange thinge neyther allowable in Church, nor state. Thus he. And it is strange that a man no better learned, would vndertak to be a writer, vnto whome we may say what S. Au­gustine Lib. 1. cont. Crescon. Grā ­mat. c. 3. Si non pe­nitus in­structus es cur non potius ta­ces? sayd to the lay-Donatist Cres­conius. Though want of learning in a layman be not blame-worthy, yet being no better learned who forced thee to write? Being voyd of learning, why didst thou vndertake the taske of writing, not be­ing thereunto obliged by calling? First for (to examine his speech a little) is it not grosse ignorance in state, and state-matters, to thinke that men may not be condemned after their death? wherein I will referre Syr Humfrey vnto Lawyers more learned them himselfe, and vnto that famous Processe of their Ghospell,Sander. de schism. Anglican. whereby S. Thomas of Canterbury, foure hundred yeares after his Martyrdome was solemnely arraigned and condem­ned of Treason.

[Page 26]Secondly concerning the Church and her affaires, I dare say there is not a­ny man of learning that knowes not this doctrine of Syr Humfrey, that bookes and their authours after death may not be challenged and censured of heresy, to be Nestorian. Which doctrine was accor­dingly condemned in theVide Concil. Sanctum General. collat. 3. 4. 5. 6. fifth gene­ral Councel almost in euery action ther­of called of purpose, to cōdemneCollat 8. can. 12. 13. 14. The­odorus Bishop of Mopsuestia, and his Nesto­rian workes with some bookes of Theo­doret, and of Ibas Bishop of Edessa. In which Councell likewise the Fathers anathematizedCollat. 8. can. 11. Origenes foure hundred yeares after his death, cursing them that should thinke this not to be a practise al­lowable in the Church. But alas, good Syr Humfrey dreamed not of this Coun­cell, but spake of condemning men after their death only out of his mothers wit, according to which, that procee­ding seemed to him vniustifiable. Besids what more false, then that the Councel did not heare Bertram speake, seeing the Cōmissioners read his booke, and so heard him speake, as plainely as dead men can speake, to wit, by their writings? Fourthly, who that knowes of what he speakes would say, that Pro­testāts, [Page 27] Bertrams pretendedPreface fol. a. can. 19. Aduocats, were not admitted to speake for him? For were they not cyted and summoned thither with licence, liberty, yea in­treatyes to speake freely their mind and produce the proofes of their doctrine? And because they made shew to feare danger, had they notSee this safe con­duct sess. 13. 14. 15. eos omni­bus chari­tatis offi­cijs vt in­uitat, ita etiam cō ­plectetur. security from the Pope, from he Emperour, from the Councell, from the Catholike Princes? The truth is, that being guilty of the fal­shood & impiety of their Religion, they durst not appeare, though Syr Humfrey telleth vs a tale of a Tubb, or, which is as good, of a Puritā pulpit: That they were not admitted to speake. Finally his whole discourse is framed and founded vpon this falshood, that Bertam and his booke was in the Councell, and by the Pope condemned of heresy, whereas the per­son of the author was not touched with any censure, nor the booke condemned as hereticall, but only forbidden not by the Councell, but by a commission frō the Councell, as being darke, obscure, ful of ignorant phrases, corrupted by he­retikes.Fol 8. a. lin. 14. And this is also the iudgement of the Doway-censure, to which from the Councell, and Pope, Syr Humfrey doth appeale in Bertrams name; for it cēsureth [Page 28] that booke,See this censure in Indice ex­purgat. set out by Iu­nius ann. 1699. as of no worth, as darke, as full of ignorances, as corrupted by here­tikes, not fit to be read vulgarely by Catholikes. Then add, which the Coù­cell did neuer deny, that the booke be­ing purged from hereticall insertions, & cleared by the starres of marginall anno­tation set ouer against the darke passa­ges therof, may be read without danger. Whence appeares the seelines of Syr Humfreys sayd appeale from Pope and Councell vnto these Doway-censurers, concerning whome he hath this sentēce wherin euery mā that knows any thing, wil see there is not one true word as may likewise be seen by the references in the margent: They heare Who was chosē Pope 20. years after the Popes sentence, the Councels That neuer was made. decree, the Who made no iudgment, but asked counsell of Doway. Inquisitours seuere iudgment: they weigh soberly his ac­cusers reasons: they examine diligently the au­thour himself, & finding the former doome Which they confirme. too heauy for so sleight errours committed by him Condēning the booke, as darke, ignorant, corrupted by heretikes. they repeale the sentence, and vpon more mature deliberation had of the They hold his doctrine, not to be against the Romā. au­thour, and of the doctrine, with the consent He forsooth, gaue his consent, that Doway should re­peale the decree of pope and Councell. [Page 29] of Philip the second, and the Duke of Alba, to all The booke of Index ex­purgatori­us for In­quisitours not for all Catholiks. the Romish Catholikes in his behalfe send greeting. And then hauing set down the censure of Doway, corruptedly, o­mitting that part, wherein they affirme, that it is manifest that the booke was cor­rupted by Protestants in their first editiō thereof at Colen, he concludes: Heere then is their last definitiue sentence: which saying of his is sufficient to define (wher the matter is otherwise doubtfull) that Syr Humfrey his ignorance is intollerable, & euen ridiculous in one that presumes to be a writer.

THE THIRD POINT. That Syr Humfrey in his trans­latiō, hath most grossely corrup­ted the booke of Bertram.

NOW let vs passe frō the Preface to the Translation which I take to be Syr Hūfreys; for though he not directly so affirme, yet he insinuates so much, and his adorning the same with a Dedicatory, with a long Preface, his ingaging all the [Page 30] credit he hath, and is like to haue in his church, vpon the worthynes thereof, shewes him the Authour. And makes me feare that he would take it ill, should I suspect the Translation to be any others then his owne. Wherefore that Syr Humfrey may receaue his doome from Bertrams owne mouth, of whome he doth so bragge, I will in lieu of a Iury produce twelue places of Bertrams book, making so clear­ly for transubstantiation & Catholik do­ctrine,Catalog. Testium veritatis, l. 10. anno 1568 apud Iacobum Staer, & Ia. cobum Chouet. as Syr Humfrey had no other way to hide the matter, but to translate the places falsely, and that with excessiue audacity. The latin, according to which I examine Syr Humfrey his translation, is set forth by Protestants in their booke tearmed Catalogus Testium veritatis.

The first place is pag. 4. lin. 19. That bread which by the Ministery of the Priest is made the Body of Christ, Catalogus testiū col. 1058. circa finem. doth shew one thing outwardly to mans senses, and soundeth ano­ther thing inwardly to the mind of the fayth­full; outwardly indeed the Forme of bread, which Substance it was before, is set out, the colour thereof is shewed, the sauour tasted, but inwardly a thing farr differing is set forth, yea much more pretious and excellent, because diuine, because heauenly, to wit, the body of [Page 31] Christ. Fittly doth Bertram speake in the behalfe of Transubstantiation: and Syr Humfrey ashamed to see such papistry in him, seekes by mis-translation to lay a couer ouer it. First, whereas Bertram sayth, efficitur, bread is made, by the pow­er of the Priest, the body of Christ, he translates, becomes the body. Secondly whereas Bertram sayth: Aliud longè preti­osius & excellentius ostēditur, another more pretious and more excellent thing is shewed, he translates, Is more pretious and excellently shewed. Thirdly and principally, wheras Bertram sayth: Ex­teriùs quidem panis quod ante fuerat forma, pretenditur. The forme of bread (which thing or substance before it was) is shewed, he tran­nslats, Outwardly the forme of bread which it had before is shewed. Most falsely and grossely. First he makes the substantiall verbe fuerat, which signifyes substātially to be, to suppose, for habuerat the accidē ­tall verbe, which signifyes the being of thinges as adiacent vnto substance, not the prime and substantiall being. Secō ­dly quod, which is heere taken substanti­uely, and signifyes the thing or sub­stance of bread, which quiddity, or essence of bread, Bertram sayth before [Page 32] consecration was, but after consecration is not. Syr Humfrey taks quod adiectiuely, referring the same vnto forma, the forme and shape of bread, so construing the text, Forma quod ostenditur, which is such childish and shamefull ignorance, as it is vnworthy to be noted: yet by this igno­rance he peruerts the substāce of the Au­thours meaning.

The second place is pag. 7. lin. 11. VVhat I pray you, In Catal. col. 1059. circa me­dium. can be more absurd then to take Bread to be flesh, and to affirme VVine to be bloud? And a mystery it cannot be, in which there is no secret or hidden thing contayned. And how can it be sayd to be Christs body, in which is not knowne that there is any change made. Thus Bertram. Syr Humfrey in the margent noteth, that heere Bertram proues, that no change is made in the e­lements of the supper: cleare against the drift of Bertram, who by all meanes la­bours to proue, that the bread is changed not by change according to sensible ac­cidents apparantly, but in the inward substance inuisibly.

This is proued more cleerly by the third place pag. 9.In Catal. col. 1059. circa finē. lin. 12. This change (to wit according to outward qualityes) is not knowne heere to be made; for nothing heer [Page 33] can be found to be changed, eyther in touching, In Catal. col. 1059. circa finē. or colour, or tast, or sauour. Therefore if no­thing be changed herein, it is not then any o­ther thing or substance, then what it was be­fore, but it is another thing, or substance, be­cause bread is Syr Hū ­frey heere translates becomes the body not made, which word he still care­fully auoi­des. In catal. col. 1060. l. 6. & seq. Made the body of Christ, and wine his blood: for so himselfe sayth: Take yee and eate yee, for this is my body; and speaking of the cup, he sayth likewise: This is the bloud of the new testament. Thus Bertram, cleer­ly shewing, that the Bread is changed substantially, but not so that the same outwardly appeare, but is hidden and coue­red with the figure and forme of bread.

This is againe made cleere by the fourth place pag. 11. lin. 4. Seeing then this cannot be denyed, let them tell vs how, & in what respect the elements are changed, for corporally Syr Hū ­frey trans­lates sub­stantially to signify there is no substantial change. nothing is seene to be changed in them. Therefore they must of necessity confesse, eyther that they are changed o­therwise then according to the body, and so not to be the thing that in verity they seeme, but another thing or substance, which they are not Heer Syr Humfrey vnder­stood nor the latin seene to be according to their owne proper being. Or if they will not confesse this, they are compelled to deny, that they are the body of Christ, which is wicked not only to say, but also to thinke. This place is plaine, and Syr [Page 34] Humfrey doth many wayes by translation obscure it, as I haue noted in the margēt.

The fifth place pag. 22. lin. 5. VVe are truely perswaded that no faythfull man doubteth, In catal. col. 1062. lin. 41. & sequent. but that bread was made the body of Christ, of which he himselfe giuing it to his disciples, sayth: This is my body. Syr Hum­frey translates quite 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, wherasCyril. 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 [Page 35] mystery, or Sacrament be truely eaten of the Faythfull. A place so cleare, that Syr Hū ­frey 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. Secō ­dly 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.

[Page 36]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 [Page 37] 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 ē ­during, still aswell in Bertram as in the sentences of other Fathers translates ce­lebration [Page 38] 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 Transubstā ­tiation, and vtterly ouerthrow the same, as Syr Humfrey boastes, that in so many [Page 39] 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 [Page 40] 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 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. 6.51The 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 [Page 41] 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 thā ­kes, 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, [Page 42] 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 mā ­ner 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 byLib. 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 [Page 43] 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 someCalu. 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. YeaConf. Wittemb. cap. 144. some professe they beleeue this to be pos­sible, and that they wouldMelan. 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 FathersCyril. 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 [Page 44] 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 [Page 45] 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, euen3. 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 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 [Page 47] 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 B. Bā ­croft 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 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 [Page 48] the deuiding of the blessed Body of the Sacrament, is it not most grosse, vttered in direct tearmes against Christ his command: Take, Luc. 22.17. deuide this among you? This 1. Cor. 41.24. is my body that is broken for you? Against the practise of the primi­tiue Church: The 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 chā ­ge 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 [Page 49] 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 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 [Page 50] 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.