That the Protestants may more truly be said to offer to God a meritoriously Propitiatory Sacrifice for Remission of Sinne, than the Romish do. SECT. II.
BEfore wee resolve any thing, wee are willing to heare your [ 30] Cardinals Determination. The Death of Christ (saithahee) is a proper, and most perfect Sacrifice. So hee, most Christianly: But after noting the Profession of Protestants, to hold that the same Most perfect Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse is the onely proper Sacrifice of Christian Religion, hee denyeth this, because (saithbhee) This is common to all true Religions, and being but once done, ceaseth to be any more, but onely in the virtue and effi∣cacie thereof. And all this hee doth for establishing of another properly Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Romish Masse, by the hands [ 40] of the Priest.
But wee, believing that That Sacrifice of Christ's death was but once offered as (according to our other distinction) the one∣ly subjective, meritorious, and properly-Propitiatory Sacrifice, therefore it ceaseth to be so any more; but yet is still objective∣ly perpetuall in the Church of God, as the object of our Re∣membrance of his Death, Representatively and Commemorative∣ly,Page 489 both in our Acts of Celebration, and in our Prayers and Prai∣ses offered up to God, in the true apprehension of the Efficacie and Virtue thereof. In which respect (as Christian Beliefe professeth) Christ is called*The Lambe slaine from the begin∣ning of the world: so is hee the same still, and ever will be un∣till the end thereof; for which cause our Celebration is called of the Apostle A shewing of the Lords Death till hee come. So that as by the Bodily Eye, beholding the*Serpent on a pole in the Wildernesse, they that were stung with the [ 10] deadly poyson of Fiery Serpents were healed; even so All, who by Faith, the Eye of the soule, behold the Sonne of God lift upon the Crosse, shall not perish, but have ever∣lasting life.
But what is that Propitiousnesse of the Sacrifice of Christ's Body (will you say) which you Protestants will be said to offer more truly to God, than that wee Romanists do, and wherein doth the difference consist? Be you as willing to heare as to aske, and then know, that first although the whole Act of our Celebration, in Commemoration of Christ's Death, as procee∣ding [ 20] from us, be a Sacrifice propitious, as other holy Acts of Devotion, onely by Gods Complacencie and Acceptance; Yet the object of our Commemoration being the Death and Passion of Christ, in his Body and Blood, is to us, by the efficacie therof, a truly and properly propitiatory Sacrifice, and Satisfaction, for a perfect Remission of all sinnes. Thus concerning Protestants. As for you, if wee consider your owne outward Acts of Cele∣bration, (wherein in Ten Circumstances wee •inde Ten Transgres∣sions of the Institution of Christ, and therefore provocatory to stir up Gods displeasure) wee thinke not that it can be Propitiato∣ry [ 30] so much as by way of Gods Acceptance.
Next, when we dive into the mysterie of your Masse, to seeke out the subject matter of your Sacrifice in the hands of your Priest, which according to the faith of your Church is called a Proper propitiatory Sacrifice in it selfe; it hath beene found (be∣sides our Proofes from Scriptures, and your owne Principles) by* Ten Demonstrations out of Ancient Fathers to be Sacra∣mentall Bread and Wine, and not the Body and Blood of Christ. Wherefore the Subject of your Sacrifice can be no more properly [ 40] (that is, Satisfactorily) in it selfe Propitiatory, than substantiall Bread can be Christ.
Lastly, in examining the End of the Propitiation by the Masse, Wee perceive your Doctors in suspense among themselves, whether you be capable of Propitiation for Remission of sinnes, or else of Temporall Punishments due to such Sinners; or if of Sins, whether of Mortall sinnes, or else of Veniall sinnes only: to wit, such as you thinke may be washed away by your owne Page 490Holy-water-sprinckle. Marke now, wee pray you, these three: First, what you offer, namely not Christ, but his Sacrament. Secondly, by what Acts of Celebration, to wit, most whereof are not Acts of Obedience, but of Transgression. Thirdly, to what End, viz, not for a Faithfull, but for a doubtfull; not for an absolute, but for a partiall Remission, and that also you know not whether of sinnes, or of punishments: and then must you necessarily acknowledge the happinesse of our Protestants profession, concerning the Celebration of the Eucharist, in comparison of your Ro∣mish. [ 10] How much more, when you shall see discovered the Idolatry there∣of, which is our next Taske. [ 20] [ 30] [ 40]
A Vindication of certaine Testimonies, alleged in the II. III. IV. and V. Bookes of the preceding Treatise; against the Vnjust Imputations of one (whosoever). Popishly inspired: To the greater Disadvantage of the Romish Cause, wherein hee hath so much laboured.
THese kinde of Vindications ought not to seeme unne∣cessary [ 10] to any Reader, who would wish either estimati∣on to the Author, or just advantage to the Cause, when he shal perceive extreme diligence joined with an unstanchable malignancie, in sifting every corner, and weighing every grane. Howbeit that these Exceptions (such as they are) may worke both for the Correction of the Print, where it is requisite, and further Confutation of Romish Cavillers; yet I must say un∣to this Objector (as unto others of his kin) Etiamsi gratiae cau∣sâ nihil facis, omnia tamen grata sunt quae facis. Only I wish these his Exceptions had come in due time to my hands, (before the fift, and part of the sixt Booke had beene reprinted, in this se∣cond [ 20] Edition) that my Answers unto them might have bene in∣serted in their proper places. But now to the objected Testimo∣nies, of which (that in Epiphanius being altered in this second * Edition) Wee will take the rest in due order.
[ 30] TO leave the Objectors verball Exceptions, because (now) satisfyed in the second Edition; and to try that which hee thinketh materiall.
ANSW. It will be sufficient to set downe the words of Bellar∣mine his owne, thus; ETIAM ADDIT, (Epiph.) ID ESS• CRE∣DENDVM, LICET SENSVS REPVGNENT; that is, HEE (spea∣king [ 40] of Epiphanius) ALSO ADDETH, THAT IT IS TO BE BELIEVED, ALTHOVGH IT BE REPVGNANT TO OVR SEN∣SES. How then can it be denyed that ← Bellarmine → delivered those words, REPVGNANT TO OVR SENSES, as the words of Epiphanius, hearing ← Bellarmine → himselfe affirming that they were ADDED by Epiphanius? If I had denyed this, I would have given my Objector leave to say, I had beene out of my Senses.Page 492
ANSVV. A sore Taxation, which pincheth upon my Fidelity; I shall then give a summarie Answer, after that I have received my full Charge. [ 10]
ANSVV. So then the Objector hath chosen Pamelius, a lear∣ned Commentator, upon the same words of Tertullian, and Romishly professed, for his Arbitrator; and I shall not gain-say his owne choice. Pamelius therefore in the very* Edition and [ 20] page cited by the Objector, ingenuously confesseth saying; TERTVLLIANVS DICENS CHRISTVM CORPORIS SVI FI∣GVRAM PANIS DEDISSE; SVBAVDIT, MORE SVO, ACCVSA∣TIVUM.
By which words of Pamelius wee have gained fowre Advan∣tages. I. A Iustification of the sense of the Accusative [PA∣NEM,] as Pamelius sheweth. II. A Condemnation of the Ob∣jector his Falsehood, who said that Pamelius had it [PANI.] III. A Consutation of ← Bellarmine → , who, because the word was [ 30] PANIS, and not PANEM, would needs inferre that Christ gave not onely a Signe of his Body, but the Body it selfe; whereas Tertullian (saith Pamelius) used the Genitive-case, PANIS, in∣stead of the Accusative, PANEM; how? MORE SVO; that is, AS TERTVLLIAN, VSED To Do: which plainly sheweth that ← Bellarmine → was either ignorant of the style of Tertullian, or ra∣ther (if hee knew it) guilty of Dissimulation herein, namely, More suo. The Last is a Manifestation of an egregious fond∣nesse in them Both, by insisting upon Tertullian's style so rigid∣ly, in the Genitive-case, which in English must needs stand thus: [ 40] Christ to have given a Signe of his owne Body of Bread; which is plainly a Non-sense, as any may perceive; so that I may well conclude, ô felix error! of changing the word, PANIS, into PANEM; although it were but by chance, and onely to make true Latine, according to ordinary Construction. By occasion whereof, so much Ignorance and Perversnesse of the Adver∣sary hath beene displayed.
ANSVV. Were his proofe as faisible, as I hold it Impossible, [ 10] yet was my Assertion, notwithstanding, most true, because I onely spake of the Imposition of this Doctrine of Transubstan∣tiation, as an Article of Faith, upon mens Consciences, not to have beene before that forenamed Pope Gregory the Seventh. The Contrary whereof neither hee, nor any for him, can shew out of any Ancient Father. The Advantage hee giveth us, is the bewraying of his owne Precipitancie.
THe Greeke Archbishop Cabasilas hath told us, that the La∣tines of the Romish Church would not indure the Greeks to call the Eucharist, after the Romish Consecration, Bread.
ANSVV. I proved from Cabasilas, that they will not indure it: hee telleth mee, without any proofe at all, they do. But if hee should eat no bread, untill hee could finde in Romish wri∣ters the Commonly naming of the Eucharist Bread, after their [ 30] Consecration thereof, hee within a short time, would be found felo de se. After this the Objector telleth me (which I had taught him before in the first Booke) that Cabasilas and the Greekes hold that the words of Christs Institution, to wit [HOC EST CORPVS MEVM] are not words of Consecration, and therfore called the Romish Eucharist Bread; and Con•ludeth,
OB. Therefore doth not Cabasila's Testimonie availe you.
ANSW. It proveth as much as I there assumed to prove: That the Romish would not allow their Eucharist to be called Bread after their Consecration. Our Advantage is to observe [ 40] your pronesse to quarrell, you know not for what.
ANSW. When I was but a Boy, I then learned to translate SICVT, SIC (which are the words of Irenaeus) EVEN As, So.
Page 494OB. II.
ANSW. Can there be a Change with a SICVT, EVEN As, without a maner of Similitude of Change?
One Advantage herein may be this our further Observation, that Irenaeus, as hee said of the BREAD Consecrated, that it is NO MORE A COMMON THING, BVT CHANGED INTO AN EVCHARIST (a Sacrament:) saith likewise of the other part of the Similitude, that THE BODIES OF THE COMMVNI∣CANTS ARE INCORRVPTIBLE IN HOPE OF RESVRRECTION: meaning, that they are therefore not to be esteemed of in the [ 10] common Condition of naturall Bodies.
Our other Advantage will be, to learne the language of the Fathers, as here of Irenaeus, calling the Bodies of the Faithfull INCORRVPTIBLE; even here in this life, but meaning, because of the hope of their future Resurrection, when they shall be changed indeed, yet not in Substance, but onely in Qualities, from Incorruptibility and Basenesse. Even as hee meant of the change of this Sacrament, consisting of an Earthly, and an Hea∣venly part; the Earthly being the Bread Naturall; and the Hea∣venly being the same Sacramentall, as betokening and signify∣ing [ 20] the Body of Christ.
ANSW. Which is no more Advantage to my Cause, than if I should give this Objector two Sixpences for one Shil∣ling.
ANSW. This needed not to have beene added, because Am∣brose [ 30] his words cannot be understood of any Reader, but as im∣plying a Similitude.
ANSW. I call for an Oedipus to unriddle this, to say that there is a differencet sense betweene THE THINGS THAT WERE BE STILL; AND THEY BE STILL THAT WHICH THEY WERE BEFORE, ALTHOVGH CHANGED INTO ANOTHER THING. [ 40] That is to say, Of Common Elements made Sacred and Sa∣cramentall.
ANSW. What needed any more Asseveration than Page 495 the words set downe, IPSA NATVRA MVTATVR, which I un∣derstand to be as asseverantly spoken, as if hee had sworne them.
ANSW. It is in the same Chapter, and not long after neither. But this man is as good an Objector as hee is an Observer; who doth not know that which is common to all Writers, that what the Author hath spoken somewhat more obscurely before, hee [ 10] explaineth it with words more intelligible, albeit long after.
ANSW. NAMED AND CALLED are onely Appellations of the outward words, whereas [SIGNIFICATA] alwayes import the sense of the same words, whether spoken or read; so that I shal need, for Confutation, no more but to appeale unto the Ob∣jector himself to distinguish the office of his cares & eyes, where∣by [ 20] hee apprehendeth onely words, from the Function of his Brain-pan, in judging of their sense and signification.
A further Advantage upon this occasion may be had first from another Allegation, of the Objector himselfe, out of Saint Am∣brose lib. 5. de Sacrament. cap. 4. Dixi ante verba Christi panis dicitur; post deprompta Christi verba, non panis dicitur, sed corpus appellatur. Wee heare that Saint Ambrose proveth, that that, which is called the Body of Christ, was before Consecration that which was called Bread: so that [Hoc] in Christ's speech, must [ 30] signifie Bread, which marreth and dasheth your Romi•h and li∣terall Exposition of Christ's words (the foundation of all your other errours, concerning Corporall Presence:) to note in Saint Ambrose his Iudgement, that [Hoc] in Christ's speech beto∣kened Bread, which, in the universall Iudgement of all Romish Doctors, cannot be attributed to Christ's Body in a literall sense. And Secondly to recognize the Art of ← Bellarmine → (See Book. 2. pag. 125.) in his misalleging the same words of Ambrose, thus; [Post Consecrationem corpus Christi est,] instead of [CORPVS CHRISTI SIGNIFICATVR.] If that there were no more force [ 40] in the word [SIGNIFICATVR] than in NOMINATVR, why did your Cardinall bogle and startle at it, and utterly dash it out?
Page 496 ANSW. Neither, I dare sweare, on purpose, because both of them are alleged: the first [NON EFFIGIE, SED] translated in the English, and [CARO FACTVS EST] expressed in the Latine. Our Advantage now is this, to call to our Readers Remem∣brance, that hee must interpret these words of Cyprian by that his other Saying; namely, that Things signifying are called by the same names, by which things signified are called.
CYprian said: Things Indifferent change their nature after they be commanded.
ANSW. He meant as simply as any Protestant can do, saying a little before the words, A thing of Indifferencie, being determi∣nated by the Church, if it be violated, is a sinne. What is, if this be not a Change of the Nature, to become (by reason of the Churches Decree) of a thing Indifferent and not sinfull, a thing sinfull, and therefore not Indifferent. [ 20]
ANSW. And that, I say, millions of Popish Doctors, at the first hearing, would sweare, to wit, that the Church of Rome accounteth the matter of the Eucharist, COMMON BREAD, and WINE, before it be Consecrated. [ 30]
Our Advantage is, that the Objector hath brought an whole house, the Church of Rome it selfe (which you call the house of God) upon his head, by this Exception.
ANSW. I have taxed him most justly, not for any mistaking of the words of Cyril, but for wresting and abusing his meaning, ← Bellarmine → believing it was so sayd of Cyril, as absolutely de∣nying that there can be any tryall of the naturall Substance of Bread, after Consecration, by the verdict of any of mans sen∣ses; whereas Cyril spake onely of the Sacramentall nature Page 497 thereof. This was evidently proved out of Cyril, who affir∣ming Sacred Oile to be no more Bare Oile, after Consecration, as he said of the Eucharist, It was no more meere Wine after it be Consecrated; thereby taught us to judge of both alike. E∣ven as wee may say, upon the same reason, that the water of Baptisme is, during the use thereof, no meere Water. But why? even because it is Sacramentall; and that accordingly wee are not to beleeve our Senses, when wee are in Contemplation of this Sacrament, to thinke it now to be mere Water, but beleeve it to be of another nature: else our naturall eyes and senses shall [ 10] deceive our Spirituall sight of Faith, in discerning the Spiritu∣all and Mysticall meanings thereof. Yea, and in this respect I might have taxed ← Bellarmine → , for inferring from such speeches an absolute denying of the tryall, by sense, of the natural part of the Sacrament, because hee might have beene instructed▪ By the *Councell of Nice, of the meaning of such speeches of the Fa∣thers; that Councell saying as much of Baptisme, thus, Bap∣tisme is not to be considered with the eyes of our Bodies, but of our Mindes. All which is to abstract the thoughts of Christian [ 20] men from all Earthly conceipts, when they are conversant in the Celebration of such sacred Mysteries. This wee have no∣ted, Book. 3. pag. 207.
This also hath occasioned another Advantage against your Romane Faith, by observing in the same place of Cyril ano∣ther Sentence concerning this Sacrament: Coelestiall Bread (saith hee) sanctifying both Body and Soule. But how both? it follow∣eth, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:] As the Bread is congruous to the Body, so is the word (meaning Christ in his Body) convenient for the soule. What other can be meant [ 30] hereby, but that calling the Sacrament [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] after Conse∣cration, hee acknowledged not any Substantiall change there∣of; and more demonstrably, because of the Comparison hee hath of the Sacramentall applying of the Body of Christ to the food of the Soule, as hee doth the Sacramentall Bread to the nutriment of the Body, and Sanctification thereof, in hope of Resurrection to life, as the Fathers have Commented.
ANSW. If ← Bellarmine → have had other Treatises, in his Con∣troversies against K. IAMES of blessed memory, wherein Chry∣sostome was made the Champion, was this fondnesse in mee to say as I have sayd, and not rather rashnesse in this Objector, in thus gain-saying?Page 498
ANSW. Hee telleth mee what was omitted, looking directly upon that, but forgot to acknowledge what was expressed out of Chrysostome, looking askew and asquint at it. My Translation out of Chrysostome delivered his words, in the first part, thus; [ALTHOVGH THE SPEECH OF CHRIST MAY 〈◊〉 STRANGE TO SENSE AND REASON:) which is 〈◊〉 to that which is omitted; Christ's speech exceeds our sense and rea∣son. [ 10] In the other part was set downe these words of Chrysostome, [YET LET VS BELIEVE HIS WORDS;] Fully equivalent with those which were omitted, [YET LET VS RECEIVE CHRIST'S WORDS WITHOVT DOVBTING;] except the Pa∣pists will thinke us to be of their degenerate Faith, Of Believing with doubting. Where you may perceive that your Objector con∣sidered not how easie it had been for me (by not omitting some words) to have beene superfluous.
ANSW. And I say, Aliquando [seu, INTERDVM] dormitat Ho∣merus: Esto igitur, [INTERDVM:] Although I made it good in the same Section, that hee often Hyperbolized, yea even in this very point of the Eucharist.
ANSW. It is certaine that Senensis doth there most especially and by name note Chrysostome to Hyperbolize, and his Caution being generall, to take heed of his Hyperbole's, may be justly applyed as wel to this, as to that point, there specified in Senensis, according to the Law of Schooles; where Generall rules are ap∣plyable to other examples, besides that which is in the Author specified and adjoyned to the same Rule. But this man had ra∣ther cavill inordinately, by the example of Romish Adversaries, than to be regulated by any rule of reason and moderation. [ 40]
ANSW. I never held it seasonable to shew a man any thing when he would not see it; otherwise the Objector, who hath sought into every corner of all my Sayings, with purpose to traduce them, could not but have found the same Limitations of ← Bellarmine → punctually set downe. Book. 3. cap. 3. Sect. 7.
ANSW. I must first say, mala mens, malus animus; or as it is [ 10] in the English, As you muse, so you use: else would not this Ob∣jector have accused mee to be Conscious of this, whereas any might have thought, that the words should have beene (if the Printer had not mistaken) in a different Character, to distin∣guish them from the words of Chrysostome; because, in the Margin, hee was directed to another place, where the full Text of Chrysostome was perfectly alleged, without that Addition now objected.
ANSW. II. Yet there is no reasonable man, pondering the words of Chrysostome, but must justifie the Addition of [ 20] those words of to be most consonant to the meaning of Chry∣sostome (there) speaking of the Water of Baptisme. For is there any one of sound braines, that will deny the Water of Baptisme, after Consecration, to remaine in Substance the same? Besides there hath beene produced another Testimonie, as out of Chrysostome, that Bread, even in the Sacrament of the Eu∣charist, after Consecration, remaineth in Substance the same. These should the Objector have ruminated upon, before hee layd downe this Accusation, but that hee found they were not [ 30] for his distemperate palate.
ANSW. If the Objector had beene so curteous as to have lookt back to Master Brerely's Allegation of the said Testimony of Eusebius, some few leaves before, pag. 160. as hee was cu∣rious for (Contention-sake) to urge the words following in some pages after, which hee saith are omitted, and concerne Transubstantiation, hee might have found that Allegation of Master Brerely as I delivered it, Tract. 2. Sect. 2. Subd. 2. [SVBSTANTIA PANIS POST VERBA CHRISTI EST CORPVS Page 500 CHRISTI.] As for the words following, which corcerne Conversion of Bread, it was beyond the scope which I had then in hand, which concerned onely the Enunciative Speeches of Christ (namely of calling Bread his Body) and not the maner of Change thereof; which point notwithstanding is afterwards handled at full in the same Section.
Our Advantage from this mans Cavillation is this: That hee calleth this maner of Arguing out of the Sentences of the Fa∣thers, Bread after Consecration is the Body of Christ: Ergo, it is meant to be really and Substantially Christs Body, as it was in the [ 10] Manger, to be but a [WEAK ARGVMENT,] to the Confutation, and (if the Person of the Objector were of sufficient Authority) to the Confusion of all the Doctors of the Church of Rome, who have held their Arguments taken from the words of Christ, after his taking Bread saying [THIS IS MY BODY] to be the foundation of all their Arguments, for proofe of Transub∣stantiation.
ANSW. II. Yet I was much to blame, I confesse, in not An∣swering at all to the objected Testimony of that so bastardly a Book of Homilies, attributed to Eusebius, which the Romish Do∣ctors [ 20] themselves, of best judgement and estimation, could not untill this day tell upon whom to Father it: All confessing that it was not the Book of that Euseb. whose name it beareth: Some affirming, that the Author was Faustus the French-man; Some Caesarius; Some Eucherius. And as for the Booke it selfe, they have likewise put upon it the brands of two great Heresies, Ari∣anisme & Pelagianisme. Which taxation and hallucination of our Adversaries may be to themselves, without our Answer, their owne Satisfaction, not to thinke it worthy of Answering. [ 30]
A Summary Answer to this Objection, out of the Testimony of Gregory Nyssen. Although ← Bellarmine → doth not produce the words of Nyssen, yet doth hee direct his Reader to Nyssens Treatise of Manna, where the Sentence is, which is alleged by others. Nor can hee be excusable, in that, having read the Testimony now objected, hee did not thereby perceive that the Fathers Sacramentall speeches are not to be taken in the rigidi∣ty of the words. Our Advantage upon this occasion is, that, [ 40] our Objectors referring us to the Arguments of ← Bellarmine, out Greg. Nyssen, it hath caused us to light upon and to examine this which followeth, urged by your Cardinall, for Transubstanti∣ation; where speaking of the [Bread which came downe from hea∣ven, and was prepared for us without seed, without tilling, without mans worke: Th•s (saith Nyssen) is signifyed in this Mysterie, nor is this an uncorporeall and unbodily thing: for how can a thing Page 501 uncorporeall and without a Body, be food unto a Body; But that thing which is not uncorporeall, is altogether a Body] Now let us but trie the Romish Faith by this Lydian Stone, and wee shall finde it to be meerely counterfeit and base. For aske any of the Ro∣mish Disputers, what it is, which in this Sacrament is knowne to nourish, whether man or mouse? And they answer us that the Accidents of Bread, voyd of the substance of Bread, is that which is Nutritive. But Greg. Nyssen saith just the •lat Contra∣ry, [NOTHING CAN NOVRISH A BODY BVT THAT WHICH [ 10] IS A CORPOREAL SVBSTANCE,] which being so spoken, in re∣spect of the Eucharist, proveth infallibly that the Substance of Bread remaineth in this Sacrament after Consecration; if so, then, in the universall judgement of all the Doctors of the Church of Rome, there can be no Transubstantiation.
[ 20] ANSW. No, but truly related, and that by the Authority of Tertullian himselfe, whose former words are, Christ distributed [PANEM, BREAD,] to his Disciples, faciens [ILLVM, that is, making IT, his BODY, THAT IS, A FIGVRE of his BODY.] There is no Schoole-boy, that knoweth his Grammar, which will not say that the Relative, IT, must be referred to the Antecedent, BREAD. And of this, IT, do de∣pend all the words following.
[ 30] ANSW. I answer therefore, not to trouble his braines with Grammar-learning, which teacheth the Particle [IS] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to agree with that which followeth; but to deale with him by an example, to make his fondnesse more palpable. Can any man at the first sight of an Ivy-bush, say, This is a Taverne, THAT IS, A Signe of a Taverne, and not meane that it [IS A SIGNE] of a Taverne?
[ 40] ANSW. God send mee alwayes such Adversaries, who in their greatest subtilties bewray their extremest •o•tishnesse, in complaining of my [IS] in the Present-•ense, and in requiring the sense of the time perfectly past; as if Tertullia• had said thus, Christ sayd this is my Body, [THAT IS, IT WAS] a figure of my Body. Here have wee just reason to reflect upon this Ob∣jector with that Saying, Risum teneatis amici? Yet the Objector (lest we might thinke him not to Insanire cum ratione) yieldeth Page 502 this Reason, why it should be meant of the time passed, before the coming of Christ.
ANSW. When Tertullian spake onely narratively, by repea∣ting the words of Christ, he must needs speak in the tense and time when Christ uttered them, when hee sayd [IT IS MY BODY, THAT IS, IS A FIGVRE OF MY BODY,] But after spea∣king Enunciatively, with the Relation from his owne time [ 10] when hee wrot, to the time of Christs Speech, which was the distance of three hundred yeares, hee could not but use the time perfectly past, saying, [It had not beene a figure] namely, when Christ called it his Body, [except, &c.] The Argu∣ment of Tertullian, taken from those words of Christ, stands thus: Christ in the Sacrament gave a figure of his Body; But a figure is not a figure of a figure, therefore Christ gave a figure of a True Body. Let us consult againe with Tertullians words of Exposition, [IT HAD NOT BEENE A FIGVRE, EXCEPT THERE HAD BEENE THE TRVTH OF HIS BODY:] But [ 20] Christs Body had no TRVTH of BEING before his Incarnation and time of his existence in the Flesh; and therfore [FVISSET] extended not unto any Type, which had beene before Christs being on earth. Wherefore this [HAD] of Tertullian, I hope, will put this Objector to his Non putabam, or Had I wist.
Our Advantages occasioned by this Accusation are great, and divers: One is to discerne more clearly the then-Catholike Do∣ctrine in the dayes of Tertullian. Next to observe the stupid insatuation of our Romish Adversaries. The Last will be to display an Heresie in the Article of the Church of Rome, that [ 30] teacheth an absolute absence of the Substance of Bread in this Sacrament. For if it were condemned by Tertullian, in the Marcionites, to teach that Christ had no true, but a Fantasticall Body, notwithstanding all the Demonstrances of sense, Eating, Weeping, Sleeping, Bleeding; and of the Apostles feeling him: How shall not the Romish Doctrine of a No-Existence of Bread in the Eucharist, notwithstanding the Contradiction of Smel∣ling, Seeing, Feeling, and Tasting it, be a welcome Patro∣nage and Skonce to the former Heresie [ 40] of denying the Verity of Christs Body?