The answere vnto the nine points of controuersy, proposed by our late soueraygne (of famous memory) vnto M. Fisher of the Society of Iesus And the reioynder vnto the reply of D. Francis VVhite minister. With the picture of the sayd minister, or censure of his writings prefixed.

Transubstantiation belonges to the substance of Reall Presence. §. 2.

THIS I proue. That belonges to the substance of this Mystery, which be∣ing

denyed and taken away, the words of Christ This is my body, cannot be true taken in the literal sense, in which sense they are to be taken, as hath been shewed. But with∣out granting Transubstātiation the words of Christ cannot be true, taken in the lite∣rall sense, Ergo, transubstantiation belongs to the substance of this mystery of the Re∣all presence. The minor is proued, because the speach, This is my body, doth signify that the thing the Priest holds in his hands is truly, really, and substantially the body of Christ. For in the proposition, This is my body, the verbe Est signifyes a coniunction betweene This in the Priests hands, & the body of Christ; and being a Verbe substan∣tiue, in his proper signification, signifyes a substantiall Identity betweene This in the Priests hands, and the body of Christ. But This in the Priests hands being before con∣secration bread, a thing substantially di∣stinct from the body of Christ, cannot by consecration be made substantially the bo∣dy of Christ (as the Fathers teach it is) without some substantiall alteration, or change. And what other substantiall chāge can make bread to become truly the body of Christ besides substantial conuersion of the same into his body (q) 1.1?

But some may obiect, that as a man shewing a Leather-purse full of gold may truly say, this is gold; or a paper wrapped vp full of siluer, may say, this is siluer; so

the body of Christ being vnder cōsecrated bread, we may truly say, this is the body of Christ, though the substance of bread re∣mayne I answer, that when substances are apt of their nature, and ordayned by vse to contayne other substances, then shewing the substance which containes, we may sig∣nify the substance contained, as in the for∣mer examples. The reason is, because their naturall aptitude to contayne other things being vulgarly knowne, mans vnderstan∣ding straight passeth from the considerati∣on of the substances contayning, to thinke of the thing contayned therein. But when substances are not by nature and custome ordayned to contayne others, we cannot by shewing them demonstrate another, be∣cause their outward forme, signifyes im∣mediatly the substance contained in them. For exāple, one puts a piece of Gold in an apple, & shewing it, cryes, this is Gold; in rigour of speach he sayth not true, because the sense of his words is, that the thing de∣monstrated immediatly by the formes and accidēts of that apple, is Gold; yea put case that one should say, this is gold, shewing a peece of paper vnfolded, in a manner not apt to contayne any thing in it, he should not say true, though by some deuise he had put secretly into it a peece of gold. Because when the paper is shewed displayed, and not as contayning something in it, and yet is tearmed Gold, the proper sense of that

speach is, that the substance immediatly contayned vnder the accidents of paper, is gold, although it be couered with other ac∣cidents then those that vsually accompany the nature of gold.

Wherefore the proposition of Christ, This is my body, being spoken of a thing that naturally is not apt, nor by custome ordai∣ned to contayne an humane body, it can∣not be vnderstood literally but of the sub∣iect immediatly contayned vnder, and de∣monstrated by the accidents and outward semblance of bread. Now, the thing that lyes hidden immediatly vnder the acci∣dents of bread, which was once substanti∣ally bread, cannot become substantially the body of Christ except it be substātially cō∣uerted into his body, or personally assumed by the same body. And seeing this second manner of vnion between bread & Christs body is impossible, and reiected by Prote∣stants aswell as by Catholiks▪ we may con∣clude that the mystery of Christs Real pre∣sence cannot be belieued in truth by them that deny Transubstantiation; Specially se∣ing our Sauiour did not say, Heere is my bo∣dy, which speach may be verifyed by the Presence of his body locally within the bread, but, This is my body, which imports that not only his body is truly, and sub∣stantially present, but also that it is the sub∣stance contayned immediatly vnder the accidents of bread.

If any man say, that by this argument it appeares that the doctrine of Transubstan∣tiation is not expressed in Scripture, but from the wordes of the Institution subtilly deduced, and so may perchance be num∣bred inter scita Scholae, not inter dogmata Fi∣dei. I answere that the cōsequēce of this ar∣gument is not good, as is euident in the ex∣ample of the Incarnation. The doctrine that the vnion of natures in Christ is proper not metaphoricall, substantiall not acciden∣tall, personall not essentiall, is no where ex∣pressely set downe in the Scripture, but by subtill deduction inferred from the myste∣ry which Scripture and Tradition deliuer. Notwithstanding, because these subtill de∣ductions are proposed by the Church as pertinent vnto the substance of the afore∣sayd mystery, they cannot be denyed with∣out preiudice of fayth. In this sort the do∣ctrine of Transubstantiation, though not in tearmes deliuered by the Scripture, but deduced by subtile and speculatiue infe∣rence, may not be denyed by them that wil be perfect Belieuers, because the Church hath declared the same to pertayne to the proper sense of Christ his wordes and sub∣stance of the mystery. Concil. Romanum sub Nicolao 1. & Lateranense sub Innocentio 3.

Notes

• (q) 1.1

  The Minister flyes vnto the figuratiue sen∣se, choosing rather to deny the truth of Gods word according to the letter, thē admit Tran∣substantiation. Against which he hath three arguments scattered in his Reply, which I wil here ioyne togither and answere. The first is pa. 434. the consecrated bread is tearmed very bread, 1. Cor. 10.16. & 11.26.28. Answere. This is a very vntruth. For it is still in those places, tearmed bread, cum addito, with such an addition as sig∣nifies that it is not pro∣perly bread, but our Sa∣uiours body, 1. Cor. 10.16. The bread we breake, that is Sacrifice vnto God, is the communication of the body of our Lord. And 1. Cor. 11.26. as often as you eate THIS bread, & 27. Whosoeuer shall eate THIS bread vnwor∣thily. & 28. So let him eate of THAT bread, to wit wherof he had said be∣fore, that Christ by the verity of his word doth make it his body. Now he that eateth bread tur∣ned into Christs body, or made his body doth not truly eate bread. As the Maister of the Mar∣riage-feast in Cana, who tasted water made wine, Iohn. 2.9. did not tast water truly. For as water made wine is not water, euen so bread consecrated and made our Lords body, is not bread.

  The second is pag. 447. which he setteth out magnificently in a distinct letter, and ech proposition in a seue∣rall line. The substance is this: If the words of our Sauiour, This is my body, chāge the substance of bread into his body, then also they change the quantity & accidents: For our Sauiour tooke the whole bread into his handes, and sayd, this is my body, as wel vpon the accidents as vpon the substance of bread. But they proue not the conuersion of accidents. For Popish Trāsubstantiatiō is on∣ly a conuersion of sub∣stance not of accidents. Therefore they proue not the conuersion of the substance.

  Answere. The wordes of our Sauiour this is my body, change not euery thing into his body ouer which they be spoken by way of breathing, (for then they should chāge the ayre into his body) but only that, ouer which they are so spoken by way of sig∣nification that their sig∣nification can not be true in the litteral sense, except that be hi•• body. Now, the words of Christ This is my body, cannot be true in the litterall sense, except the substance of bread be changed into his bo∣dy, as the Minister doth confesse pag. 397. lin. 17. But they may be true according to the letter, the substāce being chā∣ged though the accidēts remayne. For if the Sacrament outwardly cloathed with the for∣mes and accidents of bread, be inwardly in nature and substance Christs body, then is it truly and substantially his body, and may be sayd to be his body, ta∣king the word, to be, in the proper sense for sub∣stantiue being: euen as Ia∣cob cloathed with the garments of Esau was truly and substantially Iacob, and not Esau, though in outward shew and shape he see∣med Esau. Therfore the litterall truth of Christs words, this is my body, inforceth vs to say, that the substance of bread is chāged into his body, but not that the quātity of bread is so changed. And thus the magnifi∣cence of your argument is marred & proued to be but an empty shew.

  The third argument is pag. 422.423. In all miraculous substantiall conuersions a new sub∣stance is produced, but the body of Christ doth preexist & so can∣not be produced. Ans∣wer. The maior is false, as appeareth by mil∣lions of miraculous cōuersions which part∣ly haue beene, partly shall be. For in the resuscitation of the dead when carcasses are conuer∣ted into men, no new thing is produced, but old things and substances which formerly had been, are reproduced. It is true, the power of nature being limited according to time & place, cannot reproduce, but onely pro∣duce at one time, and in one place. But the power of God being infinite, eternall, immense and independent of time and place, can reproduce things that preexist, according to different times and places, as often, and in as many places, as he is pleased. Hence he can, and doth reproduce vpon earth the body of our Sauiour preexisting in heauen, as the Fathers auerre. S. Ambros. l. 4. de Sacra. c. 4. When consecration is done, the body of Christ is MADE of bread. And S. Cyprian serm. de coena. Vsque hodie Diuinissimum & Sanctissimum corpus CREAT. S. Gauden. homil. tract. 2. in Exod. Quia potest, & promisit, de pane corpus suum EFFICIT. S. Hierom. ep. ad Heliod. Sacerdotes corpus Christi proprio ore CONFICIVNT.