A replie to Iesuit Fishers answere to certain questions propou[n]ded by his most gratious Matie: King Iames By Francis White D: of Div· deane of Carlile, chaplaine to his Matie. Hereunto is annexed, a conference of the right: R:B: of St Dauids wth the same Iesuit*

IESVIT. [ E]

I answer, that when substances are apt of their na∣ture, and ordained by vse to containe other substances, then

shewing the substance that containes, we may signifie the [ A] substance contained, as in the former examples: The rea∣son is, because their naturall aptitude to containe other things being vulgarly knowne, mans vnderstanding straight passes from the consideration of the substances containing, to thinke of the thing contained therein. But when substances are not by nature and custome ordained to containe others, we cannot by shewing them, demonstrate another, because their outward forme signifies immedi∣ately [ B] the substance contained in them. For example, one puts a peece of gold in an apple, and shewing it, cries, this is gold: in rigor of speech he sayes not true, because the sence of his word is, that the thing demonstrated immedi∣ately by the formes and accidents of that apple is gold. Yea put the case, that one should say this is gold, shewing a peece of paper vnfolded, in a manner not apt to containe any thing in it, he should not say true, though by some de∣uise [ C] hee had put secretly into it a peece of gold: because when the paper is shewed, displaied, and not as contai∣ning something in it, and yet is tearmed gold; the pro∣per sence of that speech is, that the substance immediat∣ly contained vnder the accidents of paper is gold, although it be couered with other accidents than those that vsual∣ly accompanie the nature of gold. Wherefore the propositi∣on of Christ, This is my Bodie, being spoken of a thing [ D] that naturally is not apt, nor by custome ordained to containe an humane bodie: it cannot be vnderstood litterally, but of the subiect immediately contained vnder, and demon∣strated by the accidents and outward semblance of Bread. Now the thing that lyes hidden immediately vnder the ac∣cidents of Bread, which was once substantially Bread, can∣not become substantially the bodie of Christ, except it bee substantially conuerted into his bodie, or personally assumed [ E] by the same bodie. And seeing this second manner of vni∣on betweene Bread and Christs Bodie, is impossible, and re∣iected by Protestants, as well as by Catholickes: Wee may conclude, that the mysterie of Christs reall presence cannot

be beleeued in truth by them that deny Transubstantiation, [ A] specially seeing our Sauiour did not say, here is my Bodie, which speech may be verefyed by the presence of his Bo∣die locally within the Bread, but This is my Bodie, which imports, that not onely his Bodie is truely and substantially present, but also that it is the substance contained immedi∣ately vnder the accidents of Bread,