ANSWER. [ B]
First, if a substance be either by nature, humane Custome, or diuine Ordination, appointed to containe another substance, then demonstrating the externall substance which containes, we may signifie the hidden substance contained a 1.1. But accor∣ding to that Tenet, which maintaineth Consubstantiation, the substance of bread is by diuine Ordination appointed to con∣taine the substance of Christs bodie; therefore demonstrating by words the substance of bread, one may signifie the hidden substance, which is Christs bodie.
Secondly, Scotus b 1.2, Durand c 1.3, and Paludanus d 1.4 affirme, that al∣though [ C] the substance of Bread remaine, yet because the sub∣stance of Christs bodie is also present, it might truely and pro∣perly be said by our Sauiour, This is my Bodie. Now if such pro∣found Scholemen haue weighed the Iesuits obiection, & do find the same light, the propugnors of Consubstantiation haue smal reason to regard it.
Thirdly, the former obiection is nothing to vs, which main∣taine [ D] a true mysticall presence e 1.5 of Christ in the holy Eucha∣rist, and refuse both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation; for we beleeue, and are able to demonstrate, that our Sauiours words are figuratiue in part, and yet the true Bodie and Bloud of Christ are really and verely communicated f 1.6, according to the manner formerly declared, pag. 405.