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*

ANSWER.

Your obiection reduced to forme of argument is:

All they which vsed reseruation of the Sacrament, and [ B] maintained continuancie of Christs body therein, beleeued Transubstantiation.

The antient Fathers vsed reseruation of the Sacrament, and maintained continuancie of Christs body therein, Ergo

The ancient Fathers beleeued Transubstantiation.

If the argument be thus formed, First, the Maior Propo∣sition [ C] is denyed: for the Fathers might vse reseruation of the Sacrament, and beleeue the permanencie of Christs body therein, vpon the Tenet of reall Presence by Consubstantiati∣on, and not vpon beleefe of Transubstantiation.

Secondly, the Primitiue Church, and antient Fathers, gene∣rally or vniuersally, vsed not reseruation of the Sacramentall signes b 1.1; and Iustin Martyr c 1.2, and Ireneus d 1.3, speake onely of the sending of the Sacrament from the Church, where it was ad∣ministred to sick persons and strangers. Some examples of re∣seruation proceeded vpon the ignorance, and superstition of [ D] priuate persons e 1.4, in which case although some Fathers vsed conniuence, yet these abuses were afterwards reformed f 1.5. The Minor therefore if it be generall, is denyed: and if it be par∣ticular, then the Maior and Minor inferre not the conclusion; because that which was done by some, vpon priuate opinion, and in another kind or manner than Romists doe at this day, and was also opposed and corrected by others, cannot be a mat∣ter of Catholike doctrine, or practise.

But this question of Reseruation hath beene largely handled

by many of our part, and whatsoeuer Romists haue obiected [ A] concerning the same, is fully answered a 1.6: and therefore, be∣cause this Iesuit produceth no new matter, but onely repeateth what wee haue formerly confuted, and especially because Re∣seruation concludeth not Transubstantiation, which is the mat∣ter now in question, I forbeare further examination of the par∣ticular Testimonies produced by him.

Notes

• b 1.1

  Origen. vel Cyril. in Leuit. Hom. 5. Dominus panem quem dis∣cipulis dabat, non distulit nec serua∣uit in crastinum, &c. Hesich. in Le∣uit. li. 2. c. 8. Quic∣quid reliquum fu∣erit de carne & pa∣nibus, ignis absu∣met, &c. quod nunc videmus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Ecclesia sen∣sibiliter fieri, igni∣que tradi quaecun∣que remanere con∣tingerit inconsumpta. Niceph. Eccles. Hist. li. 17. ca. 25. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Eccles. Hist. li. 4. c. 35. Concil. Matiscon. 2. can. [ E] 6. Humbert. c. lib. Nicetae apud Cassand. Liturg. c 30. pa. 69.
• c 1.2

  Iustin. Apol. 2.
• d 1.3

  Iren. ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. li. 5. c. 24.
• e 1.4

  Vide Cyprian. li. d. lapsis.
• f 1.5

  Toletan. Concil. 1. ca. 14. Caesar 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Concil. 1. cap. 3.
• a 1.6

  Read Chemni∣tius, Exam. Concil. Trid. p. 2. pag. 97. Doct. Fulk. ag. Hes∣kins Parliam. p. 78. Gerhard. loc. Com. to. 5. d. Sacra. Coen. ca. 17. Politian. So∣phist. Bellarm. d. permanentia Corp. Christi, pag. 44. &c. Froeresen. Scrutin. Panopliae. Bellarm. d. Euchar. Disp. 9. Herbrand. Disp. 32. d. Fest. Corp. Christi, pag. 550.