Himself or by his Disciples if no more had bin meant than so as he did in the case of Parables less difficult to understand than this would have bin if it had bin by our Lord proposed as one but proceeds to deliver this profound Mystery to them in more express words using a vehement Asseveration to confirm the truth of it Verily verily I say unto you except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you Whoso eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life and I will raise him up at the last day For my Flesh is truly meat my Blood is truly drink He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father So he that eateth me even he shall live by me This is that Bread which came down from Heaven not as your Fathers did eat Manna and are Dead He that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever All which words being used by our Lord to clear the doubt and answer that Question of the Jews How can this man give us his Flesh to eat I cannot imagin how the Real Presence of Christs Body and its Manducation in the Sacrament could have bin more fully Asserted in order to the disposing of his Disciples to believe the Sense of the Reality when he should Institute his blessed Sacrament And so the Fathers interpret this place And do not say that the Manna mentioned in the 58 verse which was miraculously sent from Heaven was a Type of ordinary Bread made by the Hands of Men and set upon the Table which is of a far more Ignoble Nature and less Significant than the Manna which thus came down from Heaven but of the Real Body of Christ in the Sacrament which was the true Bread from Heaven that nourished to Immortality After our Saviour had spoke thus to them many of the Disciples themselves to whom Christ did not think fit as yet to reveal the manner of feeding upon his Body in the Blessed Sacrament thinking that he meant that his Body was to be eaten in a gross manner like the Capernaites cried out this is a hard saying who can hear it To whom as well as to the Jews who before are said to murmur at him because he said I am the Bread which came down from Heaven and that ask how this Man could give them his Flesh to eat our Lord replies doth this offend you and then clears the Doctrins to them as far as he judg'd convenient for the confirmation of such high Mysteries about which they were to exercise a strong and a lively Faith by saying thus v. 62. What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before As if he should have said if you do not yet believe that the Son of Man came down from Heaven yet when you see him ascend thither again you will be more ready to believe that it was really God who came down took Flesh and dwelt amongst you which Solution had relation chiefly to the former of the Mysteries viz. his Incarnation but withal insinuates that such as believe not his words touching the holy Sacrament and think it impossible for him to give his Body to be eaten in so many places at once being yet on Earth would be much more Scandalized and Tempted after they saw or knew him to have Ascended into Heaven Therefore to clear the latter Mystery and Solve their doubt who thought like the Capernaites that Christ was to have cut pieces of flesh from his body and to have given them to be eaten or that thought his Body to be that of a mere Man he tells them v. 63. It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing that is the Flesh which he had told them before that they must eat altho' not in the gross manner without the Spirit profiteth nothing not but that by the Spirit quickning it it profits very much Suitable to that of St. Paul. 1 Cor. 8. 1. Knowledge puffeth up but Charity edifieth that is Knowledge without Charity puffeth up altho' when Chariy is joyned with it to enliven it it edifies and Charity it self edifieth by Knowledge For if these words of Christ were to be taken in the Sense of the Sacramentarians they would derogate no less from his Incarnation Manhood and Death than from the Real Presence of his Body in the Sacrament in all which without doubt the flesh profiteth very much Wherefore our Lord goes on to tell them here that the words which he spake unto them were Spirit and Life therefore not to be understood in the gross carnal Sense before mentioned which some of his Disciples took them in For it is the use of the Scripture to call Mans natural Sense carnal Reasoning and resisting or not reaching to the belief of Supernatural Truths Flesh and Blood as Matth. 16. 17. Flesh and blood revealed not this to thee c. but the words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and Life therefore not to be carnally understood But as by the Word of God the World was Created and Nature hath been since often chang'd so there is no doubt but Christ could by it change the Bread into his Body as he did daily by ordinary Natural Nutrition but here in a supernatural way Our Lord therefore said unto them that their Fathers did Eat Manna in the Wilderness which was but a Type of this Heavenly Manna in the Sacrament and yet they did Spiritually feed upon Christ the Messias for it is said 1 Cor. 10. 3 4. That they did all eat the same Spiritual Meat and did all Drink the same Spiritual Drink for they Drank of that Spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ and yet they are Dead all of them a Temporal some of them an Eternal Death also and those of them which now live the Life Eternal received this Life from the Son of God who hath now given us the Antitype of that Manna which the Children of Israel did eat viz. his own Body in the Sacrament something of a far more excellent nature to feed upon which will be to our Bodies as well as to our Souls the Seed of Immortality the Instrument and Pledge of our Resurrection Ascension and Glorification Yet as our Lord said to his Disciples there are some of you which believe not so we may say still of the Sacramentarians who notwithstanding all that Christ hath said will admit of nothing but Signs and Figures of imaginary vertue whom nevertheless our Saviour hath no further instructed in any such easie Sense as this which might certainly have prevented their relapse as well as that of the Jews his Disciples and which if any such Sense had been to be admitted would most certainly have been given that they will not believe our Lord and therefore they go
one should hold up a true piece of Gold which is discoloured so by Sulphur that it looks but like Silver and should be informing us that this is a piece of true Gold we should before he hath spoke his words conclude it was but Silver So it would have been prejudice in our Lord's Disciples to have concluded of the determinate nature of that which he held in his Hands when he was going to tell them what it really was viz. his Body before he had fully pronounced the Proposition saying This is my Body Which the Sacramentarians and our Author do rashly determining the thing which appears as Bread to be so in Substance upon the exhibiting the Species and saying This which notwithstanding when the Proposition is finished is in the Sacrament made and declared to be the Body of Christ This therefore being a Pronoun demonstrative it is enough that it exhibits something unto us under a certain outward appearance without signifying distinctly and clearly the whole nature of the thing for it is the propperty of the Attribute or thing that is affirmed of another to add clearness to the subject or thing of which it is affirmed by explaining the nature of the thing intended to be demonstrated in the Proposition more fully otherwise the Proposition would be ridiculous as if one should say this Bread is Bread or this my Body is my Body This therefore in the Proposition This is my Body only discovers some Real Thing which appears in such a manner as for instance the Species of Bread to the Senses which our Saviour who was Truth it self who did know the truth of all things and could alter the nature of any Created thing by his Word declares fully unto them to be his Body tho' under such an appearance so that whether the change was made before or at that very instant of time when our Lord spake the words the latter of which is the general opinion of Catholics the Proposition is strictly true in a proper Sense I shall only premise one thing more before I examin the Authors pretended proofs from Scripture because I would by no means make the breach betwixt us wider than it is which is this That Catholics acknowledge a Figure in the Sacrament no less than Protestants Thus the Bread and Wine before Consecration being distinct things and separate one from the other do resemble Christs Body and Blood separated upon the Cross and his Soul separated from his Body altho' they could not do this in their own nature and till after the first Institution they were exposed upon the Altar for such a use as might make us consider them as such resemblances since there is not so much of natural likeness as to call the Idea of the Passion into our mind We believe also that after Consecration Christs Body in the Sacrament under the Veils of the Species of Bread and Wine is a Figure Similitude or Examplar of the same Body of Christ as it suffer'd upon the Cross in like manner as his Body when newly born was a Resemblance and Exemplar and express Image of his Body at full growth But this we conclude not from those words of our Lord This is my Body which must still be understood in a proper Sense but from the nature of the thing it self after the Institution known to be made From whence we firmly believe the Body of Christ to be there it being of the nature of a Sacrament to represent and exhibit somthing more unto us than what it outwardly appears to be I now proceed to consider the Expressions which the Author produceth out of Scripture by which he would prove a Figurative Presence of Christs Body in opposition to a Real one in the Catholic Sense And this being the main Proof upon which those who have renounced the Authority of the Church do pretend to build their Faith since they allow that nothing ought to be admitted as an Article of Faith which is not clearly deduced from hence and consequently nothing ought to be condemned as contrary to the Christian Faith but what is manifestly repugnant to this From hence then it is that he should bring an evidence which is able to overthrow the Authority of so many Councils and several of them General ones as have determined this Point against him and to shew plainly that the whole true visible Church of Christ which hath for near MDCC years received the Doctrin of the Real Presence of Christs Body hath erred in so necessary a Point of Faith and been guilty of Idolatry even grosser than that of the Heathen World as the Author pretends notwithstanding the Evidence of the same Holy Scripture that the Holy Spirit shall lead it into all Truth and that the Gates of Hell shall not be able to prevail against it Let us see therefore how well he acquits himself in this vast enterprise of so great concern to the Christian World. His Argument from Scripture is this there are other expressions in Scripture which are taken figuratively therefore this must be so taken Out of the innumerable like expressions in Holy Scripture as he is pleased to term them he citeth two very different sorts The first are barely figurative such as are used in ordinary human discourse as well as Scripture without preparing of the mind of the Hearer beforehand that he may receive them Then he compares the words of our Lords Institution to a Dream or Vision of the Night that was to be interpreted which indeed hath something more of resemblance than the former expressions which he alledgeth because it being known that the things which are represented in Dreams and Visions are not real but imaginary yet since they are sometimes considered as representing real things that are to come to pass they are of the nature of Signs of Institution and so may come nearer to the Case in hand But he seems to be soon weary of these resemblances which being so different in nature one from the other are not like to agree to the same third thing the Sacrament Then he flies from Scripture to Justin Martyr's Testimony concerning the ancient form of the Passover used by the Jews Yet he knows not whether he should stick to this expression which is Sacrifical or Sacramental and so most likely to resemble the Sacramental about which he argues or the former which are not so For he begins his Periods thus Whether we consider the like expressions in Scripture as where our Saviour saith c. or whether we compare these words with the ancient form of the Passover And I am sure these are not of a like nature with the other Surely there is no Man of common Sense that can admit of such a sort of Proof as this from one Author that so fluctuates in his judgment since it hath the visible Character of Falshood in its very Front and condemns the Real Presence of Christs Body in a proper Sense which was never
said This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed or more properly poured out for you and for many for the remission of Sins Did not our Lord plainly read in the minds of his Disciples that by the Cup they would understand that which was contained in the Cup If any one should advise the Author when he is thirsty to drink off his Glass would he be so inconsiderate as to swallow it together with the Wine Nay further so unhappy is the Author as to urge this instance of holy Scripture in the first place which alone is enough fully to clear the Point against him Neither the Apostles nor any men else could be so ignorant of the manner of human discourse as not to apprehend that our Saviour by the Cup meant what was contained in it which was most certainly Christs Blood for otherwise it could not be said of it as it is Luke 22. 20. that it was then poured out for the Apostles and for many for the remission of Sins it is said is poured out in the Present Tense not shall be poured out in the Future therefore here can be meant only the Blood of Christ as now poured out in the Sacrament for them not as it was afterwards shed from his Crucified Body upon the ground The Original runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where in construction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agrees with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Wine as a Figure only of Christs Blood or signifying its virtue could not be poured out for the remission of Sins You might with more congruity of Speech affirm of an Image of the Blessed Virgin This is that which conceived the Son of God because in this there is some plain resemblance to the Prototype Beza a great Critic in his way though an Adversary to the Catholic Doctrin in this Point not being able to deny this Proof would rather have the Scripture to be thought false although that be the whole Foundation of their Faith than change his Opinion and saith that it is a Solecism and should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He concludes that the holy Spirit or St. Luke that divinely inspired Pen-man the most eloquent of all the Evangelists could be sooner mistaken though in a matter of so great moment than himself or else he would have the Scripture to be falsified and corrupt in this place and not himself For he acknowledges that all the ancient Manuscripts which he had seen and even his own which was of great Authority and of venerable Antiquity venerandae Antiquitatis together with the Syriac Version to which he gives this Elogy that it was deservedly accounted to be of greatest authority maximae meritò authoritatis did conspire together to refer the effusion of Blood to the Cup. The Author therefore and all that separate from the Catholic Church in this Point must either at last be forced to confess here as Beza doth concerning those words of our Lord This is my Body That this saying thus exprest cannot be retained but it must prove Transubstantiation after the manner of the Papists or else that the Holy Scripture the Foundation of Christian Faith is made invalid So that it is plain from what hath been said that the Cup is here put for what is contained in the Cup and that the words so taken do signifie and operate a substantial Change not of the Cup but of the Wine in the Cup and that not into the New Testament or Covenant but into the Blood of Christ in which this New Covenant or Testament is made sealed and confirmed Besides that his Blood is said here then to be poured out and his Body then to be broken and given for us which they could not be unless they were then really in the Sacrament because the Passion wherein his Body was peirced only not broken as in the Sacrament and his Blood was shed from his Crucified Body upon the ground not only poured forth from one Vessel to another and drunk as in the Sacrament followed the Institution and first Celebration of this Sacrament DISCOURSE But that there is no necessity to understand our Saviour's words in the sense of Transubstantiation I will take the plain concession of a great number of the most learned Writers of the Church of Rome in this Controversie Bellarmin Suarez and Vasques do acknowledg Scotus the great Schoolman to have said that this Doctrin cannot be evidently proved from Scripture And Bellarmin grants this not to be improbable and Suarez and Vasques acknowledg Durandus to have said as much Ocham another famous Schoolman says expresly that the Doctrin which holds the Substance of the Bread and Wine to remain after Consecration is neither repugnant to Reason nor to Scripture Petrus ab Alliaco Cardinal of Cambrey says plainly That the Doctrin of the Substance of Bread and Wine remaining after Consecration is more easie and free from Absurdity more rational and no ways repugnant to the Authority of Scripture nay more that for the other Doctrin viz. of Transubstantiation there is no evidence in Scripture Gabriel Biel another great Schoolman and Divine of their Church freely declares that as to any thing express'd in the Canon of the Scriptures a man may believe that the substance of Bread and Wine doth remain after Consecration and therefore he resolves the belief of Transubstantiation into some other Revelation besides Scripture which he supposeth the Church had about it Cardinal Cajetan confesseth that the Gospel doth no where express that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ that we have this from the Authority of the Church Nay he goes farther That there is nothing in the Gospel which enforceth any man to understand these words of Christ this is my Body in a proper and not a metaphorical Sense but the Church having understood them in a proper Sense they are to be so explained Which words in the Roman Edition of Cajetan are expunged by order of Pope Pius V. Cardinal Contarenus and Melchior Canus one of the best and most judicious Writers that Church ever had reckon this Doctrin among those which are not so expresly found in Scripture I will add but one more of great authority in the Church and a reputed Martyr Fisher Bishop of Rochester who ingenuously confesseth that in the words of the Institution there is not one word from whence the true Presence of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in our Mass can be proved So that we need not much contend that this Doctrin hath no certain foundation in Scripture when this is so fully and frankly acknowledged by our Adversaries themselves ANSWER The Author hath had very little Success yet in that which he calls a Discourse against Transubstantiation therefore because he would now do some Execution he is forc't to come down to his Adversaries
to sharpen his blunt Weapons Which notwithstanding will prove no advantage to his Cause He here then tells us in his first Period That he will take the plain Concession of a great number of the most Learned Writers of the Church of Rome in this Controversie that there is NO necessity to understand our Saviour's Words in the Sense of Transubstantiation But what if it manifestly appear from the Words of these Writers that he takes this by force which they never gave him since they all thought themselves bound to accept the Words in that Sense which they acknowledge the Church to have given of them as deducible from Scripture by necessary Consequence tho' not so plainly prov'd from the bare Words consider'd by themselves as you shall see from their Authorities hereunder cited Then he proceeds like a false Mustermaster to make up the number of his List by calling Men that are not in it to answer to other Names than their own Bellarmin Suarez and Vasquez do acknowledge Scotus c. Again Bellarmin grants this not to be improbable and Suarez and Vasquez acknowledge Durandus to have said as much Here they are wheel'd about a second time to make the greater Show yet there are but two Men in effect after all this calling The Author says Bellarmin and Suarez and Vasquez say Such a Man said such a Thing Why such a blundering sort of an Evidence would be flung out of any inferior Court of Judicature it faulters so manifestly at the very beginning that we may assure our selves it can never speak clearly Let us see therefore what Scotus saith for himself his Words are these If you say that Christ by saying This is my Body doth plainly teach us that the Bread doth not remain for then the Proposition would be false this is not cogent for supposing so that 't is but a Supposition still the Substance of Bread did still remain the Substance of Bread is not demonstrated here but what is contain'd under the Bread as now the Accidents are shew'd for then the Proposition would be false but the Sense is that which shall be contain'd under this sensible Sign is my Body Mark how much Scotus favors the Author's Opinion of the Senses being Judges of what is in the Sacrament Again he saith The truth of some things that are to be believ'd is more explicitly set down than in the Apostolic Athanasian or Nicene Creed and in brief whatsoever is by the Catholic Church propos'd to our Belief is to be held of the substance of Faith after a solemn Declaration made by the Church he gives the Reason afterwards Because the Scriptures are Expounded by the same Spirit by which they were made And thus he concludes telling us in plain terms That the Church therefore chose this Sense of Transubstantiation because it is true for it was not in the Power of the Church to make it true or false but of God Instituting it But the Church Explain'd the Sense which was deliver'd by God. And if it be so that Transubstantiation was the true Sense and that before the Declaration of the Council then there was a necessity to understand our Saviour's Words in the Sense of Transubstantiation according to Scotus as well before as after the Council since 't was the Sense deliver'd by God. Therefore when the Author saith he hath the plain Concession of a great number of the most Learned Writers of the Church of Rome reckoning Scotus in the first place that there is NO necessity to understand our Saviour's Words in the Sense of Transubstantiation he saith that which is not true Bellarmin indeed grants what Scotus said of the substance of Bread remaining notwithstanding its being converted into the substance of Christs Body as I shall presently shew that it is not ALTOGETHER improbable Non omnino improbabile altho' there may be great Improbability in the thing notwithstanding mark the Word which the Author is pleas'd to leave out that there is no place of Scripture extant so express as that without the Declration of the Church which notwithstanding clears the whole matter can evidently compel us to admit of Transubstantiation viz. in the Sense of the Thomists whose way of Explication of it is somewhat different from Scotus's But that not being of Faith there ought to be no Controversie about it and therefore the Council of Trent directly Condemn'd neither of these Ways And Durandus himself after he has Discours'd Problematically upon the Point like a Schoolman at last concludes solidly That that is not always to be chosen in matters of Faith which hath fewest difficulties consequent to it That the substance of Bread and Wine is chang'd into the substance of Christs Body That that only is principally effected in this Sacrament which is signified by the form of the words viz. of Consecration Which Argument being urg'd by him from Scripture for Transubstantiation is a plain Evidence that he did not deny the necessity of understanding our Saviours words in that Sense For he concludes positively from Scripture that both these things are made to be in this Sacrament viz. The Existence of the Body of Christ and the Conversion of the Bread into it And what is this but Transubstantiation Therefore what the Authors abovemention'd say concerning Scotus and Durandus is to be applied rather to their particular manner of explicating the Doctrin of Transubstantiation than to the thing it self since many other Authors do not think them to be mistaken in the Point Ocham seems to allow that the substance of Bread may remain tho' it forsake its accidents and the substance of Christ's Body doth not forsake them and this according to him was one way of solving Transubstantiation which he is far from saying to be contrary either to Reason or Scripture Petrus ab Alliaco Cardinal of Cambray was of Opinion that it was possible and not repugnant to Reason nor the Authority of the Bible nay that it was more easie to be understood and more reasonable that the substance of Bread should remain there where the Body of Christ begins to be and that so the substance of the Bread should be said to pass into the subsance of the Body of Christ So that here is Transubstantiation still plainly maintain'd in his Sense and he doth not believe that there was need of any other Revelation for it than Scripture Gabriel Biel tells us that although it be expresly deliver'd in Scripture that the Body of Christ is truly contain'd under the Species of Bread and receiv'd by the Faithful yet it is not found expresly in the Canon of the Bible how the Body of Christ is there whether by the Conversion of something into it or whether the Body of Christ begins to be with the Bread without Conversion the substance and accidents of the Bread remaining But he doth not deny the former of these ways to be
necessarily deduc'd from Scripture and therefore this Authority makes nothing against us Cardinal Cajetan ' s words were censur'd and expunged by Authority and therefore ought not to be brought against us Cardinal Contarenus freely declares that all Divines agree although it be not plainly deliver'd viz. not in express words yet following Reason as their Guide and what is this but necessary rational deduction That this viz. which is done in the Sacrament cannot be effected by a local motion but by some change of the substance of Bread into the Body of Christ which is call'd Transubstantiation Melchior Canus doth acknowledg that the Church hath by the Spirit of Truth explain'd some things which are accounted obscure in the Holy Writings and that She doth justly judge the Authors of the contrary Opinions to be Heretics But things may be necessarily contain'd in Scripture altho' with some obscurity So that there is not so much as one of these Authors unless it be that which is condemn'd by the Church and therefore in that Point is none of ours who hath told us That there is no necessity to understand our Saviours Words in the Sense of Transubstantiation Lastly As if that true Martyr Bishop Fisher had not suffer'd enough already the Author exercises further cruelty against him by a false and imperfect recital of his words and corrupting their Sense This Holy Bishop indeed speaking of the words of Institution saith There is not one word put here by which it can be prov'd that in OVR Mass the true Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ is made to be which last words Is made to be The Author falsly renders by these words can be proved But this good Martyr doth not say that Christs words of Institution are not to be understood in the Sense of the True and Real Presence of his Body as made to be in that Sacrament which our Lord himself Consecrated but that the Power of Priests NOW to Consecrate in our Mass after the same manner is not express'd in the bare words of Institution And it is evident from the immediately following words of this Reverend Bishop that this is his true Sense which words run thus For altho' Christ made of the Bread his Flesh and of the Wine his Blood it doth not therefore follow by vertue of any word here plac'd that WE shall effect the same as often as we endeavor it As is also plain from the other words of this Reverend Authors in the same Chapter Without the Interpretation of the Fathers and the usage of the Church by them deliver'd down unto us no body will prove out of the bare words of Scripture that any Priest can Consecrate the true Body and Blood of Christ For although we allow Christ to have said what Scripture saith he did in this kind to the Apostles out of Luke and Paul it doth not therefore follow that he gave the same Power to all that were to succeed them for a Power of casting out Devils was given to the Apostles But that this Learned and Pious Bishop asserted the change of the substance of the Bread into the Body of Christ to be the necessary Sense of the words of Christ This is my Body is clear from these words of his If the Substance saith he of Bread is changed into Christ's Body Christ ought not to have said otherwise than he hath said And again If the substance of Bread remain then Christ ought to have spoke otherwise We must take notice that this Pious Bishop was defending Tradition as necessary for the Interpretation of some places of Scripture and particularly such which relate to the Power that those who succeed the Apostles have to Consecrate and upon very good Grounds since without Tradition we cannot conclude the Scripture it self to be the Word of God and no Church can prove the Succession of her Pastors to this high Function which is without doubt a Fundamental Point Since therefore the Protestants hold that there is a lawful Succession of Pastors in Gods Church as necessary to the Salvation of Mankind as evidently deduced from Scripture interpreted by Tradition tho' not from the bare words of the Institution of the Eucharist no less than Catholics and that they have as full a Right to Consecrate as the Apostles themselves they must therefore allow that they do do so And then there can be no doubt rais'd from the words of this holy Bishop but that Christ's Body and Blood are truly in the Sacrament by way of Transubstantiation which Doctrin he allows to have a certain Foundation in Scripture But the Author here would rather pull down the Pillars on which the Church of Christ stands by interrupting the Episcopal Succession and undermine its very Foundation than not set a Face upon his Argument that he may thereby delude unwary Christians Upon the whole matter it is plain from what hath been said 1. That not any of these Catholic Authors which are cited held that there was no necessity to understand our Saviours words in the Sense of Transubstantiation but the contrary 2. That they indeed differed only about some curious Speculations concerning the Dependences and Circumstances of this Doctrin of Transubstantiation which they Discours'd of in a Problematical way as for instance Whether this Transubstantiation is a Mutation and Transubstantiation Productive that is to say by vertue of which the Substance of the Body is produc'd from the Substance of Bread or a Mutation and Transubstantiation Adductive that is to say by vertue of which the Substance of Bread ceases to be and that of the Body be Introdu'd in it's place And whether in this Adductive Transubstantiation the Cessation of the Substance of Bread and Wine is to be call'd Annihilation or whether it ought to be exempt from this Name for as much as altho' it cease to be nevertheless this Cessation of it's Essence hath not Non entity for it's final Term but the Substitution of the Essence of the Body of Christ or the like and such kind of disputes which did not at all relate to the Essence of the Article of Transubstantiation but only to some consequences and modes of it for all the School-men agree That the Bread and Wine are chang'd and Transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ by vertue of Consecration the Substances of Bread and Wine ceasing to be and those of the Body and Blood being substituted in their place 3. They evidently deduce the Essential part of the Doctrin of Transubstantiation from Scripture and altho some few of them do sometimes say that the bare words of Scripture do not compell us to believe the less material consequences of it yet they do not deny that these also may be rationally deduc'd 4. The Author doth not pretend to prove from these Authorities that these Writers did not hold the Real Presence of Christs Body here but only a sign and