being changed, after consecration, into the actual body and blood of our Saviour, nothing of the elements remaining excepting the bare accidents void of substance, we can by no means agree with their Lordships' doctrine: such a corporal presence which they call Transubstantiation having no foundation in Scripture, and being by implication, and sometimes plainly denied by the most celebrated Fathers of the Primitive Church. As to the Scripture, 'tis true our Saviour calls the Eucharistic bread and wine his body and blood, but that these words are not to be restrained in a literal sense we may collect from other places of Scripture, where our Saviour calls him a vine, an olive, and in other places of Holy Writ he is called the lamb of God, and the lion of the tribe of Judah. All which texts we doubt not, but the Oriental Church will allow must be construed to a metaphorical sense, and if these texts are to be figuratively interpreted, why not the other at the institution of the Holy Eucharist, which if restrained to the letter is no less shocking than the rest? Farther, St. Paul calls the Eucharistic element bread, even after the consecration, when it was to be received, 1 Cor. xi. 28. And to allege some testimonies from the primitive Fathers. St. Justin Martyr declares that our bodies are nourished by the consecrated bread and wine. Apo. 2. From whence the inference is plain, this Father believed the substance of the Eucharistic elements to remain after consecration. For if the doctrine of accidents had been established, which 'tis plain the primitive Fathers knew nothing of, supposing this doctrine current, which way would St. Justin Martyr conceive our bodies could be nourished by bare accidents? For accidents are out of all substance, and then which way can it be supposed a body can receive
