Let us now consider the question: _Whether the identical body_, _which was born from Mary and suffered and died and was buried_, _and which now sits at the right hand of the Father_, _is that_, _which in the Church is daily received by the mouth of the faithful through the mystery of the sacraments_.— ACCORDING TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CREATURES, WHAT THEY WERE BEFORE CONSECRATION, THAT ALSO THEY ARE AFTER IT.— Spiritual flesh which is received by the mouth of the faithful, and spiritual blood which is daily given to be drunk by the faithful, DIFFER from the flesh which was crucified and from the blood which was shed by the knee of the soldier. THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT ME SAME. {22} IV. The plain inquirer will now judge for himself: whether the romish doctrine of Transubstantiation, with the associated practice of adoring as God the consecrated elements, be taught either in Scripture, or by the early Fathers. As for Scripture, sufficient has already been said: and, with respect to the evidence afforded by the ancient Doctors of the Catholic Church, those Doctors, we see, protest _against_ any such new-fangled notions, not only during the three first centuries, but down even to the ninth century; and they protest, moreover, in every possible way that could well have been either required or imagined. 1. According to _their_ interpretation of Scripture, which manifestly was the interpretation received as orthodox by the universal Church at the times when they respectively flourished, we have the following very distinct and very important results. (1.) The consecrated elements are IMAGES or SYMBOLS or TYPES or SIGNS or REPRESENTATIONS of the body and blood of Christ. (2.) Communicants do NOT partake of that _literal_ body and blood, in which the Lord suffered and which he shed on the cross. (3.) The symbols of bread and wine, AFTER consecration, STILL REMAIN UNCHANGED IN THEIR ORIGINAL SUBSTANCE: and, consequently, they are NOT transubstantiated. (4.) Christ called the bread and wine _his body and blood_, IN THE SAME SENSE and ON THE SAME PRINCIPLE that he called himself _a vine_. (5.) When the early writers style the bread and wine _the body and blood of Christ_; or when they say, that _the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ_; or when they affirm, that _the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ_: they themselves state, by way of explanation, that they only speak metonymically and figuratively. For they distinctly tell us: that they are wont to call the bread and wine _Christ’s body and blood_; NOT BECAUSE THE BREAD IS PROPERLY HIS BODY, OR BECAUSE THE WINE IS PROPERLY HIS BLOOD; but only because they contain the sacrament of his body and blood within themselves, or because the IMAGE and SIMILITUDE of his body and blood are exhibited in the due celebration of the Eucharist.