I Having pacified my Conscience, in writing my Clavis Aurea and its Additions, which Book (although it was never Answer'd by any Preacher, yet I Suffer'd for it; and indeed, should it be Answer'd, I think only to leave their Answer to be compar'd to my Book aforesaid) was condemn'd to be Burn'd as Irreligious and Seditious, and my self Fin'd, and Imprison'd in Newgate.

But this Subject of Transubstantiation, cannot in reason affront our Divines, which indeed wants the clearest Con­futation; for it hath cost the Lives of many Thousands of Men, Women and Children, and that by violent and tor­turing [Page 4] Deaths: And because many are apt to say, I am a Jesuit, a Priest, and the like, I think it also very necessary to assay, whether I cannot give a more clearer insight into that Error, than what hath already been done.

None can deny, but that our Senses perfectly contradict a mutation of the Consecrated Bread and Wine into real Flesh and Blood, and that they are the very same Substance in Taste, Smell, Sight and Touch, as they were before the words of Consecration were exprest by the Priest, whereby it is not in the least changed; yet we must believe this whether we can or no, otherwise we are Hereticks and Damn'd, they accounting it no moer Sin to destroy us than if we were so many Dogs, &c. notwithstand­ing our blessed Saviour teaches 'em to do as they would be done by: Hence Persecution for Conscience in an Opini­on in Religion is forbidden, for no Perse­cutor himself can allow it Religious, or would be Persecuted for his Conscience­sake: But Persecution is more hainous, [Page 5] when the Persecutor is not able to with­stand the Arguments of the Persecuted. Ignorance is a Sin; Persecution then must of necessity be a Sin, because it ignorant­ly or knowingly, endeavours to keep Men in Ignorance: And who ever Per­secuted others more than those who have been extream Ignorant themselves? In short, God accepts of what we Con­scientiously think is true, (and no Man can dive into another Mans Conscience) it must then be great Iniquity to Perse­cute one anothers Conscience, if Zea­lously affected to a Tenet, tho that Te­net should prove to be Erroneous. Much more then, it must be great Iniquity to Persecute a Man for those Arguments which cannot be Overthrown.

Now to the Matter in hand: in John 6 53. it's writ, Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat of the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood, ye have no life in you. And verse 55, For my Flesh is Meat indeed, and my Blood is Drink indeed. For which saying, many of his Disciples left him, verse 60. But I find in verse 62, [Page 6] 63, Christ opens this, by telling them of his Ascention, viz. What and if you shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before. As much as to say, How will ye eat my Flesh when I am Glorified? And Christ adds; It's the Spirit that quick'neth, the Flesh profiteth nothing; The words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit and Life. And again he adds, but there are some of you that believe not. So that eating of his Flesh, Was Mystically spoken of Belie­ving in him: For to eat his Flesh carnal­ly, was to profit nothing. And again, observe; as soon as our Saviour said, My words are spirit and life, adds, But there are some of you that believe not. And it's writ in verse 47, He that believeth on me, hath everlasting Life. And throughout the Scriptures it's said, We are sav'd by Faith; and Christ being Ascended, is no more to be known after the Flesh; as 'tis writ, 2 Cor. 5.16. Tho we have known Christ after the flesh, henceforth know we him no more. How then can we eat in the Sacrament, Christ's Flesh carnally, or drink his Blood. But we'll suppose the [Page 7] Consecrated Bread and Wine at the last Supper were Christ's real Flesh and Blood, there's no particular Command with or without any Penalty for us to believe it or not believe it so: Neither can our Unbelief change the Substance of the Consecrated Bread and Wine in­to another Substance. If Christ hath left this Bread or Wine of his Last Supper dubious, whether Figurative or Real, we can but dubiously believe it so, whereby we humbly submit our Faith to God, believing it to be as he hath made it, which is as much in this respect as rea­sonably can be expected from us.

Another Scripture on which they build this Error, is Matth. 26, 27, 28. (as for the Authority of their Church, I mind it not, because it is not to contradict the Scriptures.) And as they were eating, Je­sus took bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the Disciples, and said, Take eat, this is my Body. And he took the Cup and gave Thanks, and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of the New-Testament, which is shed for the remis­sion [Page 8] of Sins. Now it's observ'd, that after these words, Christ calls this the Fruit of the Vine in the very next Verse, saying, I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. Thus you see in Scripture the Figures of things are cal­led by the name of the Substance; and in words Mystically to have the same effect: For had this been Christ's real Flesh and Blood, and really broken and shed at the Last Supper, it had really re­mitted Sin, as being also said to be shed for the remission of Sin. But we find it did not remit Sin, because Christ after all this, suffer'd Misery and Death on the Cross, which had been great Weakness in him so to do, if it had remitted Sin; and also to pray, Father if it be possible, let this Cup pass from me. Whereby it's evi­dent, that the Consecrated Bread and Wine at the Last Supper, was not his real Body and Blood. Again,

The blood of Bulls and Goats under the Law, were an Expiation, or remitted Sin: Yet St. Paul saith, it is not possible that [Page 9] the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away sins, Heb. 10.4. Yet they did take away Sin, but 'twas figuratively, denoting the Blood of Christ. Who can believe that Christ was really slain at the Last Supper? If not, then it is testified that a Testament is not of force till after the death of the Testa­tor. See Heb. 9.16, 17. For where a Testament is, there must of necessity be the Death of the Testator; it being of no force while he liveth. So that with­out shedding Christ's real Blood even un­to Death, there's no remission of Sin. Whereby it's evident, Christ's Body and Blood eaten and drank at the last Supper, was but Figurative, not being a suffici­ent Testament to remit Sin: And Christ being now in Glorv, and never more to be known in the Flesh, it's impossible, as his Body and Blood was never carnally eaten and drank, so never is nor never shall be.

Thus in short have I given you my Sa­tisfaction against that old Error of Tran­substantiation, which at this very day is held by Kings, Princes, and Learned Bi­shops, [Page 10] who, I am perswaded, believe it true, otherwise they could not be so Cruel to Persecute others for denying it, and that by Fire, Inquisition, Prisons, Massacres, and other Tortures. How Weak then are their Laity to Adore 'em, concluding that their Learning and Stu­dy can free them from writing Learned Errors in Divinity. Learning in Tongues is of this use, To translate words out of one Language into another, yet still the sense is the same: And also serves the better to express those Mysteries God hath Revealed: And it serves sometimes to hide by hard and unintelligible words, the Ignorance of the Teacher. But from such Learned blind Guides the Lord hath and I trust will for ever deliver me; for which great Mercy, let me always render Glory and Honour to his Holy Name. Amen.