THE DOCTRINE OF Transubstantiation Considered, and fully CONFUTED, From a Union of SCRIPTURES: Hitherto not Performed.  
By THO. MOOR, Author of the Clavis Aurea.  
WITH An Advertisement, concerning a Dispute in the Country, between T. M. and one Mr. S. on the 25th. of July. 1700.  
LONDON, Printed: and Sold by W. Martial, at the Bible in Newgate-street. 1700.   

Transubstantiation FULLY CONFUTED.  
I Having pacified my Conscience, in writing my Clavis Aurea and its Additions, which Book (although it was never Answered by any Preacher, yet I Suffered for it; and indeed, should it be Answered, I think only to leave their Answer to be compared to my Book aforesaid) was condemned to be Burned as Irreligious and Seditious, and myself Fined, and Imprisoned 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 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 expressed by the Priest, whereby it is not in the least changed; yet we must believe this whether we can or no, otherwise we are Heretics and Damned, they accounting it no moer Sin to destroy us than if we were so many Dogs, etc. 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 Conscience-sake: But Persecution is more heinous, 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 extreme Ignorant themselves? In short, God accepts of what we Conscientiously think is true, (and no Man can dive into another Man's Conscience) it must then be great Iniquity to Persecute one another's Conscience, if Zealously affected to a Tenet, though 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. its 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, 63, Christ opens this, by telling them of his Ascension, 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 saved 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 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 broke 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 of Sins. Now it's observed, 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, suffered 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 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, than 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, who, I am persuaded, 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 hid 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.  
FINIS.   

Advertisement.  
IT is reported by some, That T. M. was Overthrown in a Dispute with one Mr. S. which is False; for S. disproven none of M's Arguments, but only denied the Consequences; which M, observing the fallacy of, let S. begin, waiting to put him upon Uniting his seeming opposite Scriptures: S. having begun, he for two Hours, brought only Scriptures against M's Scriptures, (but M's unhappiness was, the People perceived it not) in which was no Satisfaction. S. having tired his Auditors, M began, and urged S. to unite the seeming opposite Scriptures: S. replied, He came not to Unite the Scriptures, whereas it was his business to outdo M. in their Union, if he could, both for satisfaction of the Auditors, and to have the better of the Dispute; How otherwise could he expect to get the day? And besides, What did he come for? Vainglory! which M. despised, or to play upon the Ignorance of the People, to gain their Affections, and give them no Satisfaction, which M. designed not. How ean any Man be so Stupefied, to conclude M. Overthrown, when S. did not pretend, nay, positively denied to Unite the Scriptures: And when M. had United Mark 16.16. with Rom. 11.32. the People could not receive it, (as M. expected) nor S. contradict it, but confirmed it, in saying, He did not say, There was  in Faith. Yet he contended for  before in his long Harangue.  
Now since S. could not be brought to Unite the seeming opposite Scriptures, and having owned, That there was no  in Faith, and would not have the Dispute in Writing, nor in a Dialogue way, and the People not receiving M's Union of the two aforesaid Texts, M. broke off the Dispute, as frivolous and vain, from which no Satisfaction could be drawn.  
I grant S. had his End (through his much Talking) viz. The Applause of the People, who knew no more when Scriptures were United, than S. knew how to Unite them.  
Without a Union of Scriptures, there's no Satisfaction to be had, and that's the reason we have wanted Satisfaction these many Hundred Years. But if Mr. S. pleases, T. M. is ready to answer him in Writing concerning the Union of the Scriptures, which will make his Logic of no Effect, as it never was, in finding out the Truth of the Scriptures.   

SOme Arguments and Considerations, serving as a full Answer to that Grand Question, Whether Men can Will and do otherwise than what they do?  
Bunyan of Election and Reprobation, unfolded and explained in Eleven Chapters. Price 6 d.  
The young Man's Guide, for Drawing, Limning, and Etching, with printed Directions. 1 s.