As part of a written debate on Transubstantiation with "T.B." (a Catholic priest), Henry Newcome wrote the following against this dogma:
How the Water in Baptism Refutes the Purported Need for Transubstantiation of the Elements in the Eucharist
2. We Teach and Believe, That the worthy Receiver receives not the bare Elements, but the Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lord’s Supper.
3. The Cup may be the Communication of Christ’s Blood, and the Bread the Communication of his Body without Transubstantiation. For the benefit of a Sacrament depends upon the Blessing annexed to the Institution. And as Water in Baptism without any substantial change mad in the Element, may by the Divine Blessing, accompanying the Institution, be effectual to the washing away of Sin; so Bread and Wine in the Lord’s Supper may by the same Divine Blessing on the Institution make the worthy Receiver to partake of the Benefits without any substantial Change in those Elements. (T.B. and Henry Newcome, Transubstantiation Discuss’d, in Two Parts [London, 1705], part 1, p. 33)
On Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 and Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.18.5 and the "Two Realities" in the Eucharist
He says, We do not receive these as common Bread or common Drink. Therefore Bread and Drink, tho’ not Common but Sacramental. Concerning which, take the Words of Irenaeus as a very prophet Comment on them. The Bread, says e, which is from the Earth, receiving the Divine invocation is not common Bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of Two Things, an Earthly and an Heavenly. Surely then the Earthly part is not taken away, the Substance of the Elements is not annihilated to make room for the Heavenly. For then there would be but one, not two Things in the Eucharist. To which, add, that it is common for the Fathers to say of Water in Baptism, that it is not common Water, by which they suppose it to remain Water still, after it is consecrated into a Sacrament, and by Parity of Reason the Bread consecrated, tho’ not Common Bread, remains Bread still. I know some Popish Authors suppose the Earthly part in Irenaeus to be the Accidents; but as he says no such Thing, so that cannot be supposed of the Elements in Justin Martyr, raised by Consecration above common Bread. For He affirms , that those Elements after Consecration, by Change nourish our Body and Blood. Not as T.B. I suppose will not say, that our Body and Blood are nourished by the Substance of Christ’s Body and Blood are nourished by the Substance of Christ’s Body and Blood (which were to make himself and the Holy Father Stercorarians) so I am sure bare Accidents destitute of Substance cannot increase our Substance, nor consequently nourish our Bodies. Irenaeus affirms positively, That the Substance of our Body can be increas’d by bare Accidents: For he may as well pretend to feed an hungry Man by Words, or quench his Thirst by Musick. So that it appears from these two last Remarks, that according to my fifth Rule, this Testimony proving no change in the Substance of the Elements, but the contrary, can be no Proof of Transubstantiation.
T.B. seems to lay a great stress on those Words, In the same manner (ον προπον, which I render as) If then in the same manner as Christ is made Flesh, the Elements are made the Body and Blood of Christ; it will follow, that there is an Hypostatical Union in the Eucharist as well as in the Incarnation; Yea, and it will follow,--That in the same manner that the Elements are made the Body and Blood of Christ, Christ Is made Flesh. Suppose then that the Elements are made Christ’s Body and Blood by Transubstantiation, then it follows, That Christ was also made Flesh by Transubstantiation. But if any should affirm, That Christ at his Incarnation was Transubstantiated, I presume T.B. would joyn with me in pronouncing him an Heretick. And consequently by my fourth Rule, this Testimony is no Proof of a Transubstantiation in the Eucharist. (Ibid., 49-50)
Augustine, On the Psalms, 33.1.10
T.B. cites next a Passage of the same St. Augustine, the Title of Ps. 33 . . . He was carry’d in his Hands. This according to the Letter cannot be understood of David, for he understands it of Christ, who was carry’d in his Hands when commending his Body, he said this is my Body. For then he carry’d his Body in his Hands.
To say nothing of the mistaken Translation, St. Augustine follows, for which there is no countenance in the Hebrew, I will consider St. Augustine’s Meaning, and T.B.’s Argument on it. In the very next Sermon on the same Psalm, St. Augustine thus explains himself, How was he carry’d in his own Hands? Because when he commended his own Body and Blood, he took that in his Hands which the Faithful know, and did (quodammodo) in the same sort carry his Body in his Hands. Sure that quodammodo in some sort is a plain Intimation enough, that he did not mean properly, and in the absurd Sense of Transubstantiation. However the other Expression puts it out of doubt, That which the Faithful know. For by this he meant to Conceal something from those that were not admitted to the Sacrament (the Catechumens,) which they that were admitted to the Sacrament, and were call’d the Faithful, very well knew. Now the bread was what here he would not expressly Name, but only Hint at as what was known to the Faithful. And abundant Instances might be produc’d out of Theodoret, and other Fathers of the like manner of speaking, when they would not name the Elements. But to confine my self to St. Augustine, speaking of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, he says, They that Read know what Melchizedek brought forth (it was Bread and wine) when he Bless’d Abraham, and they that partake of it, see such a Sacrifice now offer’d to God through the World. Hence it is evident, that this is St. Augustine’s Meaning, that because Christ took Bread in his Hands, recommending it to his Disciples for his Body, he did in a sort, as it were carry his Body in his hands. Which yet is more clear from what Bede says on the same Psalm. Christ (says he) was carry’d (quodammodo) in a manner in his own Hands, when in the last Supper he reach’d the Bread consecrated and commended by his own Mouth to his Disciples, saying, this is my Body. And having in this, as well as in the former Testimonies, St. Augustine on our side Interpreting himself not according to the Sense of the Roman Church, but of ours, let us consider what T.B argues against him and us. Can we (says he) imagin the flaming witted St. Augustine would have been so puzl’d in finding out how David might have carry’d his own Picture, if at the very same time (according to Protestants) he intended to say no more than that Christ carry’d his? I answer. In this cited Passage, St. Augustine supposes it impossible in a gross Sense. So that the Phrase cannot be accommodated to David, who carry’d not, that we Read of any where in the Letter, his Body in his Hand in any figurative Sense of the Phrase. It must be then (as he infers) be understood of Christ, whom he oft stiles the Spiritual David, who when he commended his own Body and Blood to his Disciples, took the Bread (that which the Faithful know) in His hand, and so in the same sort carry’d his Body in his Hand. Let T.B. find ay passage in the Letter of the History, to which this Phrase can in any Sense be accommodated to hi, and then we will allow the flaming witted St. Augustine puzl’d to no purpose.
And having thus interpreted St. Augustine by himself, and vindicated his own Interpretation from T.B.’s Objection, I shall before I leave this Matter, add some Arguments to prove That St. Augustine cannot be understood n this absurd Sense T.B. would put on him. As He declares (Aug. Tract. 30 in Job) against the Absurdity of Christ’s body being in many Places. On those Words, Me you have not always: he speaks, says he, of the Presence of his Body. Ye shall have me according to my Providence, according to Majesty and invisible Grace, but according to the Flesh, which the Word assum’d, according to that which was Bon of the Virgin Mary, ye shall not have me. Therefore because he convers’d with his Disciples forty Days, he ascended up to Heaven, and is not here. (Ibid., 80-82)