Upon these statements an argument against Transubstantiation has been founded by Bishop Cosin The History of Popish Transubstantiation, Ch. v. § 14., and adopted both by Dr. Pusey The Doctrine of the Real Presence, pp. 277–281. and Dean Goode The Nature of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist, p. 483..  It being universally admitted that the substance of the water and of the ointment remains unchanged, it is argued from the identity of the language employed in each case that, according to Cyril, no substantial change takes place in the Bread and Wine.  Bishop Cosin quotes the following passage, of which the original is given below:  “Take heed thou dost not think that this is a mere ointment only.  For as the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Ghost is no longer ordinary bread, but is the body of Christ; so this holy ointment is no longer a bare common ointment after it is consecrated, but is the gift or grace of Christ, which, by His Divine Nature, and the coming of the Holy Ghost, is made efficacious; so that the body is anointed with the ointment, but the soul is sanctified by the holy and vivifying Spirit ᾽Αλλ᾽ ὅρα μὴ ὑπονοήσῃς ἐκεῖνο τὸ μύρον ψιλὸν εἶναι. ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ ἄρτος τῆς εὐχαριστίας μετὰ τὴν ἐπίκλησιν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος οὐκ ἔτι ἄρτος λιτός, ἀλλὰ σῶμα Χριστοῦ, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ἅγιον τοῦτο μύρον οὐκ ἔτι ψιλόν, οὐδ᾽ ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις κοινὸν μετ᾽ ἐπίκλησιν, ἀλλὰ Χριστοῦ χάρισμα, καὶ Πνεύματος ἁγίου παρουσίᾳ τῆς αὐτοῦ θεότητος ἐνεργητικὸν γινόμενον..”