Transubstantiation - 2

1833 - "A discourse against transubstantiation", by J. Tillotson, the Archbishop of Canterbury,  available on Google Books.

What is an infidelator like me to make of these arguments?

...every man hath as great evidence that Transubstantiation is false, as he hath that the Christian Religion is true.

and

...the main evidence of the Christian Doctrine...is miracles { To Tillotson, miracles are supernatural effects that are evident to the senses.  Transubstantiation is not evident to the senses, so even if it happens supernaturally, it is not a miracle. }

Tillotson had two main headings in his arguments against transubstantiation.  The first heading is doctrinal - what is the scriptural and the historical support for this idea?  The second is about the objections to this idea.  The very first of the arguments in the second heading is that transubstantiation invites scorn and ridicule on the Christian Religion.  What do the above two quoted arguments do?