Page images
PDF
EPUB

(a) upon their Confecration they are Changed
indeed, and made other things, but still remain
in their own proper Nature, and Substance, and
Shape, and Form, and are Visible and Tangible,
as they were before.
; And writing against the Eutychians, who faid
that the Human Nature of Christ was Absort or
Swallowed up in His Divinity, so that their Re-
mained now none but the Divine Nature in Him,
and that he was po more a Man, and used this
Comparison, That is was in like Manner as in
the Sacrament, where the Bread was Changed
into the Body of Christ; (b). Yes, said Theodoret,
it is in the same Manner, that is, in no Manner
at all; for that the Bread though Changed in its
Use and Significancy, yet loft not its Nature,
but Remained truly and properly Bread as be-
fore. But had he believed Transubstantiation,
this had been a full and absolute Confirmation
of the Eutychian Heresy, instead of a Confuta-
tion; for then there had Remained no more of
the Humane Nature in Christ, than you believe
the Substance of the Bread to Remain in the Sa-
crament. This explains the Meaning of Theo-
doret, even beyond his Words, and he says.in
the fame Place, That our Blefjed Saviour, Who
called Himself the Living Bread and Wine, bath
also honoured the Visible Signs with the Title and
Appellation of His Body and Blood, not Changing:
their Nature, but adding to Nature, Grace.

Pope

(a) Mérd i8 cm of wegriegs QU'OEWS, solas, rj Fő ghualoir το ίδες, και ορατε βει, και αήα, οία και πρότερον ήν. Ιbid.

() See his Dialogue called The Immoveable.

[ocr errors]

Pope Gelafus says, (a)That the Sacraments of the Body and blood of Christ, which we take, is a Divine thing, by which we are made Partakers of the Diviue Nature, And

yet it ceases not to be the Substance and Nature of Bread and Wine: And certainly (says he) the Image and Similitude of the Body and Blood is Celebrated in the Mysteries.

And Facundus says the same, (b) Not (fays he) that the Bread is properly His Body, or the Cup His Blood

but that they contain the Mystery of His Body and Blood.

Aud St. Augustin says, (c) If Sacraments did not bear some Similitude to the things of which they are the Sacraments, they would not be Sacraments at all : But from this Similitude, they often take the Name of the things themselves.--As, says he, the Sacrament of Faith, which is Baptism, is called Faith,

And Șt. Chryfoftome speaking of the Vessels in which the Sacrament was put, (d) In which, says he, there is not the true Body of Christ, but the Mystery of His Body is Contained in them.

But,

(a) Et tamen non definit esse Substantia vel Natura Panis & Vini: Et certe Imago & Similitudo Corporis & Sanguinis Christi in A&ione Mysteriorum celebrantur. Gelas. contr. Neftorium & Eutychetem. (6) Non quod propriè Corpus Ejus fit Panis, & Poculum Sanguis; sed quod Myfterium Corporis Ejus, Sanguinisq; contineant. Lib. ix. c. v., (C). Si Sacramenta, &c. Ep. xxiii. And. contr. Faust. Manich. 1. x. c. ii. Sic Sacraa mentum Fidei quod Baptismus intelligitur, Fides est. (d) In quibus non eft Verum Corpus Christi, Jed Mysterium Corporis Ejus continetur. See St. Chryfoft. opere imperf. in Matth. and Epift. ad Çafarium, in Biblioth, P. Colon. 1618,

But, My Lord, not to trouble you with more Quotations, I refer you to Bishop Cofin his History of Transubstantiation, where beginning at the Institution, he fets down in every. Century, the Words of the Fathers upon this point. A little Book, long Printed both in English and Latin, not yet Anfwered (that I hear) and I believe Unanfwerable, wherein you will see a Cloud of Witnesses, through the first Ages of the Church, and so downwards, in perfect Con. tradi&tion to this New Article of your Faith.

And as the Scriptures, primitive Church and Fathers are all against you, so have you nothing in the World on your Side, but an Und intelligible Jargon of Metaphyficks, upon which the School-Men ring Changes, till the Noise of their Bells have deafen'd Common Sense and Reason. Such are their Sultilties upon Substance, Accidents, Subsistence, Moduses, and Modalities, and many more such Quiddities; and their Distin&tions of Materialiter and Fora maliter, per fe & per Accidens, and a Thou. sand more, to Solve all Difficulties, and Reconcile Contradi&tions ! No Absurdity can be nained out of the Reach of a Distinction, And when we Understand it not, it Operates most Effectually, because then we may suppose there is fomething in it! Pray, my Lord, let me ask you, Do you know the Difference betwixt Substance and Accidents

[ocr errors]

L. Substance is that which Sub stat, stands under or supports another thing, So the Subftance stands by it self, and the Accidents do Adhere or Stick in it. Therefore we say, that ES Sentia Accidentis eft Inbærentia,that Inberence or In-sticking is the Elence or very Being of an Accident, so that there cannot be an Accident without it, for whatever Sticks must have something to Stick in.

G. When the Substance then is Gone, what becomes of the Accidents :

L. They are no more, for their Eljence is Gone, which is Inberence, and they cannot Inbere or Stick in Nothing.

G. Now to Apply this, when the Substance of the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament is Gone, as you suppose, then their Accidents are no more, for there cannot be Accidents of Nothing, Nothing has no Accidents. And they cannot be the Accidents of Bread when there is no Bread.

you will not Endure they should be called the Accidents, of the Body and Blood of Christ: Therefore they are the Accidents of Nothing, that is, they are Accidents and no Accidents: They are Accidents without the Elence of Accidents, which is Inberence: There is Roundnefsand nothing Round, Whiteness and nothing White, a Taste and nothing Tasted, Liquidness

nothing Liquid, &c. And if these Accidents ftand by themselves, why are they not Sub

Atances

(a) And

(a) Catechis, ads Paroch. de Bucharift, Sawan. Scat. xxv. xliv.

ftances? For that is the Definition you give of Substance. If you say they stand' by Miracle, then by Miracle they are Substances. And there is an End of the Jargon! But who sees not that Roundness without any thing Round, and the like which you call acridents, are nothing at all in Nature, but Abstracted Notions of our own Heads, Creatures of our making, which, like Ens Rationis, have no Existence but in our Brains. Yet we Difpute about these, as if they were Real things; which we come at last to Fancy, by their being Dinned so long in our Ears at the Schools : And we Fight for them, as pro Aris & Focis; we make them Articles of our Faith; and Excommunicate for them!

L. Notwithstanding your Ridiculing Philosóphy, you will not say, that we can see the Substance of any thing. But that whatever comes under our outward Senses, that is, whatever can be Seen, Felt, Heard, Smelled, or Tasted, are only the Accidents of things.

G. And the same Philosophy will tell me that neither can Accidents be Seen, Felt, &c. For example, a Round or a White thing is a Substance, but the Roundness or the Wbiteness are the Accidents; Now I cannot See or Feel, Roundness or Whiteness, they are only Conceptions in my Mind, and come not under any of my outward Senses, they are too Thin to bear either my Sight, Smell, Touch or Tast. Nay, I will say that they are beyond my Imagination too, for who can Think of Roundness or Whiteness, with=

out

« PreviousContinue »