(a) upon their Confecration they are Changed indeed, and made other things, but ftill remain in their own proper Nature, and Substance, and Shape, and Form, and are Vifible and Tangible, as they were before.

And writing against the Eutychians, who faid that the Human Nature of Chrift was Abfort or Swallowed up in His Divinity, fo that their Remained now none but the Divine Nature in Him, and that he was no 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 Chrift; (b) Yes, said Theodoret, it is in the fame Manner, that is, in no Manner at all; for that the Bread though Changed in its Ufe and Significancy, yet loft not its Nature, but Remained truly and properly Bread as before, But had he believed Tranfubftantiation, this had been a full and abfolute Confirmation of the Eutychian Herefy, inftead of a Confutation; for then there had Remained no more of the Humane Nature in Chrift, than you believe the Subftance of the Bread to Remain in the Sacrament. This explains the Meaning of Theodoret, even beyond his Words, and he fays in the fame Place, That our Bleffed Saviour, Who called Himfelf the Living Bread and Wine, bath alfo honoured the Vifible Signs with the Title and Appellation of His Body and Blood, not Changing their Nature, but adding to Nature, Grace.

Pope

(α) Μένα 18 ἐπὶ ? προτέρας φύσεως, ἐσίας, καὶ τὸ χήματα, και τὰ εἶδος, καὶ ὁρατὰ ὅτι, καὶ ἁπλὰ, οἷα καὶ πρότερον ἦν· Ibid. (b) See his Dialogue called The Immoveable.

Pope Gelafius fays, (a)That the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Chrift, which we take, is a Divine thing, by which we are made Partakers of the Diviue Nature, And yet it ceafes not to be the Subftance and Nature of Bread and Wine: And certainly (fayshe) the Image and Similitude of the Body and Blood is Celebrated in the Mysteries.

And Facundus fays the fame, (b) Not (fays he) that the Bread is properly His Body, or the Cup His Blood; but that they contain the Myftery of His Body and Blood.

And St. Auguftin says, (c) If Sacraments did not bear fome 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, fays he, the Sacrament of Faith, which is Baptifm, is called Faith.

And St. Chryfoftome fpeaking of the Veffels in which the Sacrament was put, (d) In which, fays he, there is not the true Body of Chrift, but the Mystery of His Body is Contained in them.

But,

(a) Et tamen non definit effe Subftantia vel Natura Panis & Vini: Et certe Imago & Similitudo Corporis & Sanguinis Chrifti in A&tione Myfteriorum celebrantur. Gelaf. contr. Neftorium & Eutychetem. (b) Non quod propriè Corpus Ejus fit Panis, & Poculum Sanguis; fed quod Myfterium Corporis Ejus, Sanguinifq; contineant. Lib. ix. c. v. (c) Si Sacramenta, &c. Ep. xxiii. And. contr. Fauft. Manich. 1. x. c. ii. Sic Sacra

mentum Fidei quod Baptifmus intelligitur, Fides eft. (d) In quibus non eft Verum Corpus Chrifti, fed Myfterium Corporis Ejus continetur. See St. Chryfoft. opere imperf. in Matth. and Epift. ad Cafarium, in Biblioth. P. Colon. 1618,

But, My Lord, not to trouble you with more Quotations, I refer you to Bishop Cofin his Hiftory of Tranfubftantiation, where beginning at the Inftitution, 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 fee a Cloud of Witneffes, through the firft Ages of the Church, and fo downwards, in perfect Contradiction to this New Article of your Faith.

And as the Scriptures, primitive Church and Fathers are all against you, fo have you nothing in the World on your Side, but an Unintelligible Jargon of Metaphyficks, upon which the School-Men ring Changes, till the Noife of their Bells have deafen'd Common Sense and Reafon. Such are their Sultilties upon Subftance, Accidents, Subfiftence, Moduffes, and Modalities, and many more fuch Quiddities; and their Diftinctions of Materialiter and Formaliter, per fe per Accidens, and a Thoufand more, to Solve all Difficulties, and Reconcile Contradictions! No Abfurdity can be named out of the Reach of a Distinction. And when we Underftand it not, it Operates moft Effectually, becaufe then we may fuppofe there is fomething in it! Pray, my Lord, let me afk you, Do you know the Difference betwixt Subftance and Accident ?

L. Subftance is that which Sub ftat, ftands under or fupports another thing, So the Subftance ftands by it self, and the Accidents do Adhere or Stick in it. Therefore we fay, that Ef fentia Accidentis eft Inbærentia,that Inberence or In-flicking is the Effence or very Being of an Accident, fo that there cannot be an Accident without it, for whatever Sticks must have fomething to Stick in.

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

L. They are no more, for their Effence is Gone, which is Inherence, and they cannot Inhere or Stick in Nothing.

G. Now to Apply this, when the Subftance of the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament is Gone, as you fuppofe, 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. (a) And you will not Endure they should be called the Accidents, of the Body and Blood of Chrift: Therefore they are the Accidents of Nothing, that is, they are Accidents and no Accidents: They are Accidents without the Effence of Accidents, which is Inberence: There is Roundnefs and nothing Round, Whiteness and nothing White, a Taste and nothing Tafted, Liquidnefs and nothing Liquid, &c. And if thefe Accidents ftand by themselves, why are they not SubStances?

(a) Catechis.ads Paroch. de Bucharift. Saeram. Sect. xxv. xliv.

ftances? For that is the Definition you give of Subftance. If you fay they ftand by Miracle, then by Miracle they are Subftances. And there is an End of the fargon! But who fees not that Roundness without any thing Round, and the like which you call Accidents, are nothing at all in Nature, but Abftracted Notions of our own Heads, Creatures of our making, which, like Ens Rationis, have no Exiftence but in our Brains. Yet we Difpute about thefe, as if they were Real things, which we come at laft to Fancy, by their being Dinned fo 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 Philofophy, you will not fay, that we can See the Subftance of any thing. But that whatever comes under our outward Senfes, that is, whatever can be Seen, Felt, Heard, Smelled, or Tafted, are only the Accidents of things.

G. And the fame Philofophy will tell me that neither can Accidents be Seen, Felt, &c. For example, a Round or a White thing is a Subftance, but the Roundness or the Whiteness 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 Senfes, they are too Thin to bear either my Sight, Smell, Touch or Taft. Nay, I will fay that they are beyond my Imagination too, for who can Think of Roundness or Whiteness, with

Out