and Wine are changed only in Ufe and Significancy, the Humanity of Chrift is really changed into the Di vinity. Which being moft eminently abfurd cannot be attributed to Theodoret with any Colour of Reafon. And 'tis an unanfwerable Proof, that Orthodoxus and Eranistes, that is, Theodoret, and the Euty chian his Adverfary agree'd in this common Principle of their Faith, viz. that the Bread and Wine are by Confecration really changed into the Body and Blood of Chrift; because he makes it the Ground and Foundation of the Eutychian's Argument or Similitude to fet forth the Change made in the Humanity of Chrift after his Afcenfion into Heaven. Which is the particular Branch of Eutychianism attack'd by Theodoret in the Paffage quoted, as appears from Eraniftes's Words.

G. But, My Lord, how is this confiftent with Theodoret's telling the Eutychian, that he is taken in kis own nets? For if they both fupposed a real and Subftantial Change in the Sacrament, the Similitude came home to the Point, and could not be retorted upon Eranistes.

L. This, Sr, the knot of the Difficulty, to which I answer directly, that the Mystery of the holy Eucharift according to Catholick Doctrine contains two Things. 1. That the Bread and Wine are fubftantially changed into the Body and Blood of Chrift. And aly, that the Accidents, or natural Proprieties of Bread and Wine, as Figure, Taft, Colour, &c.remain the fame they were before. This latter Truth Theodoret expreffes by telling Eranistes, that the Mystical Signs depart not from their former Nature by Confecration, but are visible and tangible as before; which being a Principle agree'd to by his Adverfary, Theodoret had juft Reason to tell him, that he was taken in his own Nets, in Drawing a Similitude from &

Mystery to establish his Error, which very Mystery contain'd a Confutation of it. For immediately after the Paffage quoted, he concludes, that as the Symbols after Confecration retain all their former natural Proprieties, fo the Body of Chrift even after his Refurrection and Afcenfion was circumfcribed, vifible, and tangible, and had all the Qualities of a human Body glorified.

'Tis true Eraniftes lays the whole Strefs of his Argument upon the fubftantial Change wrought in the Sacrament; as every man, that argues rationally, is fuppofed to fet the best Foot foremost: but Orthodox takes the Advantage against him from the other Part of the Mystery; viz. the natural Proprieties of Bread and Wine remaining after the Confecration, and infers from it, that therefore the natural Proprieties of Chrift's Body always. remain'd; which he tells Eraniftes is taking him in his own Nets. Because tho all agreed that the natural Proprieties of Bread and Wine remain without their Subftance in the Sacrament, no Man ever faid that the natural Proprieties of Christ's Body ever were without his real Body s and fo it follow'd by a clear Confequence from the very Similitude infifted upon by Eranistes, that the Humanity of Chrift was not abforpt in the Divinity, and that there were always two real Natures in Chrift; the Disbelief whereof was the capital Error of the Eutychians,

All this shews plainly, how little Reason you have to fay, that if Theodoret bad believed Tranfubftantiation, it had been a full and abfolute Confirmation of the Eutychian Herefy instead of a Confutation. For, to fpeak properly, the Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation is neither a Confirmation nor Confutation of the Eutychian Herefy; nor has it any more Connection with it than the Change of Mofes's Rod into a Serpent; or

the Change of Water into Wine at Cana in Ga lilee. But fince the Eutychians drew a Similitude from one Part of the Mystery of Tranfubftantiation to colour their Error, Theodoret had Reason to answer them in their own Way, and a just title to take the Advantage of the other Part of that Mystery against them. So that nothing is more frivolous than what you add; viz. that (if Theodoret believed Tranfubftantiation) then there had remain'd no more of the human Nature in Chrift, than we believe the Substance of Bread to remain in the Sacrament. For you may with just as much good Senfe infer the fame Confequence, if Theodoret believed that Mofes's Rod was changed into a Serpent, or that Chrift changed Water into Wine: both which Miracles I presume Theodoret believed without Prejudice to the Catholick Cause.

G. But, My Lord, Theodoret fays pofitively, that the Myftical Signs depart not from their own Nature by Confecration.

L. No more they do in Theodoret's Senfe: because the Mystical Signs, that is, the Accidents remain the fame after, as they were before Confecration. Now Accidents have their proper Nature and Effence as well as Substance; and the natural Proprieties of Things are often call'd their Nature: As we fay, it is the Nature of Ice to be cold, of iVater to moiften, and of Fire to burn. So St Hilary Lib. 10. de Trin. fays, that Fire in the Babilonian Furnace loft it's Nature. And in the very fame Sense Theodoret Speaks, when he says, that the Mystical Signs depart not from their own Ñature, that is, their natural Proprieties by Confecra

tion.

G. Ay but Theodoret fays more. For he adds, that they remain in their former Subftance, and Form and Shape, and are Visible, and Tangible as before.

L. He do's fo. But pray, Sr, take the very next

Words

words with them. But they are underfood to be the Things, which they are made; and fo they are believed, and they are ADORED,at being the Things, which they are believed. That is, the true Body and Blood of Chrift; as he profefs'd to believe a few Lines before. This, St, explains Theodoret's Meaning, and shews; that he takes the Word Subftance, not as it is oppofite to Accidents, but for a Collection of them, as Form, Shape, Vifibility, Tangibi lity, &c. For otherwife his Meaning will be, that, tho the Bread and Wine be changed into the Body and Blood of Chrift; and, tho the Things, into which they are changed, are to be adored, yet they ate Nothing but plain Bread and Wine after, as they were before Confecration; which is both a Contradiction and Blafphemy. 'Tis a Contradiction to fay, that Bread and Wine retaining in all Refects their former Nature are changed and made the Body and Blood of Christ: And it is Blafphemy to fay, that Bread remaining plain Bread is to be adored: And nothing can clear Theodoret either from the one or the other, but taking the Word Subftance for a Collection of Natural Proprieties.

6. But where do's your Lordship find the Word Subftance ever taken in that Senfe?

L. Sr, the English Word Substance do's not bear fo large a Senfe, as Subftantia in Latin, or la in Greek; which is the Word Theodoret makes Ufe of in the Text quoted. And therefore, tho it be improper in English to give to Accidents the Denomination of Subftance, it is not fo in the other two Languages. Ariftotle, who as a Philofopher is fuppofed to follow the strictest Laws of Speech, writes thus Lib. 5. Metaph. C.8. The Word Subftance [la] may be taken in two different Senfes. First, for the last Subject [and this we properly call Substance in English] 2dly, FOR ANY ACCIDENT, THO SEPARABLE FROM THE THING. And thus the Latin Word Subftantia is taken by

11. Part.

X

St Peter Chryfologus faying, a glorious Body is changed in Substance, but not in Perfon. Mutaffe Subftantiam, fed non mutaffe Perfonam. Serm. 82. and by St Aus tin Saying, Man by Sin fell from the Subftance, in which he was made. Per iniquitatem homo lapfus eft a Subantia, in qua factus eft. Pfal. 69. In both which Places the Word Subftance is taken for accidental Qualities. Which fuffices abundantly to justify my Anfwer. However if you can find me any other English Word to answer the full Extent of the Greek cia, or the Latin Substantia, I shall be obliged to you for it, and ufe it for the future in Tranflating the Text, you have objected from Theodoret.

» G. My Lord, Theodoret fays in the fame Place, that our bleffed Saviour, who call'd himself the living Bread and the Vine, has alfo honour'd the visible Sings »with the Title and Appellation of his Body and Blood, » not changing their Nature, but adding to Nature Grace. ❞ pag. 148.

L. Sr, this Paffage is not in the fame Place with the former, but is taken from Theodoret's first Dialogue. However the principal Difficulty it contains is already anfwer'd. For fince the Visible Signs lofe nothing of their Natural Qualities by Confecration, they may properly be faid not to be changed in their Nature: And the Grace, which Theodoret lays is added to Nature, is Chrift himself; of whom St Paul fays, the Grace of God, that bringeth Salvation, has appear'd to all Men. Tit. 11. v. 11.

As to Theodoret's faying, that Christ, who call'd himSelf the living Bread and the Vine, has alfo honour'd the vifible Signs with the Title and Appellation of his Body and Blood: his true Meaning is, that the Elements, which of their own Nature are nothing but Bread and Wine, are honour'd with the Title and Appellation of Chrift's Body and Blood, by being made his true Body and