Lord is; think you not, that you are to discern this by the testimony of sense, but by the testimony of faith; for when you take them, you are not commanded to take bread and wine, but to take the body and blood of Christ." This, then, is the manner in which the new Christians were taught to believe.

Another, St. Gregory of Nyssa, also one of these catechists, says, "What is this salutary medicine? That body which was shown to be more powerful than death, and is the beginning of life. Now how can that one body, which so constantly throughout the whole world is distributed, be whole to each receiver, and each receive the body of Christ?" The very difficulty made, in our days, to the Catholic doctrine. But hear his answer : "The body of Christ, by the inhabitation of the Word of God, was transmuted into a divine dignity; and so I now believe that the bread, sanctified by the divine Word, is transmuted into the body of the Word." There is the same word as transubstantiation-transmutation.

A writer of the second class, one who writes to the initiated, is St. John Chrysostom: he says, "Let us then touch the hem of his garment; let us rather possess him entire, for his body now lies before us, not to be touched alone, but to be eaten and to satiate us. And if they who touched his garment drew so much virtue from it, how much more shall we draw, who possess him whole? Believe, therefore, that the supper at which he sat is now celebrated; for there is no difference between the two; this is not performed by a man, but by Christ, and both are by him; it is not the hand of the priest, but the hand of Christ, that is stretched towards that altar. Let us believe God in every thing, and not gainsay him, although what is said may seem contrary to our reason and our sight; let us believe him more than both; his word cannot deceive, but our senses very easily deceive; that never failed, these often. Since, then, his word says, "This is my body," let us assent and believe, and view it with the eyes of our understanding." In another place, "Who will give us of his flesh that we may be filled?" This Christ has done, allowing himself to be eaten. Parents often give their children to be nourished by others; not so I, says Christ, but I nourish you with my flesh; I took flesh and blood to deliver you, and again I deliver to you that flesh and blood, by which I became so related." Again, "What sayest thou, O blessed Paul? Willing to impress awe on the hearer, and making mention of the tremendous mysteries, thou callest them the cup of benediction, that terrible and tremendous cup. That which is in the cup, is that which came from Christ himself, and this is that very body which was pierced by the lance; he that was present at the last supper, is the same that is now present; the words are pronounced by the priest, but it is the power and grace of Christ, that changes that which is on the altar into

his body." Once more, he says, "Wonderful! the table is spread with mysteries; the Lamb of God is slain for thee; spiritual fire comes down from heaven; the blood in the chalice is drawn from the spotless side for thy purification. Thinkest thou that thou seest bread? Thinkest thou that thou seest wine? far be it from thee to think so; but as wax brought near to the fire changes its substance, so the mysteries of bread and wine, are consumed by the substance of the body."

These are a few examples from the fathers, expressly instructing the faithful without reserve-and see what language they hold! Beginning from the very earliest times in the church, we have expressions without end of the same belief, sometimes casually let out, at other times, though veiled, yet sufficiently clear for us to understand. In the very first century, St. Ignatius Martyr complains of some, that they do not believe the Eucharist to contain the very flesh of Christ, and therefore die without the gift of God.

There are a great many passages which have been strongly contested; there is an obscurity about them. There are others contested, because the fathers make use of certain words; they call the Eucharist a figure, and so do we now. But even there, there is hardly, indeed, I will say, there is not one passage which has been disputed, which we cannot clearly vindicate. I will mention, as an illustration of this, one passage which has come under my observation; it is one so commonly quoted against us of Tertullian; there is a passage, where he tells us, that Christ, in the Eucharist, or in the bread, "represents" his body to us. Now it is argued, here is clearly a figure, nothing more, precisely the Protestant belief. To this Catholics have answered, and answered very justly, that the verb to "represent,” in Latin-representare— signifies really to present, and that Tertullian himself uses it so. He says, that God, on Mount Tabor, represented his Son to us, that is, presented him to us. But, I think, this expression is a particularly strong argument for us, because that word "represent," is used in a way which makes it a very strong phrase; he says, in one of his works, speaking of some type verified in the new law, "The shadow was in the figure, the truth in the representation." Therefore, according to Tertullian, the representation is the fulfilment of the figure, not the figure; and if, therefore, Christ in the Eucharist represents to us his body, it means that that figure was completed, and that that which before was in the shadow is now in the truth; because representation with him is truth. And the same expression occurs in St. Cyprian, who says to one of the martyrs, "We see represented in you, that which was foreshadowed in the three children in the furnace;" therefore representation is the fulfilment of the figure. There are other passages of Tertullian which can be examined in the same way, upon his special phraseology, by comparing them with his other works.

There is one, for I must omit many passages which I had marked, as affording exceedingly strong proofs of this belief in the Latin, Greek, and oriental churches. I will mention one, because it has only lately been brought to light, within these two or three years, giving us the testimony of a father not known till very lately; it is a proof, how little we should have to fear the discovery of any new writers among the fathers; on the contrary, how much we should desire it. The father is St. Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, the bosom-friend of St. Basil and St. Jerome, and spoken of by them, as one of the most holy and learned men of their time. We knew very little of his writings; we had nothing regarding the Eucharist; but two or three years ago, a work was brought to light, the Acts of the Council held about 1166, at Constantinople, upon the text, " My father is greater than I." This Council collected passages from the fathers; and, among the rest, from St. Amphilochius; but they stopped short just at this very passage; but I will read it to you, and you will see what must have been his belief. The passage is quoted to show his opinion regarding the equality of the Son with the Father, and his argument is remarkable: he says, that the Father is equal to the Son, and is greater than the Son; he is equal, considered under certain circumstances, and greater, considered under others; and he goes on to make comparisons between these positions; he says, "The Father, therefore, is greater than him who goeth unto him, and not greater than he who is always in him; he is greater, and yet equal; greater than he who asked, How many loaves have ye?' equal to him who satisfied the whole multitude with five loaves: greater than he who said, Who toucheth me?' equal to him who dried up the inexhaustible flux of the hæmorrhoissa: greater than he who asked, Where have ye laid him?' equal to him who said, Lazarus, come forth:' greater than he who was judged by Pilate;' equal to him who freeth the world from judgment: greater than he who was stript of his raiment; equal to him who clothes the soul: greater than he to whom vinegar was given to drink; equal to him who giveth us his own blood to drink." Now if the giving us his own blood to drink was only a symbol, how is it a proof of his divinity? Is it of the same character as justifying the soul, clothing the soul, freeing the world from judgment? Can the instituting a mere symbol be ranked among proofs of divinity, on a level with these? If, therefore, St. Amphilochius brings it among the very last of his examples, as one of the strongest proofs of Christ's equality with the Father, and assuredly it is to be understood to be a miracle, and a miracle of the very highest order.

This, as I before said, is but a very limited view of the argument from tradition, because I have contented myself with making these extracts from fathers, who were expressly treating of the Eucharist,

and who, consequently, may be supposed to have spoken with a view to enlighten the faithful upon the subject.

Before concluding, I cannot refrain from pointing out the complete and beautiful analogy, between this part of the course through which I have led you, and the former portion. You have seen there, that the Catholic belief, regarding the Eucharist, is, that our Saviour has instituted a solemn rite in his church, whereby he himself is always truly present therein, present, so as to be really the food of the soul, and, consequently, the source, the author, the means of all grace being conveyed to the soul. Now let us examine what were the wants of human nature, which our blessed Saviour came peculiarly to supply. The fall of our first parents affected mankind in a two-fold manner: in the first place, they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and the consequence was, that they were blinded in their understandings, and left a prey to error, uncertainty, and diversity of opinion: this was what they entailed upon their posterity, regarding their judgment and understanding. At the same time they were driven away from the tree of life; from that tree which was intended for their nourishment and ours, to give perpetual vigour to that state, and nourish it for immortality. No sooner was this lost, than the soul sank into a state of degradation, and its moral feelings became corrupted, and moral depravity was the consequence of that loss.

We find this two-fold want of intellectual light and moral life, so completely felt in every period of the history of the world, that it is impossible to mistake, that they correspond to the two great losses which man had undergone. We find mankind thirsting in every way for knowledge, not merely in the speculations of philosophy, not merely by interrogating nature through her works, but that they felt the want of a supernatural enlightenment, that they had recourse to every species of superstition, oracles, auguries, and every thing that seemed to give them some portion of communion with heaven, or produce some glimmering spark of internal light. Besides this, there evidently was the feeling of the want of something to regenerate the human heart, of some means of coming more closely into communion with the Divinity, as was of old, in the first normal state in which man was placed. We see it in the practice of sacrifices; and we find some institutions so akin to that which I have described to you, that it has been asserted, that they must have sprung from some corrupted imitation of the Catholic religion. In the religions of India and China, there was an impression, that there was a means of being united to God by the celebration of certain rites, which seemed to make men partakers of the Divinity. We find that there were oblations, which they supposed sanctified them, elevated them, and brought them into communion with God. We find it particularly among the nations of America, in which

there is a rite, wherein bread, made in the form of one of their deities, and then broken and distributed, is of that character, that they believe they therein partake of their god. Now what does all this show, but that there were two great wants, the want of an intellectual light to correct the mind, the want of an interior vigour in the soul to correct its faculties?

Now if our Saviour came to repair those losses which had been inflicted on us by our first fall, we must suppose, that in his holy religion, and in his church, there were institutions expressly directed to meet these necessities; and the Catholic Church does this most beautifully. We believe that he hath planted in his church another tree of knowledge, the fruits whereof could be plucked without danger; that he, in other words, was not content with teaching three years upon the earth, but that he did make an institution on this principle of recognized authority, wherein he himself always teaches, wherein he himself always guides, and directs, and illuminates the darkness of the understanding. He planted, beside this, the tree of life, in an institution, in like manner, which could perpetuate the other great means of grace besides his teaching. The great work of redemption was to regenerate our fallen race; and, as we believe, therefore, that he perpetuated the knowledge that he communicated by a permanent institution, so we believe that there is, in his church, another permanent institution, to secure to us the other great grace, that is, that we may be made partakers of his passion and death, and be really united to him, and have in us that constant power, and flow, and energy of grace, that must proceed from him; and that he has thus placed all who should come hereafter, as much as might be, in the same circumstances as those who were hearing him, and who could touch and adore his blessed body. Thus, therefore, the whole system is in perfect harmony with that which we should suppose wanting to man.

But, at the same time, observe how beautifully the two institutions harmonize together, and are absolutely necessary to one another. What is the object attained by the former institution? The most perfect union of mind, the most complete harmony of thought, of opinion, upon every subject regarding religion. And this institution also, therefore, produces the same effect with regard to the heart, with regard to the affections, which the other was intended to secure in the understanding; for why is it even called by that name, communion, but that it not only places us in communion with God, but that it is the means whereby the church is kept in the same feeling, in the same bond of charity towards one another, as exists in their minds and convictions? The consequence is, that if, on the one hand, we may say, that the doctrine of Christ, ever teaching in the church forms the intellect, the mind of our religion, we consider the other, that institution whereby his