figure, its form, colour, taste, and all the qualities of its former substance (POTEрas.) Yet we conceive it to have become what it is made, the body of Jesus Christ, of which I told thee that we partake, and which consequently is essentially there present: we believe it to be there present, though invisible, and as such we adore it. This answer demolishes Eutychianism triumphantly. It shews that the bread is changed, not into the divinity, as Eranistes imagined; but from its corporeal substance into the substance of the body of Jesus Christ: in a word, both interlocutors admitted a real change in the Eucharist; Orthodoxus, that of bread into the body of Jesus Christ, since otherwise he could not have partaken of that body in the sacrament; Eranistes, that of bread into the divinity, because as an Eutychian he acknowledged that only in Jesus Christ, since his human nature had been absorbed by his divine nature after his ascension.

I allow, without difficulty, that Orthodoxus and Eranistes mutually kept their agreement. They had engaged to make use of obscure expressions, and such their expressions are at first

sight. But with some attention, those who are initiated in the mysteries, as they both were, can penetrate the hidden sense of their dialogues. Mr. Faber, who is not thus initiated, has read all, heard all, and understood all in a wrong sense; like those who obstinately remained among the catechumens, who neither knew the motives, nor the objects of the discipline of the secret, and who in consequence had never assisted at the liturgy, nor the mystagogic catecheses, nor at the sermons delivered before the faithful exclusively.

Besides, the metaphysics of former days had a language now no longer in use. For example, they attached to the words natura, substantia, εσία, φυσις, a different sense from what we give to substance and nature. St. Peter Chrosologus, speaking of a body becoming glorious, says: ut hoc sit mutâsse substantiam, non mutâsse personam; and St. Augustin alluding to the fall of man, says: per iniquitatem homo lapsus est a substantiâ in quâ factus est, We might further quote Aristotle on the word substance, as for the word nature; also Cicero, Virgil and Horace, who often use it for the qualities and properties

T

of beings. "Substance," says Tertullian, "is "one thing, the nature of substance is another. "Stone and iron are substances, their hardness "is the nature of their substance: aliud est sub

66

stantia, aliud natura substantiæ. Substantia "est lapis, ferrum; duritia lapidis et ferri natura "substantia." (Lib. de anima, c. 32.) Mr. Faber presents these words to his readers in their modern signification. But, if you please, let us appeal to the judgment of the celebrated Leibnitz. 66 Gelasius, the Roman pontiff, gives "us to understand that the bread is changed "into the body of Christ, whilst the nature of "the bread remains; he means its qualities or "accidents. For in those days they did not express themselves with perfect precision and

66

66

66

metaphysical accuracy. In the same sense "Theodoret says, that in this change, which he "calls μerabon, the mystic symbols are not deprived of their proper nature." (Syst. Theol. p. 227.) The Orthodoxus of Theodoret explains himself in the same terms: "The bread and "wine lose not their proper nature; they retain "their form, figure, and visible and palpable

66

qualities." The explanation of the word

nature once admitted, all difficulty vanishes in the passages from Gelasius and Theodorus quoted by the Rector. There only remains that kind of mysterious cloud thrown intentionally, and by mutual consent, between Orthodoxus and Eranistes. Far from being surprised at meeting with this slight obscurity; it would be surprising indeed if it were not met with, after they had given notice that they should thus obscure their discourse, in order to conceal the mysteries from the uninitiated. What appears to me here exceedingly unreasonable, and I may even say absurd, is to pretend in our days to discover clearly the doctrine of an author by those dialogues, in which he has forewarned us that he could only declare it under hidden

terms.

St. Chrysostom and St. Augustin.

XVII. These, as Casaubon acknowledges, have more than forty times declared their embarrassment in explaining the Eucharist in presence of the uninitiated. Every thing that they spoke to the faithful alone, they expressed themselves with energy in the Catholic sense. After what

I reported in my Discussion Amicale from these two great prelates, I should not have expected to find them among the authorities opposed to me by Mr. Faber. I cannot conceive that he could persuade himself that they were not both against him; since to give them an Anglican appearance, he has been obliged to mutilate quotations, suppress phrases before and after, and mangle the passages unmercifully. I am aware that I here bring against him a serious charge: but it is one most easy to establish. I have only to restore the mutilated passages to their integrity.

At page 76 Mr. Faber quotes a passage from the discourse of St. Chrysostom on the treason of Judas; and like myself, he read in the same discourse the following words, which he has carefully withheld from his readers; "When I "hear the body of Jesus Christ mentioned, I "understand what is said in one way, and the "infidel in another. .... Although these un"believers hear it spoken of, it does not seem as "if they heard it. But the faithful possess the intelligence given by the Holy Ghost, and

66

"know the virtue and the power of the things