tions of My superhuman power), but because you have eaten bread and have been filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you." This food is truly our supersubstantial bread, since it far surpasses the substance of bread, and the human body, and even all created matter. For the substance of bread being the nourishment of man, is exalted above itself when converted into the higher order of the human body, and thereby united with our spiritual life. But in the eucharistic food, the same substance becomes the body of Christ, which is personally conjoined not only with His created spiritual life, but also with the divine being of the Word; here, therefore, is our corporeal substance raised above all created being, even to a union with the creating Word, that it may be to man a supernatural support. In this bread, therefore, the God-Man is immediately united with, and enters into, all who approach His table, to implant within them the life of the new and heavenly Adam. (John vi.)

That it was with this view that He chose the form of bread, how can we possibly doubt? for from this material bread we may so easily ascend to that which is supersubstantial. In no place is this reason more clearly declared than in that prayer which the Church employs on the Festival of the Mystery of our Altars: Grant us, O Lord, that we may be replenished by the perpetual enjoyment of Thy Godhead, of which we receive a temporal pledge in Thy precious body and blood." This prayer, addressed to the Lord, and consequently to

Post-comm. in Miss. votiv. de S. Sacr.

Christ the God-Man, contains much instruction in the careful choice of its expressions.

For as, in ordinary discourse, the contemplation of a work of art, the hearing of the melody of music, or of a poetic or oratorical discourse, is called a spiritual enjoyment, so, in truth, is every sight and every knowledge a spiritual nourishment, which therefore heals and satiates the desire and hunger of a soul, as by corporeal food our natural life is refreshed. The eternal and perfect accomplishment of all spiritual desires, which is the contemplation of the Word in eternity, and is the end of our existence, can therefore be by nothing more strikingly symbolised, that is, figuratively represented, than by corporeal food and drink; as, on the other hand, these (food and drink) are generally signified by those two productions of nature and human industry, bread and wine, which represent all other kinds of nourishment.

This symbolical and figurative language, so consonant to the nature of man, in which the spiritual is represented by the corporeal, and consequently spiritual by corporeal food, leads us to the knowledge why, in the heathenish worship of so many nations, there have been offerings consisting of food and of drink; but we may not always conclude that in these usages there existed a foreshadowing or an imitation of our Christian mysteries. But that we must not stop at these symbols, and consider the eucharistic food as a mere figure of a future, spiritual, and divine fruition, is sufficiently evident; since in this banquet we possess Christ's body and blood, the reception of which in time is a pledge of the enjoyment of the Godhead of Christ for eternity.

But the ground of this reasoning is far deeper. For as the God-Man, in character of our second Adam, is the essential Founder and Preserver of the human race, which, without His mediation and sacrifice, was, with the first man, eternally ruined, so is He the Preserver of each one of the human race; and as through Him alone mankind enjoys an historical existence (whence He is called by the Apostle our Head), so is it likewise with each member of the human family. He is, therefore, both the source (the element) of life to the whole, and the nourishment (aliment) of each individual; and this not merely in a spiritual, but in a real and material manner, in the kingdom of our natural life.

Those to whom these views do not appear satisfactory can derive no pleasure from aught that would remind them of their interior destitution; for in their empty self-satisfaction they require no heavenly food, no supernal life and light. And doubtless there exist many who, after their own manner, esteem and acknowledge this mystery; but as the words of Christ and the doctrine of the ancient Church cannot accord with their views, they devise that rare hypothesis whereby they make it so clear and tangible, that, in their hands, it vanishes into a mere pantheistic emblem (since their God, who is one and all in every thing, exists in bread), they reduce it into a lifeless ceremonial, a religious memorial of Christ, and consequently a symbol of His presence, which must be considered as empty and yet real, lifeless and yet vivifying; as if we should consider the wooden eagle over the entrance of the imperial or royal palace, not only as representing the sovereign or imperial authority, but as that authority itself, and

thus uniting at once the type and that which is typified. In one word, in their vain and thankless exertions, they imitate that effeminate emperor so well known under the name of Heliogabalus.

This weak and ridiculous man once invited the chief members of the Roman senate to a banquet, for which there appeared the most sumptuous preparations; the seats and couches were covered with the richest tapestry, and the tables laden with gold and crystal vessels. The numerous guests were already seated, and the first course was with great pomp served up; but what was their surprise when the contents of the dishes were discovered to be either wood ingeniously carved and coloured, or earth and sand, and other indigestible substances, kneaded and artfully arranged! The guests, basely and unworthily deceived, departed more hungry than when they came. And thus do they act who spread the cloud of their cold and extravagant views over the banquet of Christ, the feast of eternal love. They convert the table of the Lord into that of Heliogabalus, and debase existence and truth into an empty symbol.

But Rationalism, whether shallow or profound, is ineffectual when opposed to the evident declaration of the Divine Word. Christ did not say, 'My body is as, or like to, food; take, and eat, in remembrance of My life, My sufferings, and My presence on earth:' nor did He say, This bread shall be to you a substitute for My corporeal presence; as often as you do this, Christ, the eternal idea of Christianity, abides with you.' No; but He declared, "My body is truly food; take, and eat; this is My body: unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you shall not have life in you." And who

has ever doubted as to the literal acceptation of these words? "The bread which we break," asks St. Paul, "is it not the participation of the body of the Lord?" In this inquiry does he not evidently appeal to a truth well known to the first Christians?

No; Christ has not thus coldly loved us, as some men would, in their subtlety, dream. Let him who would prescribe a measure to Divine love, first find a measure for the All-Infinite; for God is love. So ardent is His desire for our salvation, that He has invented this admirable manner of planting in each an immortal life, and of bestowing a pledge of future freedom and greatness; which, although a pledge, is no less excellent than this greatness itself. And justly so. For need we observe, that every pledge, if not more precious, must, at least, be of equal worth with the object for which it serves as a security?

But where shall we find that faith so living, that knowledge so elevated, as to esteem as it deserves this infinite treasure? An illustrious example is recorded in the annals of antiquity, in the person of St. Louis. In his unfortunate crusade to the Holy Land, being captured by the Sultan of Syria, negotiations were entered upon with the latter to obtain for the king leave to return to his country. The sultan, in conformity with general usage, demanded some security for the fulfilment of the conditions which had been stipu lated. And what pledge did he require? Was it the deposit of some large amount of gold? Was it the surrender of the principal knights and lords of the French army? No; but, as we are informed by Gre gory Mastrilli, that which is revered but little by many