in their own worship, and hearing the Church-Slavonic, from which their vernacular Slavonic differs less than does the Russ, exclaimed publicly, according to Sir James Wylie, "This is our Emperor." At which the Emperor Alexander was much annoyed; and he and the Austrian ministers had some difficulty in preventing a still greater excitement. And it appears that any Russian Emperor might have them all with him— 20,000,000 of Slavonians-Sir James says, (besides those which he has already), if he were to proclaim himself Emperor of the Slavs. There are fine roads within the Austrian territory which end suddenly before they reach the frontier, and all communication is strictly interdicted. It is even felony to possess a Russian book (?). So Austria has another source of weakness besides the Magyars of Hungary.

CHAPTER XLV.

Second Discussion with the Archpriest.

CTOBER 10 [o.s.].-Went with Mr. Blackmore

OCTOBER

to see the Archpriest Kutnevich; the conversation was all about the Procession and Transubstantiation. I was content with those passages of the Fathers on the former doctrine, which Theophanes Procopovich (or rather Zoernikav) himself admits, without needing the words "Filioque," or "Procedere." For he admits passages in which the Holy Ghost is said to be from eternity, not only consubstantial with the Son, but proprius ejus naturaliter, in eoque inhærens, ut ipse in Patre, and to proceed d' avrov, per eum substantialiter, and to receive His substance from the Son; only he would distinguish between receiving eternally the substance of the Son, and receiving it from the Son by an act of His Person, which distinction may be admitted. (Here I unintentionally yield all to the Greeks.) The Archpriest would not admit that the Holy Ghost was

stated to have received His substance from the Son, nor would he admit any such distinction between the Substance and the Personality. (Here he unintentionally reasons on the side of the Latins.')

He denied the priority of the Son in relative order, on which I insisted; and though he seemed to understand the argument, he said it all fell to the ground because there is neither priority or posteriority in eternity, but the notion of time did not come into the question, any more than into the argument of the ancient Fathers for the Son's co-eternity with the Father, derived from the sun and his rays.

I had marked various passages of the Fathers, Athanasius, Gregory Nyssen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, &c.; but the Greeks have their own way of reading them, and the Archpriest insisted upon the

[Mr. Palmer, if I understood him rightly, was in hopes that by the distinction of Substance and Person the antagonism between the Catholic Church and the Greeks might be destroyed, the Catholics maintaining the Procession, not according to person but according to substance, and the Greeks allowing it according to substance, though not according to person. But Petavius says, "Facile concesserunt Græci Spiritum Sanctum ex [Patris et Filii] esse substantiâ, dummodo non ut Filius ex Patris Personâ, sic ex Patris et [Filii] personâ Spiritus esse dicatur. Verum . . ridiculum est Spiritum Sanctum ex Filio esse at ex Filii substantiâ confitentem negare ex Filii esse personâ, quia Filius nihil aliud est nisi Persona Filii." De Trin. vii. 15 fin.]

authority of Scripture and the Councils, as a bar to all such speculative inferences and additions made by man (which is true, when individuals are in question, but not when used to limit the action of the church). In vain I repeated that the Greek Fathers, without the Latin, were enough for me; he seemed to blame and refuse all, or be resolved to make them bend, Romano potius quam Græco more, to the sense of the modern Greeks, just as if what I brought from them were the irreverent and innovating speculation of my own thoughts.

As to Transubstantiation, he found fault with my denial of it as held by them, especially with my saying that the Bread became Christ's "spiritual body," and that it was His Body "spiritually." I referred to St. Ambrose as my authority. He replied, "If St. Ambrose said so, he was only one man, but Christ's own words are stronger than all the evidence in the world. How else can it be?" I said St. Ambrose shall answer that: his words are:-" -"As the creature that is fed is changed by baptism, so is his food changed." Presently the Archpriest allowed that the substance was not destroyed but changed, as common food is changed into our flesh. "Therefore," he said, "Rome has no need to suppose any such abolition," " and he said, (apropos of a point which I went on to argue,) "The [Vid. infr. p. 281, note.]

2

accidents or appearances are miraculously retained." I said I could show him my doctrine in many Fathers, Latin and Greek; he said, "I do not believe it, and if you can, I will say that they are wrong." I said, "We both professed to follow the unanimity of the Fathers. He answered, "Yes, their unanimity; but you might see in our Catechism what St. John Damascene says on this subject, and he wrote too at about the same time with that of Ratram or Bertram whose treatise you have lent me, but I have not had time to read it."

At parting the Archpriest thanked me for having made him acquainted with our "Pastor." I stopped my ears, at which they both laughed, and he corrected himself, and said "Presbyter."