their character, and all her former religious associations being thus severed and lost, having descended from her proud pre-eminence in the commonwealth of Christendom, and faith, hope, and charity having each and all of them waxed cold and dim under the revolution of feelings, and war of principles, which, as we have seen, have never ceased to infest her, as the most fearful consequence of her schism; let us for a moment consider whether she has gained anything to compensate for all this, even among the transitory concerns of this fleeting world.

We have already seen what in this respect she was before the fatal epoch we have endeavored to illustrate; let us view her for an instant in her present condition. In lieu of monasteries, we have workhouses; in place of voluntary charity, an unfeeling compulsory assessment for the poor; jails are multiplied or enlarged, whole masses of the population are unemployed and starving; while vice and crime are increased beyond all former precedent, and discontent and turbulence reign throughout. We have principles of equality, where we had heretofore principles of subordination; a spirit of worldly ambition, and insatiable. covetousness, where formerly was a chivalrous sacrifice of self, and a generous outlay of riches for the public good. Coarse, vul

gar, riotous mirth have been substituted for the light-hearted, innocent amusements of the people; among the higher ranks, society is overgrown, and the best feelings of the heart are supplanted by pride, envy, hatred, emulation, and contention; while a universal, luxurious extravagance has dissipated the means of benevolence, and handed over half the ancient estates of the kingdom to the Jew and the stockjobber.

Still she has had her reward, and what is it? "The harvest of the river is her revenue and she is become the mart of the nations; ... her merchants are princes, and her traders the nobles of the earth." But with the reward of Tyre, may she not also inherit her chastisements?" and the earth is infected by the inhabitants thereof: because they have transgressed the laws, THEY HAVE CHANGED THE ORDINANCE, they have broken the everlasting covenant.—THEREFORE shall a curse devour the earth, and the inhabitants thereof shall sin and therefore they that dwell therein shall be mad, and few men shall be left." Long indeed have these prophecies been fulfilled amongst us-long have "the inhabitants of the island" been delivered over to a spirit of religious madness, and the faithful adherents of the ancient and everlasting covenant are but a few, a mere remnant of the inheritance of Christ.

UCH is the title of an article that has

lately appeared in relation to Ratramn's book, and is found in the True Catholic, Reformed, Protestant and Free, August, 1843, No. iv. Although it does not openly avow, it bears evidently on its face the intention of answering, right or wrong, some remarks on the same subject, published in the July number of the United States Catholic Magazine. Never perhaps did a controversial tract better deserve the praise of perplexed reasoning and almost unintelligible medley, than this late publication of our

*See articles on this subject in the July and August numbers of this Magazine.

Episcopalian brethren; and we certainly have to congratulate the public for being favored with such a specimen of learning and precision. As all this, however, must be already known to every one who may have had the courage to read it from beginning to end, it is useless to insist any longer upon this point. But we deem it our duty, in order to render the article more interesting in itself, and easier of appreciation, to elucidate it by the following plain observations.

I. The author opens his remarks with a very polite compliment to Bishop Whittingham, whose preface he represents as a valuable production; which it is much easier

to assert, than to refute the charges brought against it in the Catholic Magazine. He then states, that the editors of a preceding article upon the book of Ratramn, in the June number of the so-called True Catholic, had no opportunity to compare the translation with the original, throughout;" inasmuch as "merely the English sheets, and but a portion of the Latin, had gone through the press, at the time the article was composed." In the very title, however, of this same article, the book of Ratramn, together with the preface of Bishop Whittingham, is announced as entirely printed, and the aggregate number of pages, English and Latin, is stated. Had not the editors, then, an opportunity to compare one with the other; and ought not this comparison to have been previously made by the bishop himself, not to hazard his statement by proposing as accurate a translation which contains so many serious inaccuracies?

II. Our actual opponent does not proceed far in his remarks upon Ratramn, without contradicting his predecessors. Speaking of the book of Paschasius Radbertus, he makes "its peculiarity consist in its broaching the dogma of transubstantiation ;"* while according to the June article of the same true Catholic+ "in that whole book of Paschasius, there is nothing that favors the transubstantiation of the bread, or its destruction or removal!" Again, the English translator, in his preface, however ridiculously bold in declaring that Bellarmine adduces no authority and not a shadow of proof for his assertions, still candidly acknowledges that, according to this cardinal, Paschasius was not an innovator, but "the defender of the Catholic doctrine;" while,‡ here the words of Bellarmine are quoted, to convince us that Paschasius was the "originator" of the notion of transubstantiation! Let the gentleman reconcile these things, if possible, and imitate "that great reconciler of contradictions, Cardinal Bellarmine himself;" and let him understand well, once for all, the

*True Catholic, No. IV, p. 180, first lines. + No. II, p. 63, note q, first lines. No. IV, p. 179, last lines.

true meaning of the expressions of that great controvertist, who does not say that Paschasius was the first who wrote at all, but "the first who wrote in a copious and systematic way on the truth of the Lord's body and blood in the eucharist:" just as St. Athanasius was the first who wrote at length on the subject of the Trinity; St. Cyril the first who enlarged upon the doctrine of the Incarnation, and the unity of person in Christ; St. Augustine, the first who treated in the same manner the question of original sin. But, as the more ancient Fathers had often and clearly spoken of the Holy Trinity, of the Incarnation, of original sin, without writing particular and extensive treatises on these mysteries; so also, had they often and clearly mentioned, in different parts of their works, the real presence of Christ in the eucharist, together with the change of the bread and wine into his body and blood.* The task subsequently undertaken by Paschasius Radbertus, was no other than to collect their different testimonies concerning the holy eucharist in one regular treatise; a task which he performed with such success, as to deserve alike the praise of his contemporaries and that of future ages. This is the meaning of what Bellarmine says concerning Paschasius Radbertus, which our adversaries sometimes pretend or affect not to understand.

III. Neither do they understand any better, in several respects, the Catholic doctrine on the subject of the eucharist. 1. It is very true, that Catholics admit "the body and blood of Christ to be really and substantially present in the eucharist," for the nourishment or "the strengthening and refreshment of our souls;" according to these words of Christ himself; this is my body, this is my blood, (Matt. xxvi, 26, 28); for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed, (John vi, 56). 2. We believe also a change to be made, by the consecration, of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood of Christ;" because, as our Lord, after he took bread

*See No. VIII of the Catholic Magazine, from p. 465 to 469.

and wine into his hands, declared that which he held, to be his body and blood, there must have been necessarily a change of substance effected, unless we would have him say what was not true and violate all the rules of language. 3. It is likewise a part of our doctrine, which we have received from St. Paul, (1 Cor. xi, 23, 29). "That the body of Christ is not only spiritually manducated by the faithful recipient, but also orally manducated by all communicants, worthy and unworthy;" for, says the apostle, he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord, (1 Cor. xi, 29). But, when we are told in the article now under consideration, that "the Roman, and the Catholic (meaning here the Episcopalian), equally maintain a real presence;" that "according to the Roman doctrine, . . . . there is in the eucharist whiteness and nothing white, sweetness and nothing sweet, &c." "and that mere appearances and properties feed the body, while the natural body and blood of Christ are digested in the stomach." All those are so many gross misstatements and inaccuracies, the ridicule of which must belong entirely to their authors and propagators.

As for Catholics, in maintaining the real presence, they do really maintain what the words mean; whereas the real presence admitted by their adversaries, is nothing more than a real absence of the real body and blood of Christ from the eucharist; and this is what our opponent ingeniously calls real presence.-Catholics are far from admitting the nonsense imputed to them, that there is in the eucharist "whiteness and nothing white, sweetness and nothing sweet;" they merely say that the color, savor, shape, &c. which remain after the consecration, are no longer attached to any substance. Neither do they assert, that "mere appearances and properties feed the body;" but, that Almighty God being himself the author of transubstantiation, produces accordingly by his omnipotence, without the substance of bread and wine, exactly the same effects which, in other cases, he produces through the natural

agency of these elements; and they know nothing more "contrary to common sense and all known philosophy," than to deny such a power in God, the Sovereign Creator of heaven and earth.* In fine, instead of the shocking assertion that "the natural body and blood of Christ are digested in the stomach," their doctrine, always consistent with itself, is merely this; that Christ ceases to be present under the species, as soon as they are so altered in the stomach, as to present no longer the form of bread and wine. We would here beg leave to give the author of the article a word of charitable advice, viz. to save himself in future the trouble of stating Catholic doctrines; because it is a task for the performance of which, to judge from the extent of his theological knowledge, he does not seem yet to be sufficiently qualified. Let him content himself with explaining his own tenets, if he can; these words we purposely add, because the manner in which he speaks of the eucharist, affords evidence enough that even the leading men among our dissenting brethren, although they may know what they believe not, surely do not know what they believe.

IV. Our True Catholic is truly a source of wonderment, for instance, when he quotes as a "learned Roman Catholic historian," the Jansenist Dupin, a writer frequently condemned and of no authority amongst us; when he charges the Romanist with having substituted, in Ratramn's book, invisible for visible, accidents for substance, without substantiating this vague charge even by a shadow of quotation from the book where this pretended alteration is said to be found; when he mistakes a copiousness and clearness of expression for tautology; when, without any citation, or any grounds, he calls forth the best writers" and "lexicographers," to vindicate his faulty translation of the word species by the word nature, in different passages

*This remark is equally applicable to all the other circumstances of the mystery of transubstan tiation; viz. the change of a substance without the external qualities being changed; the existence of outward appearances or accidents without a subject, &c. since faith and sound reason alike teach us that the Almighty can do infinitely more than our limited understanding can comprehend.

of the book of Ratramn. But, no where is he more amusing, than when, after having strained his utmost to prove this point from the book itself, he himself supplies us with the means of demolishing his whole argument. For, he confesses that the English translator of Ratramn sometimes gives the meaning appearance to the word species, as in sections 69, 72, &c.; why then, we will ask, does he not always give it, as in sections 16, 57, &c? How does it happen that appearance becomes nature, when the Latin word species is applied by Ratramn to what remains of the eucharistic elements after the consecration? Is it because "the context demands it?" Let then the True Catholic Reformed show what difference of context there is between sections 69 and 72 on the one side, and sections 16 and 57 on the other. Let him show how the context can possibly demand the rendering of the word species by nature, when Ratramn expressly teaches on the contrary, (sections 9 and 10), that, by the ministry of the priest, nothing remains of the bread and wine in the eucharist except their sensible qualities and outward appearances. Consequently, the Romanists are perfectly correct in imputing a serious fault to the English translator and all his abettors, for rendering the expression species, or visibilem speciem, by the word nature, "whenever Ratramn speaks of the eucharistic elements after the consecration."

V. Let us examine how the other charges of "unfaithfulness" against the translation sanctioned by Bishop Whittingham, are disposed of by our writer. They are expressed thus in the Catholic Magazine, No. vii, p. 416. "Another glaring alteration is (in section 15), the turning of non esse cernuntur into evidently are not, instead of are not seen to be, and the addition of the word substance to the words of Ratramn." Again: "the preceding paragraph, number xiv, presents another instance of egregious perversion of the sense, the less justifiable in our opinion, as it cannot be excused by any plea of ignorance in the translator;" viz. "the transfer of the syllable not from one verb to the other, whereby is removed or, at least, is considerably obscured

the idea of transubstantiation which Ratramn clearly expresses." The manner in which the first of these charges has been answered, might appear incredible, were it not a reality. Our opponent, unwilling to acknowledge the fault of the translation, and wishing it to pass unnoticed, prints the very words complained of, are not, corporeal substance, in capital letters, and then goes on, with the hope that the improved quality of the type shall be deemed a sufficient indemnification for the alteration of Ratram's meaning. As to the second, he omits it altogether, and does not venture a word in reply: very prudently indeed, because the fault is of such a nature as to admit of no excuse, and the meaning of Ratramn which the translator has endeavored to conceal, is so plain in favor of transubstantiation, as to exclude the possibility of a cavil.

VI. After this, our controversial opponent lays a great stress upon the comparison used by Ratramn, between the eucharist and the manna or the water gushing from the rock in the desert, and considers this as a strong proof of his views concerning the book of that author. He might have avoided this trouble and mistake, had he paid more attention, 1. To the rule of criticism commonly laid down for comparisons which are sometimes used by writers, that they should not be understood too literally nor too closely followed, because, as the axiom says, "every comparison is defective, omnis comparatio claudicat." 2. To the excellent remark of Mabillon, an author whose learning and authority "prejudice itself dares not deny." In his preface on the fourth Benedictine century, section 122, he says: "The meaning of an author, is not to be derived from a single argument, much less from a comparison, which is often defective; but from the subject of his discourse, from his principles, arguments and conclusion; all which, in the book of Ratramn, directly point to the Catholic faith, that is to say, to the doctrine of the true and real presence and of transubstantiation." Neque enim auctoris cujusquam sententia expendenda est ex uno aliquo argumento, multò minus ex comparatione, quæ sæpius iniqua est: sed ex ipsius disputationis