scopo, principiis, argumentis, et conclusione: quæ omnia in Ratramni libro collimant ad Catholicam fidem, id est, ad doctrinam veræ ac realis præsentiæ et transubstantiationis.—It having been confidently asserted by the True Catholic Reformed, (who is so strangely mistaken both in jure and facto) that Ratramn "stuck a pin" on the pretended innovations in Catholic doctrine, we are curious to know what kind of pin in his own views he would consider this passage of the learned and justly celebrated Mabillon.

VII. The victory to which he lays claim from two other passages of Ratramn's book, is still more groundless. The first is that in which Ratramn asks: "What outwardly appeareth, but the substance of wine?" Quid aliud in superficie, quam substantia vini conspicitur? (section 10), and here our adversaries exclaim: "Can any thing be more explicit?" Nothing indeed can be more so, but most assuredly not in the sense which they impute to the passage, viz. that the intrinsic substance of the wine remains in the eucharist after the consecration; it is plain, on the contrary, that Ratramn purposely uses the words, "in superficie substantia vini conspicitur, outwardly the substance of the wine appeareth," to restrict his meaning to the assemblage of sensible and exterior qualities, without including the inward substance of the wine, which he positively excludes by the words that immediately follow, as he had excluded the substance of bread in the preceding section: "Taste it, there is the savor of wine; smell it, there is the odor of wine; behold it, there is the color of wine. But if thou dost consider it inwardly, then it is no longer the liquor of wine, but the liquor of the blood of Christ." Can any thing, (we may with more reason ask in our turn) be more explicit?

But the ingenuity of our Episcopalian critic goes still further in his manner of distorting the last words of sect. 57; "non specie caro, sed sacramento. Si quidem in specie panis est, in sacramento verum Christi corpus, sicut ipse clamat Dominus Jesus, Hoc est corpus meum." Taking it for granted that, "according to the Roman hypothesis, . . . by sacramento must be understood appear

ances, he manufactures from this ingenious discovery the oddest interpretation that could possibly enter the mind of any individual. But he does it at his own cost; for the Romanists never thought of translating the passage of Ratramn in the sense which he has so liberally attributed to them. They have merely proved, in a preceding article of this Magazine, that the translation of Ratramn adopted by the English and American editors, is faulty and absurd. This translation runs thus without the change of a syllable: "The flesh, which now in a mystery containeth the similitude of the former, is not flesh in its nature, but in a sacrament. For in its nature it is bread, but sacramentally it is the true body of Christ, as the Lord Jesus himself declareth, 'This is my body."" Which means, a flesh which is not flesh in its nature, that is to say, no flesh at all; a flesh which in its nature is bread, and yet is also the true body of Christ; such is the contradictory, and preposterous language ascribed, not only to Ratramn, but in some measure to our Lord himself, whose words are quoted in support of Ratramn's pretended meaning. Such is the translation which the True Catholic Reformed praises and recommends; whilst he should observe, what is indeed plain enough of itself, that the only grammatical, logical and reasonable sense of this passage, the only one that can vindicate Ratramn from the charge of nonsense, and our Lord himself from a false assertion, (the declaration of that to be his "true body," which "in its nature is not flesh, but bread);" is undoubtedly to translate the words in sacramento by the corresponding ones in the sacrament, and specie by visible form or appearance, which it really means; as in the following manner: “The flesh, which now in a mystery containeth the similitude of the former (namely, of the flesh of Christ crucified and buried), is not flesh in appearance, but in the sacrament (or under the veil of the sacrament). For in appearance, it is bread; but in the sacrament, it is the true body of Christ, as the Lord Jesus himself declareth, "this is my body." Let the reader judge whether all this is in the least favorable to the Epis

copalian view of Ratramn and of the eucharist, or rather is not decidedly in favor of the Catholic doctrine of the real presence and transubstantiation. Yet, however conclusive it may be in itself, Catholics consider it merely as an additional and unnecessary proof, when compared with the mass of evidence which they otherwise possess. In No. 8 of this Magazine, the truth of this remark is substantiated by a multitude of incontestible authorities.

How little entitled, therefore, is our Episcopalian opponent to assume that tone

of confidence and triumphant positiveness which appears chiefly in the end of his article, and to say that "he is not afraid to leave the subject in the hands of unprejudiced, well informed and discriminating men!" He is welcome to this assertion; and whether he advances the proposition without fear, we are unable to say ; but one thing we know, it is, that Ratramn's book never will be of any service to his cause, and will rather prove for him and his colleagues what the pointed reed is to the hand that leans upon it for support.

L

UCIUS was succeeded by St. Stephen I, a Roman, who was elected on the ninth of April, 255, and governed the Church two years, three months, and twenty-two days. The question of the validity of baptism given by heretics arose during his pontificate, wherein he showed himself to be possessed of great wisdom and strength of character. The tradition of most of the Churches prescribed that all heretics who were converted, should be admitted by the imposition of hands alone, without re-baptizing them, provided they had already received baptism with water and in the name of the three persons of the Trinity. Stephen decided that it must not be renewed. St. Cyprian and Firmilian assembled councils in Africa to oppose this decision, which was contrary to the practice of their Churches. The Pope refuted the opinion of Cyprian, used authority and menaces to make him abandon it, and refused to communicate with the bishops of Africa, then deputies to Rome, which, although a public mark of disapprobation, does not fully prove that Stephen had excommunicated the dissenters. "This great Pope, whose prudence equalled his sanctity, knew," says St. Vincent of Lerins, "that piety would not permit any

other doctrine to be received than that which has descended to us, and which we are obliged to transmit to others with the same fidelity with which we have received it; that we must not lead religion where we wish, but follow her wherever she leads us; that the property of Christian modesty is faithfully to preserve the holy maxims that our fathers have left us, and not to transmit our own ideas to posterity. What was the result of this dispute? The same as in every other similar affair. The ancient faith was retained, and the innovation was rejected. Indeed the council of Nice solemnly decided the question in favor of Stephen. The emperor Valerian, at first favorable to the Christians, having suddenly changed his conduct towards them, excited the eighth persecution, during which this. pontiff obtained the glory of martyrdom, on the 2d of August, 257.

St. Sixtus II, an Athenian, was elected on the 24th of the same month, and notwithstanding the persecution of Valerian occupied the holy see three years. He was beheaded in 260, three days before the martyrdom of his faithful deacon, St. Lawrence, who had begged the favor of following him. The Church of Auxerre is under particular

dreadful violence. The Donatists, through hatred of the see of Rome, accused Marcellinus of having succumbed and offered incense to idols. He soon acknowledged his fault, they added, and presented himself to the council of Sinuessa, to receive his condemnation, bathed in tears, covered with ashes, and clothed in sackcloth. The bishops were touched by these humiliations, and without condemning him they all cried out: "Peter has sinned, but he has washed away his fault in the water of his tears." This absurd tale has been victoriously refuted by St. Augustine. It is clearly proved that far from bowing down to idols, Marcellinus distinguished himself by the firmness of his courage. Animated with a holy zeal he offered himself a candidate for martyrdom, and confessing the name of Jesus Christ: he died on the 26th of April, 304. Thus the close of his pontificate opens the fourth age of the Church.

Such was the violence of the persecution that after the death of St. Marcellinus the holy see was vacant for three years and a half; to accept the sovereign pontificate was to immolate oneself; and none but saints could sustain its burden. St. Marcellus I received it on the 19th of May, 308, and retained it until the 16th of January, 310, the date of his death. This Pope re-es

tablished the discipline, which had been a little impaired by the raging of the persecutions and the prolonged vacancy of the holy see; he also divided Rome into twenty-five parishes. The tyrant Maxentius condemned him to attend his horses in a filthy stable, situated on the high-way. Some months after, his clerks succeeded in liberating him, and conducting him in safety to the house of a holy widow, named Lucina; but Maxentius having discovered his escape, caused him to be reconveyed to the stable, where the stench of the place, the destitution and other miseries of his condition, soon put an end to his life.

St. Eusebius, a Greek by birth, and son of a physician, who succeeded him on the 20th of May, also suffered from the cruelty of Maxentius. This pontiff caused the pious rigor of canonical penances to be observed, especially with regard to those who had fallen from the faith during the persecution. His zeal created many enemies; among others, Heraclius, a turbulent man, who excited several disturbances against him, over all which Eusebius triumphed by his patience. This Pope died in Sicily, whither Maxentius had exiled him, on the 26th of September, after a reign of four months and six days. His body was conveyed to Rome.

HE use of bells is very ancient in the Church, and may be traced to a period anterior to the eighth century. It is uncertain, however, by whom they were invented. Some writers contend that they were first used by St. Paulinus, bishop of Nola, in the fifth century; an opinion which is scarcely probable, as that prelate makes no mention of bells in the description of his church which he has transmitted to posterity. It is asserted by others that they were introduced by Pope Sabinian, the successor of

VOL. II.-No. 10.

Gregory the Great. Venerable Bede assures us that towards the close of the seventh century, large bells were cast in Campania, and from this circumstance acquired the name of Campana in Latin. Bells of a smaller description, or tinkling iustruments, (tintinnabula), were in use long before the Christian era, as is attested in the twentyeighth chapter of Exodus, and in the writings of Suetonius, Ovid, and Tibullus. The Romans used them in order to notify the people of the opening of the markets, and of

78

other occasions. These instruments very probably suggested the idea of bells of greater dimensions.

During the first three ages of Christianity, the faithful, compelled as they were to screen themselves from persecution, had no public signal for the performance of their religious worship. But when the Church obtained her freedom under Constantine, it is likely that some method was adopted of publicly convening the faithful to the offices of religion; and it is supposed that the first means resorted to for this purpose was the use of wooden mallets or rattles.* The wooden mallet is retained to the present day among the Greeks. In certain monasteries, the inmates were assembled by the sound of the trumpet; in others, by the chanting of alleluias. But the invention and introduction of the larger bell gradually suspended all these imperfect signals, and in the tenth century its use became general.

With the use of bells was introduced the erection of belfries for the purpose of giving to the former a more advantageous position; and hence those lofty and massive towers which surmounted the churches of the middle ages, and which were destined to contain bells of various dimensions.

The blessing or consecration of these instruments which were intended to convene the faithful for the worship of the Almighty, or to perform other offices connected with the public welfare, was a natural consequence of their sacred and benevolent destination, and its advantages may be easily understood by those who do not deny the efficacy of prayer, in averting many of the evils to which we are exposed, and in drawing upon us the blessings of heaven.

"When man fell from God by sin, his whole nature became corrupt and rebellious; and at the same time, partly as a consequence, and partly as a punishment, even inanimate nature became disorganised with him. In the original formation of creatures, they had been created good,absolutely and relatively good; they were

*The wooden rattle is still used in many places, during the three days of Holy Week, when the bell remains silent.

But

subservient to the wants of man, and destined to administer to his comforts. sin disturbed this benevolent arrangement. And the devil, availing himself of this disturbance, has converted God's creatures into instruments of temptation and aggression while man himself has played into the tempter's hands, and abused those same creatures for every lawless and vicious purpose.

"St. Paul, in the eighth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, announces this melancholy degradation of the inanimate world, and its unwilling subserviency to vanity, that is, to the malicious hostility of the devil, and the wicked propensities of man; and he represents them as in a state of indignant impatience at their being made instruments of offence against their common Creator. For we know that every creature groaneth and travaileth in pain even until now. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him that made it subject, in hope. For the creature also shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God.' (Romans viii, 20, &c.) Meanwhile, however, and awaiting this happy restoration of all things, the same apostle observes in another place that every creature of God is good' when 'sanctified by the word of God and prayer;' (Tim. iv;) and in this he approves a practice which the Church has ever since adopted, as her most ancient rituals and eucologies attest, of blessing, with religious invocation, all the ordinary materials of life. She blesses the houses in which we dwell, the ships in which we sail, the fire with which we are warmed, the bread which we eat, the water which we drink, the animals on which we feed, the clothes which we wear, the banners under which we fight, the arms we employ, the fields which we cultivate, and the crops which we raise upon them. By her holy prayers and exorcisms she changes, as it were, the moral character of these things. She deprives them of their liability to mischief and abuse which the devil's malice and men's passions are disposed to give them, and restores them to their proper rank of utility, and religious