66

THE TIMES NEWSPAPER ON "CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION." 345

first to confinement for FIFTY-SIX MONTHS IN THE HOUSE OF FORCED LABOURS (the hulks of Volterra). The second to the Ergastola (the house of correction) for FORTY-FIVE MONTHS, to be counted from the 26th and 27th of November, 1851, and condemns them in costs, which amount to 200 livres, and when their term of imprisonment has expired, subjects them besides to the vigilance of the police for three years.'

"The Madiai listened with the greatest calmness, and were carried back to the prison, where they had been separately confined for the preceding ten months."

An appeal was made against this sentence, but in vain.

The result was intimated to Francesco Madiai, who calmly prepared for his journey to Volterra, where he was to be put in irons in the Casa di Forza. Rosa Madiai had all along been in delicate health; and it was feared that if the appeal failed, fatal effects might ensue; but strength was given her for the day of trial. On the morning of the 11th of August, 1852, this faithful witness for her Lord was removed from the Bargello at Florence, and sent, under the custody of a turnkey and the police, to the Ergastola at Lucca, where, in solitary confinement and at hard labour, she is doomed to undergo the sentence passed upon her. It is not improbable that both she and her husband may die under the hardships and cruelty to which they are exposed.

We hope this may not be the case. Already the kind mediation of Christian friends has effected much in procuring a mitigation of some of the severities attendant upon the rigid execution of the sentence; and the impression is strong on the minds of many, that, through the intervention now going on, the sentence may be repealed, or the time or nature of the punishment lessened; and some are not without hope that permission may be given those now imprisoned to leave the country, and take up their residence in some Protestant State.*

THE "TIMES" NEWSPAPER ON "CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION." -ROMANISTS NOT TO BE CONCILIATED BY CONCESSIONS. THE political concessions which have, from time to time, been unwisely made by Protestants, to the ambition and encroachment of Rome, have been productive of no good whatever. Yielded as they were under the influence of fear and dread of civil war, they have only served to encourage Romanists in assuming a menacing position in our country, and paved the way for insult and aggression.

Those persons who advocated the mistaken policy of concession in the hope of conciliating Romanists, now see their error, and many of them have had the candour to admit it. They unhesitatingly affirm, that if the time were to come over again, they would adopt a very

*The heading of this Article forms the title of a very interesting Tract just issued by the Religious Tract Society.

two 'convents' of 'religious women,' and seventeen 'religious houses [of men].'

"And your Petitioners desire to state, that, in their opinion, the existence of monasteries and nunneries is utterly inconsistent with the constitutional principles of a free and Protestant country, and that facts prove them to be highly injurious in practice.

"Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray your [Right]* Honourable House that the provisions of the said Act may be enforced; and that also the existence of nunneries may be prohibited; or that, if permitted to exist, they may be open to the visitation and inspection of the local magistrates, or of special visitors, to be appointed for the purpose.

"And your Petitioners, &c."

On the subject of the Irish Church we would direct the attention of our readers to the speech of the late Duke of Wellington, as given in a preceding page; and we trust that an equal, and more great and more successful determination will be manifested by Protestants to uphold the cause of truth, than will be manifested by our opponents to destroy it. The following Petition may be had at the Association's Office :

"IRISH CHURCH.

"To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled.

"The Petition of the undersigned

"THAT by the Act of Union, passed in the year 1800, it was provided that the Churches of England and Ireland should be united into one Protestant Episcopal Church;' and that it would be a violation of the spirit and letter of that Act, opposed to sound principle, and even to political expediency, to destroy or to impair the influence of the Irish branch of such Protestant Episcopal Church.

"That your Petitioners believe the Irish branch of such Protestant Episcopal Church to be a Scriptural Church, teaching the religion which was professed by the Irish nation, before the errors and corruptions of Popery were introduced or prevailed in Ireland.

"That in addition to its scriptural character, your Petitioners further believe that the Protestant Episcopal Church of Ireland has been the source of many blessings to that country-and that it is of vast importance, if rightly regulated, for securing the interests of true religion, social happiness, the peace and prosperity of that country, and the union and independence of Great Britain and Ireland.

"Your Petitioners, therefore, humbly implore your [Right] Honourable House, not to sanction any proceedings which may tend to destroy or to impair the usefulness of the Irish Branch of the Protestant Episcopal Church; but, on the contrary, to provide such measures as may be necessary or calculated to secure and increase its efficiency. "And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c."

"So in Petitions to the House of Lords."

THE PRIEST AND THE DRUGGIST.-No. II.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

D. Another doctrine of your Church presents to my mind so many difficulties and contradictions that I am anxious to hear your definition of it; by what process of reasoning you have been led to believe in it, and how you will endeavour to convince me of its truthfulness-that is Transubstantiation.

P. As to the definition of Transubstantiation, you will find it clearly enough defined in every Catholic catechism. We believe that after the words of consecration, the bread and wine are converted into the body and blood of Christ, although the accidents, as they are called, of the former substances, still remain visible to the eye.

D. More than that; your Church teaches in the fifth Article of the Creed of Pope Pius IV. that, "In the Eucharist there is really and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ;" and that after the magic words, "hoc est corpus meum," are recited, there is produced a conversion "of the whole substance of bread into the body, and of the whole substance of wine into the blood" of Christ. Now by what process of reasoning, allow me to ask, have you come to the conclusion that this doctrine is true?

(To this question, repeatedly asked, no explicit answer could be extracted.)

D. I suppose you will follow in the track of all your modern divines, such as Hayes, Milner, Wiseman, &c., and rest your convictions, in part at least, on John vi. 51-57, and the words of institution, Luke xxii. 19.

P. I consider these passages conclusively establish Transubstantiation; but it is enough for me to know that the Catholic Church maintains it. This is a sufficient reply for a Catholic to make to every objection.

D. Are you aware that while Wiseman devotes 110 pages of his "Lectures on the Catholic Church" (and Hayes and Milner are equally zealous) to make these texts countenance Transubstantiation, he is opposed by the more ancient divines of your Church-doctors of greater scholastic attainments, more ability, and of higher ecclesiastical authority, who doubtless left no stone unturned to enlist these passages on their side, but who felt compelled candidly to give them up, the 6th of John as not appertaining to the Eucharist at all, and the words of institution as not proving Transubstantiation in the slightest degree.

P. Name the authorities you refer to, and then I shall know what their opinions are worth. I question whether they possess the weight in ecclesiastical matters you attach to them.

D. I was so surprised when I first heard of these discrepancies between your ancient and modern Bishops, Cardinals, &c., and so struck with the importance of the fact, that I took considerable pains to learn not only their names, but the references to their works. With respect to the 6th chapter of John, it was the opinion of Biel, In canone Missæ; of Cardinal Cusanus, Ep. vii., ad Bohemos; of

Cardinal Cajetan, In Aquin. par. 3, qu. 80, art. 8; and of Tapperus, Artic. Lovan. 15, that this chapter refers not to the Eucharist at all. With regard to the words of institution, Luke xxii. 19, Cardinal Cajetan, In 3 Thomæ, qu. 75, art. 1; Cardinal Cameracensis, In 4 Sentent. qu. 6, lit. f.; Durandus, In 4 Distinc. 11, 9, 4, art. 14; Occham, In 4, q. 6; Melchior, Canus-Loc. com. i. 3, c. 5; Vasquez, Tom 3, in 3 dis. 180, c. 5, agree that neither this place, nor indeed any other place of Scripture, prove transubstantiation; and Cardinal Perron says that, "he believes Transubstantiation, not by virtue of any necessary consequence or reason, alleged by their doctors, but by the words of Christ, as they are expounded by tradition," Traité, p. 793; and Bellarmine himself confesses, " This opinion is not improbable."De Euchar., lib. 3, c. 23.

P. Some of the writers you have mentioned, have very little, if any, authority in the Catholic Church; Cusanus, for instance, who is he? I never heard him spoken of as an authority.

D. I can prove to you that every author I have quoted is a recognized authority in your Church, and that the writings of every one of them have been cited as authorities in the controversies which have at various times agitated your Church. This Cardinal Cusanus, whose acquaintance you wish to make, was a Doctor of Canon Law. Pope Eugenius IV. made him a cardinal, and Pope Pius II. appointed him Papal Legate of Rome, and his works fill three folio volumes.

P. However that may be, you must admit that every writer you have named, both ancient and modern, believed in Transubstantiation, although they may have differed as to the proofs derivable from these texts of Scripture.

D. That I grant. They would each, no doubt, "It is say with you, enough for me to know that the Catholic Church maintains it." That is the ground of my belief. But you cannot expect to convince me by this line of argument. I find that your doctors, cardinals, and bishops, oppose each other as to the application of these passages to Transubstantiation, and that, I think, should reduce the excessive confidence of the moderns to more reasonable dimensions when attempting to bolster up the doctrine by these texts.

P. As to the applicability of particular texts to particular doctrines, I am in no way bound by the opinions of others. But while I and every Catholic have this liberty, we are bound to accept every doctrine of the Church. I am of opinion that the 6th chapter of John does refer to the Blessed Sacrament, and fully proves the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation.

D. I will read the 6th of John, 51st to the 57th verse, from the Rhemish Testament, or rather from the 48th verse, as Wiseman is "strongly led to suppose that the transition takes place in the 48th verse instead of the 51st verse, where it is commonly put."-P. 142, section 14. "I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. The Jews, therefore, strove among themselves, saying, How can this

man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him." Now for my objections. If these passages are taken in the strict literal sense you claim for them, it follows that when our Saviour says, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven," the pronoun I must refer to his humanity as having come down from heaven as well as his Divinity.

P. The disciples could not possibly have fallen into that mistake. They perfectly well knew that his humanity had not come down from heaven, they understood the language addressed to them aright.

D. You are diverging from the point, which is not whether "the disciples perfectly well knew that His humanity had not come down from heaven," but whether, supposing they had then been His auditors for the first time, they would not, interpreting his language literally, have understood him to mean " I," as I now appear to you, humanity as well as Divinity, came down from heaven.

(After much argument, his Reverence would not admit that "I" must necessarily include the humanity of Christ.)

P. Let me hear your next objection.

D. If the words in the 52d verse, "If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever," be interpreted literally, it follows that whosoever, in your Church, goes to communion, and eats the consecrated wafer, shall not die-he shall "live for ever."

P. I will reply seriatim, after you have enumerated all your objections.

D. If the words in the 54th verse," Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you,” be taken in a literal sense, it must follow that the laity in your Church, from whom the cup is unrighteously withheld, cannot be saved. Eating and drinking are there equally enjoined. Moreover, if these texts be taken literally, once partaking of the wafer secures all the blessings of "everlasting life"-there is no need of repetition.

My last argument against your construction of these passages will be in the form of a "proposition." Any two lines, each of which is equal to a third given one, must be equal to one another. Now, in the 64th verse it is written, "Whosoever eateth his flesh and drinketh his blood hath-everlasting life." It is also written in the 53d verse, "Except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man, ye have no life in you." In the 47th verse it is written, "He that believeth in me hath-life everlasting;" ergo, believing in Christ produces the same effect, that is to say, is the same as to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

P. (Smirking.) I must tell you candidly, Mr. arguments appear to me weak and inconclusive.

.

that these

D. I must tell you candidly" that "these arguments" have not