lin and in London at the same in stant. Yet, good Catholics believe the body of Christ to be in ten thousand places at the same moment,-in heaven and on earth,on the altar and in our hands. By the consecrated prayer,-oh! wonderful! it becomes finite and infi nite,-wholly in a place, and wholly out of it,-a body, yet no body, one body, yet a million,-the same, and not the same, at one indivisible instant of time!!! Gulp down this who may, it is too gross for our throats: our limited understandings cannot fathom impossibilities. Yet, to prove the certainty of this impossibility, Prince Hohenlohe works Catholic miracles in Ireland! The common sense of a Pagan could lead him to see that a body could not be in two places at once. Plautus makes Amphitruo sneer at Sosia, on this very point: Tun' id dicere audes? quod nemo unquam homo antehac vidit, nec potest fieri, tempore uno, homo idem duobus locis ut simul sit? The thing implies a contradiction; but Roman Catholics are sagacious people-their faith swallows what the sense and reason of other people reject. We should have less scruple in smiling at this delusion, and overlooking the weakness of mind that can give itself up to it, were it not for the next doctrine which it would necessarily establish, and which these miracles are also intended to confirm. That doctrine is the sacrifice of Christ in the MASS, who, it is maintained, is there offered up a VICTIM for the sins of the living and of the dead *; "true and propitiatory," because he is there offered for us to his Father, whom he thereby renders propitious to his people t. There is something in this doctrine truly revolting to our feelings. To think that Christ is sacrificed afresh, in the mass, every time it is performed, is to be inflicting on him a perpetual suffering, agony, and death. St. Paul repels the assertion with a force and eloquence which have only to be read, in order to make us spurn such a blasphemous doctrine from us. With the eye of inspira tion, foreseeing that the Man of Sin would come, and, among other impieties, add this one, he says, "That by ONE offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified: For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us."-" Nor yet that he should offer himself OFTEN, as the High Priest entereth into the holy place every year, with blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now ONCE, in the end of the world, (the end of the Mosaic dispensation) hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself," having "ONCE suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us unto God." These passages are decisive on this point, and destroy every idea of Christ's suffering as a sacrifice in the mass. But what, perhaps, will go farther with Catholics, in point of authority, is the declaration of St. Peter himself, which annihilates the very idea of the doctrine of the "Real Presence" and of "Transubstantiation," as well as of a "Sacrifice:" "And when He (Christ) had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven, as he went up, behold two men stood by them in white apparel ; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken from you into heaven, shall come in like manner, as ye have seen him go into heaven." And, being there, we are told his human nature is to remain, (not to descend in the sacrifice of the mass, and to be offered on a thousand altars, as a victim for the See the Rev. N. O'Connor's Letter to Dr Doyle, on Miss Lalor's cure. "I offered," says he," the holy sacrifice in the name of the church,-I besought the Lord to overlook my own unworthiness, and regard only Jesus Christ, the great High Priest and victim, who offers himself, in the mass, to his eternal Father for the living and the dead,-I implored the mother of God, of all the angels and saints, and particularly of St. John Nepomuscene," &c. &c. &c.—Is not this blasphemy? + See I. K. L. page 49. sins of the living and the dead,) "until," adds St. Peter, "the restitution of all things" when he shall come again in his own glory, and in his Father's glory, and in the glory of the Holy Angels. For the truth of this doctrine, St. Peter and St. Paul, and the other disciples, not only suffered, but wrought miracles; and yet the Pope, his VICAR, and his pretended adhe rents, work miracles to contradict it, and to make the world believe that the hand of the Omnipotent has attested the sanctity of the mass, and by these cures imputed to Prince Hohenlohe, is calling the wanderers from the "one fold" back to venerate" the ever-adorable sacrifice" of this " Imass," which contains in it doctrines so contrary to sense, reason, scripture, and the first principles of a sound and enlightened philosophy! Is it in the power of any human being, but an ignorant, bigotted, and superstitious Catholic, to believe such absurdities? Yet Dr Murray, the Roman Archbishop of Dublin, is called a learned man; and Dr Doyle, Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin, a talented and gifted one! But the mass contains in it another doctrine, as monstrous as any of the preceding, namely, "the Ado ration of the Host." This doctrine is just another necessary sequence of the Real Presence, Transubstantiation, and the sacrifice in the Mass. The "bit of bread" turned into God, if true, demands worship, and the profoundest veneration. But is there not blasphemy in the thought? The Creature becoming the CREATOR! and the communicant eating his MAKER!!! Do we startle at this? Hear what their great St. Augustine says "Christ took flesh from the womb of a virgin, and walked in this flesh, and left us this same flesh to eat for our salvation *. But to adore flesh, is this not worshipping a creature, and expressly forbidden by him, who has said, that "he will not give his glory to another, nor his praise to graven images?" which, nevertheless, the Catholics do in the worship of the Virgin Mary, and the invocation of Saints and Angels, and even in relation to this bread. These are some of the doctrines of the Church of Rome, and when we consider them as additions to Scripture, we ask any one if he can believe that the Church of Rome is the only Church of God on earth-that the MASS, with all its blasphemy, can be acceptable to God-and that, to sanction its gross profanity, Heaven would ever endow Prince Hohenlohe with miraculous powers, or make him the instrument of healing Mrs Stuart and Miss Lalor, so as to convince the Catholics of Ireland, that their church was a pure church, their mass holy,-and that Christ was a Divine person? If we cannot believe this-if no rational being can believe it, who has not been educated in all the errors and superstitions of the Church of Rome, then we have a complete demonstration, as clear and perfect as the moral character of God can make it, that these cures are not from Heaven, and, therefore, are no attestation to the doctrines which they are said to establish t, whatever other purpose they may serve. This is the conclusion to which the above induction leads, and for which it was undertaken: we challenge Dr Doyle to overturn it; and, if he cannot, then all these boasted miracles are at end. With these remarks, we are now prepared to consider the Letter to Francis Jeffrey, Esq., placed at the head of our paper. This Letter, while it shews address, exhibits nothing of that "Lucidus Ordo" which is sometimes found in Catholic writings. After some preliminary remarks, in which a little flattery is mingled, as to "the able and eloquent publication which Mr Jef * See Chrys. Hom. 24 Ep. 1. ad Cor. + These doctrines were, 1st, To prove the Church of Rome the only true Church of God; 2d, To prove the sacrifice and sanctity of the "adorable mass;" 3d, To prove the divinity of Christ in these days of infidelity. These are the three distinct objects of these miracles, as stated by Prince Hohenlohe, Dr Murray, and Dr Doyle; and which we pass over without farther notice, having received their refutation from the above demonstration. frey conducts," and his disinterestedness in advocating their cause, the author regrets that the Reviewer had not mixed "a little courtesy" with the controversy, instead of the unsparing and vituperative declamation with which his pages abound. He then proceeds to say, that "it cannot escape the most careless reader, how weak and insignificant the materials are, upon which the Reviewer's superstructure is raised *." În order, therefore, to demolish this superstructure, his plan is to establish these Catholic miracles; 1st, By noticing the different systems which modern writers have adopted on the subject of miracles; and, 2dly, By adducing evidence in support of the proposition he means to maintain, namely, "that miraculous powers have been frequently exercised in the Church since the Apostolic age, and will probably continue to be exercised during its earthly existence." Laying down this as his plan, he proceeds to ascertain the exact signification of the words miracle, and miraculous powers; and having done so, and given his own definition of them, he takes up about ten pages in examining the different systems of Hume, Dr Conyers Middleton, Dr Tillotson, and others, with respect to miracles. His object, in this, is to point out the dilemma into which these different systems have brought their respective authors,-one party denying miracles wholly,-another admitting them, but contending that they ceased with the Apostolic age, --and a third confessing the continuance of them in the Church, but limiting that continuation to the utility or supposed necessity of any further exercise of the said powers. But the author, all the while, forgets to remark, that these systems are the mere opinions of their respective authors, and bind not the Protestant world to them, as their creed on' this subject, any more than the various opinions respecting miracles, in the Catholic Church, bind himself. Having finished his examination of these three systems, he next adduces the evidence for the continuation of miracles in the Church, in every age. But, before doing this, he, with wonderful clearness of intellect, divides the evidence into presumptive, or probable, and positive. Professing great candour and liberality, he purposes to do this by the testimony of eminent Protestant divines. Whether his extracts from these authors are correctly and honestly given, we have it not in our power at present to ascertain, as their works are not at hand; but we strongly suspect the concluding sentence, on presumptive evidence, to be apocryphal; for, although miracles continued to this hour, these would not affect the truth of " the Protestant religion," any more than the truth of the Bible itself; seeing that the religion of Protestants is the religion of the Bible; while the religion of the Roman Catholics is that of Tradition and Paganism, mixed up and blended artfully with Revelation. The positive evidence he adduces for the continuation of miracles is drawn from Catholic-Church historians chiefly, and not entitled to any great degree of credibility. After quoting from Ignatius, Irenæus, Origen, and Gregory Nazianzen, &c., authors of the second century, he proceeds to those miracles alleged to have been wrought in the third, fourth, and sixth; and, passing over the intervening centuries, he comes to those of the twelfth and the sixteenth centuries. Having paraded his learn By the way, we may just observe here, that although no pamphleteer, Catholic or Protestant, is obliged to reason clearly and logically, he is at least bound to have a little elementary knowledge of the language in which he writes, and, præ cæteris, to eschew such gross and palpable nonsense as the following: "It is very possible that the Reviewer may entertain the same opinions of Hume and his deistical followers that I do, who can inspire only feelings of pity and regret at the abuse of reason which they exhibit; and if such are his feelings, it is surprising how he should not have been more alive than he has been to the consequences of designating, as "folly" and "superstition," the belief of miraculous powers, and their occasional exercise, a belief which existed and was exemplified before any of the records transmitted DOWN to us from rosTERITY were penned, &c. p. 5. Editor. ing and research without any advantage to his cause, he then reviews the Reviewer with as little effect. For, granting he had made out a case much stronger than he has done, for the existence and continuation of miracles and miraculous powers, posterior to the apostolic age, and down to the death of "Xavier" in the sixteenth century, still this leaves the Irish miracles where they were, and neither proves nor disproves their authenticity, further than rendering them probable. In his attempt to do so, and to rebut the observations of the Reviewer, he has completely failed; and, in our minds, given thereby the strongest possible evidence, a priori," that such cases cannot be established as supernatural. His critique on the article in the Edinburgh Review is truly contemptible. With this short analysis of the letter, we turn to look back, for a moment, to the manner in which he has conducted the positive evidence for the existence and continuation of miracles and miraculous powers. We boast not our deep reading in the works of the primitive fathers; and though church-history has long been with us a favourite study, we wish not to parade it with an affectation of unparalleled superiority. Notwithstanding our acquaintance with those historians and fathers whom the Letter-writer adduces, we fairly own, that, with the exception of the extraordinary events which took place at the attempt of Julian the Apostate to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem, which was an impious, and publicly-professed attempt to discredit the prophecy of our Lord, we have not found another which has the broad seal of authenticity stamped upon it; not even that one, passed over by the Letter-writer, which was so much cried up by the Christians in the year 174,-when the rain fell in torrents, and refreshed the Roman army, surrounded by the Marcomanni, and thus saved it when ready to perish,—has, in our minds, those marks of a true miracle accompanying it, so as to induce us to believe it as t all miraculous, though it came certainly very seasonably. VOL. XIV. The Christians ascribed that refreshing shower to their prayers, while the Romans attributed it to Jupiter and Mercury! The Chris tians, in those days, like the Irish Catholics at present, looked upon all extraordinary events as miraculous, and ascribed to their prayers all the uncommon and singular occurrences of an advantageous nature which happened in the Roman Empire. Hence they attributed this deliverance of Antoninus and his army to a miraculous interposition which they had, by their prayers, obtained from Heaven, under such trying circumstances of calamity and distress. 66 The rule which Mosheim lays down, when remarking on this alleged miracle, is one which, if observed and acted upon, in the case of Mrs Stuart and Miss Lalor, would have spared the discussion of this question now, and saved Drs Murray and Doyle the blush of conscious shame. "It is," says that eminent historian, an invariable maxim, universally adopted by the wise and judicious, that no events are to be esteemed miraculous which may be rationally attributed to natural causes, and accounted for by a recourse to the ordinary dispensations of Providence; and as the unexpected shower, which restored the expiring force of the Romans, may be easily explained, without rising beyond the usual and ordinary course of Nature, the conclusion is manifest; nor can it be doubtful in what light we are to consider that remarkable event *." Yet it followed the prayers of the Christians as effect does cause. Let this rule be applied to the Irish miracles, and the question is decided. Dr Cheyne, who attended, certifies, that, in his opinion, "there was not any thing miraculous in the change which took place in Mrs Stewart's health;" and "that her case can, to his entire satisfaction, be accounted for on natural principles." This is quite decisive; and the more so, when we know, that persons labouring under the same diseases which afflicted her, have, on any sudden fright, as when their house has been on fire, or a child or a hus band suddenly seized with severe trouble, or meeting with uncommon accidents, instantly recovered the use of their limbs, and tongue, and whole powers; and have either run out of the house, or risen with a bounce from their beds of long confinement, and assisted, without complaining of the slightest ailment, those around to dress the wounds or apply the remedies recommended. These are facts; and when the strong excitement, and expectation, and faith, which had been thrown into the minds of Mrs Stuart and Miss Lalor, by their nine days' devout preparation, are considered, they easily, and naturally, account for all that followed. Every part of their frame, over which the force of imagination could efficiently operate, was cured. Those parts over which imagination was unavailing-as the stopping of the issues instantly-were not cured; for, on the 4th day of August, four days after the alleged miracle, Mrs Stuart's left arm 66 was still open, and freely discharging, having made no progress in healing." Nay, her legs were still so weak, as to render her unable to walk in the Convent grounds, and her pulse was 120! Where, then, was the miracle? Is a miracle by Heaven ever done by halves? Her high and feverish pulsations, "the weakness of her limbs," and the issue in her left arm, proclaim, with a voice stronger than all the Priesthood in Ireland, that no miracle was performed on Mrs Stuart, no miraculous cure effected on this paralytic Nun. But we turn from her to consider the other instances of miracles adduced by this Letter-writer. As to those he relates about "the wild beasts" being "frequently restrained from touching the Martyrs destined to be devoured by them," and also those mentioned by Irenæus, they are all capable of explanation from natural causes. For a satisfactory and convincing solution of these phenomena, whose occurrence we admit, though we deny them to be at all miraculous, we refer the curious and inquisitive to the writers mentioned in the note below *. The same observation applies to the Letter-writer's next instance, viz. that of the Arian tyrant, Huneric, chopping off the right hands, and cutting out the tongues of a number of persons who confessed their belief in the doctrines of the Trinity. The Catholics, in the fifth century, when this was done, tell us that this miracle consisted in enabling the Trinitarians to speak distinctly, and to proclaim aloud the divine majesty of the Saviour of the world. This amazing fact is supported by the testimony of witnesses the most credible and respectable, yet no event has been more disputed, as to its being supernatural. Unfortunately, the witnesses admit that there were two of them that suffered who could not speak at all, or articulate a syllable. This fact led many to question the statement, as to their tongues being entirely rooted out, and to contend, that a part of that organ was left, sufficient for the use of speech; and cases have been adduced from the Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences at Paris, to confirm this opinion, and to show that this pretended miracle owed its whole credit to our ignorance of the powers of Nature, and how little of that muscle is necessary to speak, so as to be understoodt. All this may be true; and though the dispute as to whether it was or was not a supernatural event has been carried on keenly by men of great talents and unquestionable piety, yet, as we do not think it as easy to speak without, as with a tongue, we are ready to admit it wonderful, though this admission benefits not the Letter-writer's theory, with respect to the continuation of miracles in the Church; for it was done without the instrumentality of man, or any of the members of the Romish Church. Those who would see what has been said on this fact will have their Bishop Ebrington's Donnellan Lectures, p. 270: Milner's History of the Church of Christ, Vol. I. p. 218; and Caw's Lives of the Primitive Fathers, p. 122. + One of these cases was that of a girl born without a tongue, who talked easily and distinctly, and another that of a boy, who, at the age of eight or nine years, lost his tongue by a gangrene, and yet retained the faculty of speaking. See Middleton's Free Inquiry, pp. 183, 184 |