asserts that Chrysostom, Eusebius, Remigius, Ambrose, Augustine, Bernard, Bede, Anselm, Bonaventure, Aquinas, &c., were of the opinion, that the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary was not in Scripture.

Suarez, another Roman Catholic divine, says: "The ancient fathers have said but few things concerning that special privilege of the blessed Virgin, as well because it came into the holy church by degrees, as also because they were taken up with explaining more weighty mysteries. Afterward, before the close of five hundred years, this truth began to be taught more clearly; so that faith in it advanced, and by degrees pervaded the minds of believers; so that now it is cordially received by the confession of all, and especially during two hundred years all ecclesiastical writers ascribe the opinion to this academy."*

Salmeron, in his comment on Romans, holds the following language: "In reference to the opinions of the fathers, which are adduced against the privilege of the immaculate conception of the blessed Virgin, (for some adduce two hundred fathers; others, as Bandell, almost three hundred; Cajetan, fifteen, and these, as he affirms, irrefragible,) I answer, that we oppose one multitude to another multitude of doctors, just as one nail may resist another. . . But the more recent doctors being more clear on this point, are to be preferred to the ancients."†

We accuse papal indulgences of novelty. This cannot be denied by them. Antoninus, archbishop of Florence, a distinguished Roman prelate, in his Body of Divinity, says: "We have nothing concerning indulgences expressly from Scripture; . . . nor even from the sayings of the ancient doctors, but of the moderns."‡

Fisher, bishop of Rochester, in his answer to Luther, says: "Who can wonder, that in the beginning of the rising church there was no need of indulgences."

Gregory, of Valence, in his book on indulgences, declares, “There were certain Catholics before Luther, whose sentiments Aquinas recites, who said that indulgences were pious frauds."||

Alphonsus de Castro writes thus: "Among those things on which verant B. Virginem in peccato originali conceptam fuisse.—Melch. Canus, in Locis Theol., lib. vii, c. 1.

Antiqui patres pauca de speciali illo B. Virginis privilegio locuti sunt, tum quia . S. ecclesiam paulatim instruit, tum etiam quia illi in aliis gravioribus mysteriis explicandis distinebantur. Postquam vero ante quingentos annos veritas hæc cæpit clarius doceri, ita incendit fidelium animas crevitque paulatum ejus fides, ut jam vere omnium, consensione recepta sit, et presertim ab hinc ducentis annis ecclesiastici Scriptores omnes universæ academiæ huic sententiæ subscripserunt.--Suarez, in part iii, Thom. qu. 27, art. 1.

Ad sententias patrum quæ proferuntur contra immaculatæ conceptionis B. Virginis privilegium (quidam enim proferunt ducentos patres, alii ut Bandellus, fere trecentos, Cajetanus quindecim, et illos quidem, ut ait, irrefragabiles) respondeo, multitudini doctorum nos opponimus aliam multitudinem, ut clavus clavo pellatur.... Juniores doctores utpote perspicaciores in hac questione præferendos esse antiquis.-Salmeron, in Com. Rom. v, disput. 51, in initio.

De indulgentiis nil expresse habemus ex Scriptura sacra, nec etiam ex dictis antiquorum, sed modernorum.--Anton. Archiep. Florent., Summa Theol., pars i, tit. 10, c. 3, in initio, p. 597.

Quis jam mirari potest, quod in principio nascentis ecclesiæ nullus fuit indulgentiarum usus.- -Epis. Roffen., art. 18, contra Lutherum.

Erant Catholici quidam ante Lutherum, quorum opinionem refert Thomas (p. 3, q. 25, art. 5,) qui indulgentias pias fraudes esse dixerunt.--Greg. de Valent, Lib. de Indulg., c. 5.

we treat in this work, there is none concerning which the Scriptures express themselves less openly, and of which ancient writers speak less, than indulgences."*

We might proceed, and go through all the principal heads of controversy between them and us, and show that the voice both of Scripture and early antiquity was not for them, and that too by the concession of their own writers.†

XIII. EFFICACY OF DOCTRINE, as a mark of the church.

Efficacy of doctrine may be taken in a twofold sense, viz.: either as persuading men, and in its being received by them; or in its converting men from error to truth, and from sin to righteousness. It is no test of a true church that many receive their doctrines, or adopt their system. The great mark of truth is to turn men from sin to holiness.

Romanists inform us, that the Gentile nations were converted to God through the ministry of the apostles. This is readily allowed; but then this is nothing in favour of the Church of Rome, which hath deviated from the doctrines, and lost that holiness by means of which conversions were effected in the days of the apostles.

In the second place, they mention the conversions of pagans made by Gregory, Boniface, Vincentius, &c., as proofs of the efficacy of their system. These conversions, which took place after the sixth century, are to be distinguished from those which were made previously to that period by the apostles and apostolic men. Besides, the greater number of Roman Catholic converts are not distinguished for their morals or knowledge.

XIV. MIRACLES as a mark of the true church.

Mr. Milner maintains that "the Catholic Church, being always the chaste spouse of Christ-continuing to bring forth children of heroic sanctity, God fails not in this, any more than in past ages, to illustrate her and them by unquestionable miracles." The same is maintained by the greater number of their divines, and generally received by their people, and many narratives, but few proofs are given of the modern and present existence of miracles among them. They think this is necessary for the confirmation of the faith, and that it is a sufficient mark to distinguish the true church. Hence they extol the miracles of their church, beginning at the apostles' time and continued to the present.

1. The working of wonders does not always prove that to be the true church where they are wrought. The magicians wrought many strange things in Egypt. Antichrist shall come working signs and wonders yet this does not prove a true church. They are called lying wonders, not only because they are false in themselves, but be cause they are wrought to confirm lies and discredit the truth. Wicked men may work wonders in the name of Christ, and yet be none of Christ's disciples. Matt. vii, 22. The miracles then of Christ and antichrist, of the true and false prophets, differ not only in this, that the one class was true and the others false; but especially in respect of

* Inter omnes res, de quibus in hoc opere disputamus, nulla est quam minus aperte sacræ literæ prodierint, et de qua minus vetusti Scriptores dixerint.-Alphonsus de Castro, lib. viii, contr. Hares, p. 255.

† See very pertinent quotations on the point in hand by Gerhard, de Eccles. sec. 206, pp. 377-380.

End of Contra., let. xxiii.

the power and end: for the saints of God work by his power, the other by the power of Satan, whom God restrains, for the magicians were not able to do to the full extent of Moses. Therefore Nicodemus saith to Christ, (John iii, 1,) "No man can do these miracles," that is, such great works, "as thou dost, unless God were with him." Christ and his apostles, by their miracles, sought the glory of God and the good of men, in converting their souls and healing their bodies. Satan worketh to deceive men and confirm lies, as Origen showeth.* Such are the greater number of popish miracles, devised for the maintenance of idolatry and superstitious worship.

2. Miracles, unless they have the true doctrine associated with them, are of no profit. The following passages of Scripture will confirm this: "If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams," Deut. xiii, 1-3. From this passage it is clear, that we are not authorized to follow bad practices, or receive false doctrines, though they might be confirmed by real or apparent miracles.

Many, or most of the miracles of which Romanists boast, are performed to support false doctrine or bad practices, or to promote superstition, or on trivial occasions, and therefore cannot claim the authority which the miracles of Christ, his apostles, or the primitive Christians are entitled to.

3. Some of the miracles said to be performed by the Church of Rome are false, and lying, being forged by the frauds of the worst of men. The liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius is received as a true miracle by the Church of Rome, because it is gravely narrated and confessed to be such in the Breviary on the 19th of September. The story of the Breviary is, that Januarius and others were put to death in a cruel manner by Timotheus, the president of Campania. "Each of the neighbouring cities selected one of these saints as their patron, and took care to bury their bodies. The Neapolitans, by divine instruction, took away the body of Januarius, and at first brought it to Beneventum, then to the monastery of the Virgin, lastly it was brought to the city of Naples and placed in the great church, and was distinguished by many miracles. It is particularly to be remembered that it extinguished the globes of fire which broke forth from Vesuvius, which threatened ruin on the places not only near but far off. This also is notable, that his blood, which was preserved by being collected in a glass vial, when brought into the presence of the martyr's body, liquefies and bubbles in a wonderful manner, just as if recently shed, which is also seen to this day." Thus far the Breviary.

The following is an account of the liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius, as described by a traveller in 1825: "I was present at Naples in 1825, at the performance of the reputed miracle of St. Januarius's blood. It was exhibited for three days, and on the last, I think, the blood was reported liquefied, and the bells rang in honour of it. On entering the church, my friends and myself penetrated a mass of many * Lib. i, contr. Celsum.

+ Brev. Rom., Pars Autumnalis, Die xix. Septembr., p. 370.

hundred of the lower orders; and on arriving at the low balustrade, which separates the chapel of Januarius from the church, we were admitted. This chapel, which was richly ornamented, hung with silks, and lighted with many wax candles, was thronged with well dressed people. A shrine was brought in with a procession, and from it a silver bust of the natural size produced. This bust, said to contain the saint's head, was placed on the altar, dressed with robes and mitre ; and the service began. After a little time the precious blood was brought in. It is contained in a crystal vase of the form of a compressed globe about four inches in diameter, and the cavity within seemed to be about two. This vase is set in a broad rim, having two large handles, and looks very much like an old-fashioned circular coach lamp. The [so called] blood was presented to the head of the saint, and then to the people, the priest holding the vase by its handles, at arms' length, and gently turning it, while an assistant held a taper As the flame came immebetween the priest's body and the vase. diately behind the cavity, it showed whether the clot of matter on one side liquefied and moved round, or remained adhering to the side of the cavity. When I saw it, it did not move. During the exhibition, the service continued with incense and music. The priest slowly passed along the line of beholders, giving each individual time to ascertain if the liquefaction had taken place. They occupied themselves in cries and prayers; and when some time had elapsed, the lower orders along the balustrade, and those behind them in the church, became very vociferous, crying out aloud, (and at last even furiously,) on the saint, in tones of entreaty, anger, and despair. After the wailing had continued for some time, the service terminated, and the blood was borne away, the saint unrobed, and carried off in his shrine, and the candles extinguished; but it was long ere the sobs of the women died away, and one old countess, who was near me the whole time, had continued hysterically weeping and shrieking so long, that she was too much exhausted to go away without assistance."

In the Offices of Patron Saints, (Officia Sanctorum Patronorum,) which are recited in the diocess of Naples, it is stated, "St. Januarius, an illustrious bishop and martyr, extinguished the violence of fire, stopped the mouths of wild beasts; and being put to death by slaying with the sword, received the crown of his lawful conflict. Alleluia." The following prayer is used:

"PRAYER. O God, who, in the translation of thy martyr and pontiff, Januarius, hast enriched us with the precious pledge of thine aid, we beseech thee, through his intercession, to deliver thy people from all dangers; and that, out of thy treasures, thou wouldst graciously pour upon us the treasures of ineffable mercy, through," &c.

The sixth lesson in this office is subjoined on account of the profane parallel between the blood of Christ and the blood of a frail mortal. The devil saw that blood, and trembled with horror; for he remembered that other blood-the Lord's. In consequence of that blood this flows. For from the time that the Lord's side was opened, you beheld six hundred sides opened. For who would not, with the utmost alacrity of joy, gird himself to enter those lists, as being (thereby) about to share in the sufferings of the Lord, and become conformed to the death of Christ? For it is a sufficient retribution, and a more abun

dant compensation, and a reward exceeding the labours of the contest. even as it is enjoyed before we gain an entrance into the kingdom of heaven."*

Although the Church of Rome has officially received this as a true miracle, her children are nevertheless divided on this point. Dr. Weedall, president of Ascott College, near Birmingham, England, professes to have derived both "edification and consolation," on witnessing the liquefaction. Mr. Eustace, in his classical tour through Italy in 1802, thus positively speaks of the blood of St. Januarius: "His supposed blood is kept in a vial in the tescro, and is considered as the most valuable of its deposites; and indeed as the glory and the ornament of the cathedral and the city itself. Into the truth of the supposition little inquiry is made; and in this respect the Neapolitans seem to have adopted the maxim of the ancient Germans, 'Sanctius ac reverentius de Diis credere quam scire.'" In a note to his third edition, Mr. Eustace adds, "The author has been accused of a want of candour, in not having expressed in a more explicit manner his opinion of the miracle alluded to. Few readers, he conceives, can be at a loss to discover it; but if a more open declaration can give any satisfaction, he now declares that he does not believe the liquefying substance to be the blood of St. Januarius." Here are two distinguished Romanists who entertain opposite sentiments of this pseudo miracle, though pronounced to be true by the official recognition of the Church of Rome in her authorized Breviary.

When General Champion, on the invasion of Naples by the French republicans, entered Italy, with his enhosed enfans de la patrie, his curiosity, or rather his infidelity, prompted him, according to Michele's statement, to direct the priests forthwith to perform the ceremony before him and his companions. The priests humbly represented to the general the impossibility of complying with this command, without the presence of some of the saint's relatives. The general replied, "The miracle must be exhibited this instant, or else I will smash your vials and all your nonsense into a thousand pieces." To avoid the execution of the menace, the priests attempted to work the miracle, and failed. Nothing therefore remained to be done but to send for some of the relatives of Januarius, on whose arrival, as the story goes, the miracle succeeded.

It is a well known fact that professor Newman, at Berlin, in 1734, produced the same phenomenon by natural means.

In an official and authorized Roman Catholic publication, printed in 1831, we are told that no less than twenty-six pictures of the Virgin Mary opened and shut their eyes at Rome in the years 1796 and 1797. which was supposed to be an indication of her peculiar favour to the Roman people in opposition to the French. Among the subscribers to this work are the four archbishops and eleven bishops of Ireland.§

* See London Protestant Journal for 1831, pp. 412, 490, for the Latin of these extracts, the above account of the pseudo miracle by an eye witness, and a number of other interesting particulars. This false miracle is recognised by the Church of Rome as a true one, in her Breviary, as quoted above.

+ Vol. iv, p. 334, third edition of 1815.

Tac Germania, xxxiv.

See London Prot., vol. iii, page 419, where this miracle is given in detail from the Official Memoirs of Miraculous Events, page 103, first published in Italian, then in French, and translated into English by the Rev. B. Rayment.