that limb; and tell him that by some extraordinary means he is to be suddenly cured; and in all probability, if you gain his implicit credence, something very much like a sudden and miraculous cure will follow. The mind acting in conjunction with the will, powerfully influences the whole machine. The nervous system still remains an unsolved problem, but its intimate connection with the hopes and fears, the alarms and determinations of the mind, is so far discernible as to render the things we are now considering no longer matter of wonder. And observe, that throughout the whole, whether in the affair of the Irvingite miracles, or those warranted by Dr. Milner, or those performed by the metallic tractors,' it is always a lame person, one suffering from a contracted limb, or from some disordered functions, that is thus suddenly cured. A clear and indisputable miracle-one which no power but a divine and supernatural power could work, has never been produced by any of these pretenders. Let us see a man "born blind," endowed with sight, or one who "never had walked," gifted with the power to move like other men; or one who " had been dead four days," raised from the tomb, and then we shall be dumb with awe, or only vocal in admiration. But stiffened arms restored by a piece of holy moss, or a crick in the back cured by a dead man's hand, and all the other stories of a similar kind, only awaken feelings of pity for the understandings of the deluded, or of disgust at those who thus practise on their weakness. We therefore cannot admit Dr. Milner's miracles to the rank which he claims for them, but must deny that in this assumed attestation of sanctity,' the Dr. has established the least particle of his case.

Thus, then, have we concluded this branch of the subject, the claim of the church of Rome to the title of HOLY. We have been obliged to deny each one of the four particulars into which this claim is divided. We believe that her doctrines are not holybut, in those points especially in which they differ from the scriptures and the Protestant faith, exceedingly unholy: we consider that the means of attaining holiness, through Latin prayers perpetually repeated, bodily inflictions, and indulgences purchased by money, are far inferior to the Protestant means, of hearing the gospel and reading God's holy word. We must maintain also, that both the history of the past, and an impartial view of the present, equally shew that the fruits of holiness abound more among Protestants than among Catholics: and as to the alleged divine attestation of her holiness, conveyed by miracles, we deny that the least ground for such an assumption can be shewn to exist. In the article of holiness, then, as well as in that of unity, we feel that Dr. Milner has wholly failed to make out his

case.

K

VI.

THE MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH.

CATHOLICITY.

THE Course of the argument brings us necessarily back to a part of the subject with which we have already dealt; but this is hardly to be regretted, inasmuch as every point in this great controversy admits of being viewed in a variety of lights. The 'mark' of CATHOLICITY, as belonging exclusively to the church of Rome, is better stated by Dr. Wiseman than by Dr. Milner.

The former, Dr. Milner, says, 'The true church is Catholic, or Universal, in three several respects; as to persons-as to places-and as to time. It consists of the most numerous body of Christians; it is more or less diffused wherever Christianity prevails ; and it has visibly existed ever since the days of the apostles.' '

But this must be admitted to be reasoning of the weakest order. 'The most numerous body!' What! is truth to be discovered, then, by a mere appeal to

1 Milner's End of Controversy, 18mo. p. 284.

numbers? If so, why not embrace the theology of Confucius, who, in one single empire, has more followers than Popery can reckon all over the globe? And does Dr. M. seriously mean us to understand, that if Protestantism were to prevail in one or two more kingdoms than at present, and thereby throw the balance openly and decidedly (as it now is in truth and fact) against Popery, it would then have become in his eyes the Catholic faith? Yet if he does not mean this,-what does he mean, when he asserts that the church of Rome is the Catholic church, because she has the most numerous body' of followers?

But the very fact itself is more easily assumed than proved. How is it made out that Rome has the greatest number' of adherents? By putting down half a dozen of the chief kingdoms of Europe, as France, 30,000,000; Spain, 20,000,000; Italy, 18,000,000, and thus soon running up an account, on paper, of a hundred millions of Romanists. But what does the Romanism of France amount to? To nothing better than a tolerant, indifferent sort of Atheism. And what of Spain? Did not Blanco White confess, a dozen years since, that the bulk of the Spanish priests were merely concealed infidels ; and is not the fruit of their infidelity now showing itself, by the animosity of the popular party to the priests, the monks, and, in fact, to all religion? And yet it is only by calculating the populations of these great nations as wholly Catholic,' that the Romish controversialists are able to give some colour to their assumption, that the adherents to Rome are still the most numerous body of Christians.'

But Dr. Milner's proposition has another feature.

He proves the Catholicism' of his church's system by the fact, that her faith is more or less diffused wherever Christianity prevails?'

Now no one will deny, that as Rome has still six or eight European nations in her communion, and as several of these have colonies, and carry on commercial transactions with every country on the globe, it must very naturally follow that some sort of Romanism is to be heard of wherever any kind of civilization, or any profession of Christianity exists. But this no more makes the church of Rome the Catholic or Universal church, than the fact that English ships and English merchants are found in every port in the known world, makes England the head of a fifth universal empire. The circumstance is easily accounted for, and proves nothing. The English tongue, and the Protestant English church, is now known in all parts of the world; but who ever thinks of calling the church of England' the Catholic church' on that account?

But Dr. Wiseman seems to be aware of the weakness of his predecessor's arguments on this head, and he certainly supplies their place by reasonings of a far more artful and effective character. He thus defends the position :-‘Upon what grounds does the Catholic church arrogate to itself to be this one church? Why should not these prerogatives reside in the church of England? Has not it also a claim to this authority? Why not in the Greek church, or in various other oriental churches? Why not in the collection of all churches together? On a former occasion, I shewed you, likewise, (and I quoted even the authority of a learned divine of the church of England, to prove it acknowledged) that even up to