Until, beyond returning, We wait that dreadful day, When that new song we sing ; To Christ our Saviour King. I. C. MIRACLES OF THE ROMISH CHURCH. tion must have failed; and in searching history for the counterpart to the prophecy, we must thus far have been at a loss. But on Ecclesiastical Rome the mark is found; and found in unmistakable union with all the rest. ; In the successive ages of that Church, there has been a rich abundance of them and they continue to the present day. Popery revels in miracles. But really I cannot but feel, that what I have just said as to Pagan prodigies and legends is not less true regarding Romish miracles. To bring them, taking them in the gross, into comparison-whether in their matter or in their manner-with the miracles of Christ and his apostles, would be to degrade the latter in a degree which neither my judgTHE Romish Church has all along ap- ment, my conscience, nor my heart will propriated to itself the power of miracles, allow me to be guilty of; or can even sugin evidence of its being THE CHURCH gest sufficient cause why I should oblige the only true Church, the Church out of myself to endure the distress and the which there is no salvation. It forms one shame of doing. Throughout the entire of the boasted glories of the church. But extent of the two sides, contrast is the it is not the only instance, in which men, proper word, not comparison. In how whether deceiving or deceived, have very many cases have fraud and collusion 'gloried in their shame.'-First of all, it been clearly detected and exposed! Take, is rather an extraordinary circumstance, as an example on a large scale, the case that, while, among churches called Chris- of the Dominicans, in their controversy tian, this may be said to be the only church with the Franciscans, when, from the suworth speaking of that boasts of this dis- perstition of the age, they found the poputinction, it should happen to be one of larity of their cause declining, and resolved those distinctions which characterize and on effecting its restoration to favour, and mark out 'THE APOSTASY' THE MAN OF to the coveted benefits of favour, by SIN' the SON OF PERDITION,' of the miracle. The means to which they had Apostle Paul, and the mystical BABY- recourse, not less extraordinary for their LON-the BEAST and the FALSE PROPHET, cruelty and profanity than for their falseof the Apostle John. Power, and signs, hood and their deliberate and protracted and wonders of a lie,'-'fictitious power, imposition, were at length, in consequence and signs, and wonders, are expressly spe- of their being over-acted, discovered by the cified by the former; and 'miracles,' by very man who had allowed himself to be which 'they that dwell on the earth' they their gulled and befooled dupe, and came that had received the mark of the Beast, and to be matter of judicial investigation and that worshipped his image'-w '-were 'deceived,' merited penal retribution. And in hun-as expressly by the latter. The two de- dreds of other instances, more public or scriptions quite correspond. Lying won- more private, has such detection and exders' and 'miracles that deceive,' cannot, posure taken place. Then there have as we have formerly endeavoured to show. been so many others, in which the parties be true miracles,―i.e., cannot be works re- themselves, under the influence of various quiring and evincing the interposition of motives, good, bad, and indifferent, have the power of God, or the intervention of voluntarily, or by constraint, made the any superhuman power at his bidding:- disclosure. So many more are to be inasmuch as no such miracle ever can de- placed to the account of the jesuitical ceive,—ever can be wrought in attestation principle, that there is no wrong, but of a falsehood;-unless we can imagine the virtue, in practising such impositions, God of truth-one of whose peculiar glories when the result in view is the glory and it is that he cannot lie,'-to append his the increase of the Church, or the strengthown exclusive signature and seal (which ening, in the heart of its members, of the we believe all real miracles to be) to an bond of attachment to it.-And so many untruth in sentiment, or an immorality in more still have an explanation quite sufpractice. Now, if the Church of Rome ficiently satisfactory, in their being sourhad not pretended to this power, there ces, in many cases most prolific, both by would have been no system, on which, to exacted fees and by free-will offerings, of any degree worth mentioning, this dis- revenue to the Church and its priesthood. tinctive mark was to be found :—and thus, The large proportion of them, too, have, in one important particular, the predic-in their nature, been such as can, without 6 " 1 . ioral *, from and ke gro- acle for a remark the miracles red, or rather to The tomb of the Abbè ng of last century. I and they are specially ed on by Mr Hume. , however, for entering I will be quite enough to cheat there were thousands als of diseased persons Lechu tomb for cure; and of there were but nine in e was protended to have Vil the thousands, ex- adm. proved failures. This qules shough to induce a sustlon a suspicion, that there pcrested power in operation, sex clean ulum Guros were to be acFree lean mitural cuises. -In connd Olde sopondly, even of the ware instantaneous. teen who frequented the tomb body, which, and even months The long each of the nine foreslo mund were in attendance, But gradual cures want 1 He diffolvs characteristics of Heat, Pudly's The patients aleb b Muar devotion, their 1, the plans, this solemnity, and, i tantopoly of the surroundDouche Bunk many of them were in Edink convulsions; which Largo, tie patata instances, produced their disorders, and many of whom were there agitated by strong convulsions, 3 very small proportion experienced a beneficial change in their constitutions, especially in the action of the nerves. And even of the cases alleged to have been cured, some were imperfect and temporary.'-Let the reader just look at the two following cases: they may serve as a sufficiently striking contrast to the miracles of the Gospel history. A young man laboured under an inflammation of one eye, and had lost the sight of the other The inflamed eye was relieved; but the blindness of the other remained. The inflammation had before been abated by medicine; and the young man, at the time of his attendance at the tomb, was using a lotion of laudanum. And, what is a still more important part of the case, the inflammation, after a time, returned.'-Is it not a burlesque to dignify this at all with the title of miracle? Another young man had lost his sight by the puncture of an awl, and the discharge of the aqueous humour through the wound. The sight, which had been gradually returning, was much improved during his visit to the tomb; that is, probably, in the same degree in which the discharged humour was replaced by secretions.'—I might surely, as to this case too, repeat the same question. 'And it is observable,' adds Dr Paley, from whom I quote,' that these two are the only cases which, from their nature, should seem unlikely to be affected by convulsions.' Read the accounts of the cures of the blind in the Gospel history, and compare them with these; how sublimely simple in their manner!and all instantaneous-perfect and permanent. The SECOND I select because it is an annually exhibited miracle at Naples, to the present day. It is what is called the liquefaction of the blood of St Januarius! With the history and character of the saint I have at present nothing to do. What is said to be his coagulated blood (a portion of it that is) is kept in a And on vial, in the form of a hard ball. a certain annual festival,-amid superstitious ceremonies and devotions fitted to awaken interest, and to impress the minds of the spectators with the extreme difficulty, on account of their demerit, of obtaining the intervention of the saint, and so of the power of God, to produce the effect, pretended to be wistfully longed for,—the officiating minister lifts the vail, and with his hand, brings it toward the skull of the saint;-when, to the amazement and de light of the faithful, the hard mass begins to soften and to flow, till all is dissolved! -The best way to set the worthlessness of this wonder before the reader in its true light, will be, just to quote a few sentences from Dr Cumming's recent lecture on Romish miracles : 'But I revert to the saint's blood and in doing so, I would ask the following questions is the substance in the glass blood at all? to ascertain which I would propose to Dr Newman, who desires us to go into evidence, to submit it to chemical analysis. This is a sure test. It is easy of application. If blood, is it the blood of a human being? Bishop Burnett says, that the blood of a duck was used at the Reformation for a similar purpose, and with similar pretensions, in England. In the third place, if human blood, is it the the blood of the said St Januarius, and of no one else? Prove it. Fourthly, does it liquefy by a miracle? or by the application of heat? or by a chemical process? or by other priestly manipulation? And, lastly, I observe, the exploit is so easily done, that strong proof seems to me to be required to lead one to accept it as miraculous. In order to show that this is so, I will attempt to perform this alleged miracle in your presence. I have had a glass bottle made as nearly like the original as possible. The mass of substance in the top bulb is perfectly solid; on applying the hand, you see, it very soon begins to melt. (Dr Cumming here displayed the fac-simile of the Neapolitan miracle.) Now, I will tell you what this miracle is. It is a little otto of roses coloured with dragon's blood. I found that otto of roses became solid at adout 40 deg. or 42 deg.; and therefore, after it has been reduced to that temperature, or lower, and thus becomes solid, on applying the heat of the hand to it for a minute it lipuefies. You thus see how easily this supposed miraculous feat can be imitated, and how necessary it is, therefore, that Dr Newman should not only show a red liquid passing from a solid into a liquid state in a glass, but that he should also prove that that liquid is blood, and that it does not melt by any hand touching it, or other natural process, but by a special interposition of miraculous power.' This surely is enongh. We may be pretty well assured, that all such testing of the miracle, as any Protestant may propose, will be carefully eschewed, and some convenient apology found or invented, for the refusal. It is a 'LYING WONDER.' The THIRD I mention is that miracle of miracles among the devotees of poperythe miracle of TRANSUBSTANTIATION. The discussion of such a topic at large is, of course, out of the question. I must, for the present, regard it simply in its character as a miracle:-and even under this aspects have already, though in a different connection, adverted to it.-On the endless contradictions and absurdities involved in the fact, supposing the transmutation really effected-with other points of a similar kind, I now say nothing. Regarding it simply in its miraculous character, I remark-1st, The miracle is no miracle:-for a miracle is a fact, of which the reality must be tested by the senses, and can be determined in no other way than by their testimony. But this is a miracle, which must not be tested by the senses; but is believed, and is required to be believed, not only independently of their testimony, but in direct opposition to it-their testimony being, without exception of any instance or of any sense, a direct and palpable contradiction to it.2dly, It is a miracle of which the evidence is self-contradictory, and therefore self-destructive:-for, while the faith of it professedly rests on divine testimony, in opposition to that of our own senses, it is, notwithstanding, on the testimony of sense, and of sense alone, that it does rest ;-and it is doubly self-destructive-inasmuch as, it not only rests on the testimony of sense, while professing the contrary, but it rests on the testimony of one sense alone, while it refuses the testimony of four at least of the senses, if not of all the five; thus believing on the ground of one fourth, or one fifth part of the very same description of evidence as that by which the opposite of what is believed is attested. For it is by one sense only-the sense of sight-that any man can know the words - this is my body'-(on which his faith professes to rest) to be in the Bible; whereas all the five, or at least four of them, attest the indentity of the bread and the wine before and after the words of consecration. And then, 3dly, It is a miracle which, by the nature of the ground on which the belief of it rests, destroys all other miraculous evidence, and so sweeps away one of the chief external proofs of our religion. The evidence of miracles can be judged of only by the senses. Now, if in one instance, our senses may so thoroughly deceive us, as to testify, not a mere slight variation from truth, but its very opposite, -pronouncing that to be, beyond contradiction, bread and wine, which is neither the one nor the other, but a body of flesh and blood, in union, too, with soul and divinity-if, we say, in this instance, our senses may so thoroughly deceive us, and our faith must be yielded in perfect contrariety to their united and peremptory testimony; then how and when are we to know that our faith ought to be in concurrence with that testimony? The un i settling of the evidence of our senses goes thus to the unsettling of this important branch of the evidence of the entire system of revealed truth! I might show, further, the variety of extraordinary sequences which would follow, and follow on the sure ground of Bible testimony, were the principle but fairly followed out of interpreting the verb , Is' literally; as by the advocates of the dogma of transubstantiation is done in the words, “This is my body. But I forbear. Besides that it would be diverging from my special subject, it would very soon lead me into the region of the ludicrous, presenting some of its most exquisite specimens,-which I would rather shun. For the same reason, I must forbear all details respecting the legendary transportation, by angels, through the air and over the sea, of the house of Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Loretto; of many a wondrous vision of the Virgin, and of Jesus himself, granted to the enthusiastic raptures especially of sentimental | female worshippers; of appearances of the devil, under various forms-as an old man, and as a young man, as a huge black dog, or as a no less huge black cat; of battles serious and comical with his Satanic Majesty, and the various ways, some of them equally ludicrous and loathsome, in which, coming off, of course, with the worst, he takes his departure; of delightful odours, as if from beds of roses and a very paradise of all sweet-scented flowers, from opening coffins and putrid graves;-of one saint blinded for three days by a light that streamed from an image of the infant Jesus; of the same image smiling sweetly on a female devotee -and, at her bidding, and, withal, gentle chiding, stretching out its little arms and legs, to get its clothes easily and duly put on; of sparks of light and fire issuing from the eyes and the mouths of devout saints, produced by the fire of love in their bosoms, and of ribs divinely broken, and breast-bones divinely protruded, to make room for the hearts of certain other saints, which so swelled out with intense devotion that the ordinary cavity of the thorax could no longer hold them; of the wonders performed by the virtue of holy relics, and the wonders moreover, neither few nor small, of such relics themselves; there being, not seldom, many more humeral, or femoral, or other bones of saints, than the good men could well be fancied to have had when they were alive, many more than four legs of the ass that carried our Saviour: and of the true cross pieces so numerous, that, were they gathered together, it has been roughly estimated, they would go far towards the construction of a first-rate ship of the line; of holy coats, and weeping Madonnas, and winking and bleeding pictures, and all the other contemptible trumpery of a religion of traditional and superstitious externalism. It is indeed for a lamentation,' that in the middle of the nineteenth century, in an age that vaunts of its rapidly advancing light, so many thousands and tens of thousands should be thus gulled and befooled, and cheated of their spiritual freedom and of their soul's salvation, by deceptions so pitiful, in support of the self-justifying errors of an Antichristian system. And of a vast number of the pretended miracles the true secret may be learned from our great Reformer, MARTIN LUTHER :— In the monastery of Isenach,' says he, 'stands an image which I have seen. (It was Mary with her Child.) When a wealthy person came thither to pray to it, the child turned away its face from the sinner to its mother, as if it refused to give ear to his praying, and was therefore to seek mediation and help from Mary the mother. But if the sinner gave liberally to that monastery, then the child turned to him again; and, if he promised to give more, then the child showed itself very friendly and loving, and stretched out his arms over him in the form of a cross. But this image was made hollow within, and prepared with locks, lines, and screws; and behind it stood a knave, to move them: and so were the people mocked and deceived, taking it to be a miracle wrought by Divine Providence.* Dr Kidston was born in the village of Stowe, county of Edinburgh, on the 9th of September, 1768. He was the fifth out of thirteen children,-all of whom are now in the eternal world. His father was the Rev. William Kidston, the Secession minister of Stowe, a man of God, who, in his generation, served the *The above extract is from a Work on 'Miracles,' which has recently appeared, by the Rev. Dr Wardlaw; and while we intend, in a future Number, to include it among our Notices, in attention of our readers.-Edinburgh: A. Fullarton & Co. the meantime we recommend the Work itself to the + Christian Old Age, as exemplified in the Life of the late Rev. William Kidston, D.D., Glasgow. By the Rev. John Macfarlane, LL.D. Glasgow: David Robertson. Lord Jesus Christ with faithfulness and success. He was indeed one of a class of Secession pastors, who lived in these days, of remarkable theological attainments, and wide-spread influential godliness. The savour of his life of faith is not even yet away from that interesting pastoral country, where for more than half a century he lived, and laboured, and died. After receiving the elements of a useful and clasical education, first under Mr Doeg, of the Grammar School of Stirling, where he lodged with his paternal aunt, and afterwards at the University of Edinburgh, he was admitted by the Presbytery of Newtown (the village where the late venerable Dr Waugh of London was ordained) to the Divinity Hall. The professor at that time was the well-known and revered John Brown of Haddington, the grandfather of our own Dr Brown of Edinburgh. He, however, enjoyed the benefits of Mr Brown's professorship only for two sessions, those of 1785 and 1786, the venerable author of the Commentary on the Bible having died in the summer of 1787. The late Dr Lawson of Selkirk was chosen in his room by the Synod. After attending two sessions at Selkirk, he was licensed by his Presbytery to preach the everlasting gospel, on the 15th of April, 1789, in the 21st year of his age. I have heard those who knew him in his youth say, that he was then an animated, somewhat rapid, and interesting speaker; and we have Dr Lawson's testimony that he was not only sound in the faith, but for his years, exceedingly well versed in the theology of the Bible. He was what is called a popular preacher. In a short time he received no less than three calls, from Hawick, Lanark, and Kennoway in Fife. By the decision of the Synod, he was sent to Kennoway. Previous, however, to his ordination there, he received a call from this congregation-no, not from this congregation-for the congregation that called him are all in eternity, except the much esteemed father of your session-but from the church at that time assembling here. The call came before the Synod. It was not sustained, because the deed of Synod, as to Kennoway, must be first carried into effect. He was therefore ordained by the Presbytery of Dunfermline in Kennoway, on the 18th of August, 1790. In the sum mer of 1791, the then congregation of Campbell Street brought another call for him. He left the decision in the hands of the Synod, and by the Synod he was appointed to Glasgow. His connection with Kennoway was little more than one year; but I have often heard him speak of it with affectionate interest. Writing upon the subject, he says: 'I was averse to sub mitting to ordination in Kennoway, and would have preferred either of the other congregations, Hawick or Lanark, and often spoke unadvisably on this subject, During the short time of my connection with Kennoway, I enjoyed much comfort; my pastoral labours were kindly received, and seemed to be not unprofitable. My separation from them occasioned feelings more painful by much than I had anticipated.' His induction into this charge by the Presbytery of Glasgow took place on the 18th of October, 1791—a day concerning which, not many weeks ago, he wrote: 'A day which I well remember, and will remember, with deep interest.' He was your first minister, and by all accounts was unusually successful for these times. Speedily this large edifice was completely filled; and while health and strength were continued to him the congregation flourished exceedingly. As a preacher, he was mainly characterised for very accurate theological views, expressed in simple and perspicuous language, logically arranged, and delivered with a degree of calm earnestness, which alike suited the dignity of the pulpit, and the solemnity of the theme. He kept to the doctrines of the cross, and to the precepts of the law; and was never known to condescend to any out-of-the-way topics for the sake of pandering to low tastes, or gaining a little self-importance. I have never known any man, whose nature was more completely free of all such imbecile longings after ephemeral applause, and who could take a more accurate measure of what was its real worth, or rather worthlessness. Strictly speaking, he was not eloquent-but this can be satisfactorily explained; for, as it has been well written by a much-respected friend, the structure of his mind was analytical rather than synthetical. His forte was analysis. Every object of thought that came before him, whether in conversation or exposition, he was disposed to break down into parts to view it on all sides, and in all lights, and to make it the subject of minute and accurate survey.' 6 But Dr Kidston was equally diligent in the discharge of his other pastoral duties. He was an unwearied attendant in the house of mourning, and at the sick and death-beds of his people. I have often heard that he excelled as a son of consolation. It is therefore an exceedingly pleasant thought, that, independent altogether of his pulpit ministrations, he was a master in those less public departments of his official duties, where the tear has to be wiped from the eyes of widowhood and orphanhood, where the broken heart is to be healed, and where the sighing of the mourner has to be changed into the |