Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

other Saints, it was no wonder indeed that the Christians of the early ages, in the fervour of their piety, should become desirous of possessing the precious remains of holy men. The reviewer will require better authority than that of Mosheim to make good his assertion; but the fact is, that it was only in the sixteenth century, when calumny and misrepresentation became the order of the day, that the falsehood was invented of the Priesthood nourishing and fomenting this rage for relics, for "the prospect of gain, and the ambitious desire of being reverenced by the multitude." Though apparently no adınirer of relics, the reviewer, if he be an antiquary, would, I presume, be as anxious as I would be to get hold of a handkerchief which had been used by St. Paul. He perhaps would keep it as a curiosity, to exhibit it occasionally to the Monkbarns' brotherhood, as he would keep the original manuscript of Luther's conference with the Devil, or the license which he and his reforming companions granted to the Landgrave of Hesse; but I would hold it as a sacred relic, destined, perhaps, again to be the means of miraculous cures.

To meet the force of the testimony in favour of miracles, the reviewer says, that, by adopting my method," and believing every thing for gospel that he finds stated by Historians and Fathers," he "could make out a much stronger case for the existence of witchcraft;" and that he would "be able to prove it from the history of the Jews and Christians," records of the Justiciary Tribunals, judicial confessions, &c. &c. Now, it was no part of my plea to believe" every thing for gospel" that has been stated by Historians and Fathers; but what I maintained was, that as the whole history of the Jewish nation was illustrated by a succession of miracles and miraculous powers,—that as Christianity was established by means of miracles, that as its Divine Founder had promised to invest his followers with miraculous powers, without any limitation as to time,—and that as the facts of a continuation of miraculous powers had been attested unanimously by the Fathers and Historians, who had either been witnesses themselves of the facts they relate, or had received them from undoubted authority, and that as these Fathers and Historians were men of undoubted probity, the continuation of miraculous powers in the Church was beyond doubt. That a general belief in the existence of witches and witchcraft existed both among Jews and Christians, must be known to every body, and that they did exist, what man is there who believes in the Bible that can deny the fact? I should wish to know from the reviewer, who professes to found his religion upon the Bible, what his opinion is concerning the noted instance of the witch of Endor bringing up the ghost of Samuel" before the affrighted Saul 1." Or of what we are told respecting Manasses having used enchantments, and dealing with familiar spirits 2. It cannot, however, be denied, that many deluded creatures have fancied themselves possessed of powers of a description exercised by the wizzards of old, and that Churchmen, Historians, Judges, and others, (Protestants as well as Catholics,) have been deceived in their opinions as to the actual existence of such powers. What is the reviewer's opinion of the astonishing cases mentioned in the New Testament, of evil spirits or demons having possessed the bodies of men? If he refer to Middleton, he will tell him that the possessed persons were affected by the epilepsy, or the falling-sickness; but lest the reviewer should be led away with this opinion, out of a blind admiration of Middleton, I would ask him to consider whether it was the epilepsy, or the falling-sickness, with which the two men were afflicted out of whom our Saviour cast the devils, who again were permitted, at their own solicitation, to enter into a herd of swine, and which, in consequence, rushed down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters 3? Whether it was the epilepsy, or the falling-sickness, which occasioned the dumbness of the man who spoke after the devil, with which he had been possessed, had been cast out 4? Would the reviewer infer, that because demoniacs are not now known, that they never existed, after the clear scriptural testimonies alluded to? But the reviewer, also, by adopting 3 St. Matt. viii. 1 Ibid. ix.

1 1 Sam. xxviii. 2 2 Kings, xxi.

the same method of "believing every thing for gospel that we find stated by Historians and Fathers," (a plan which I have shewn I have not followed,) says, he "could bring as strong miracles from Pagan authors, wrought to disprove Christian miracles, as I have to prove miracles wrought by Saints." Indeed! But who believes the Pagan miracles, even the best attested? Are the miracles of Moses rendered the less credible, because they were rivalled by the lying wonders of Pharaoh's magicians? But divine revelation has put us sufficiently on our guard against such impositions, however credible they may be made to appear.

The reviewer, after all his labours, appears to entertain some misgivings as to the success of his attack on the old miracles, and accordingly he observes, that admitting I had made out a stronger case than he thinks I have done for the existence and continuation of miracles and miraculous powers, posterior to the Apostolic age, "this leaves the Irish miracles where they were, and neither proves nor disproves their authenticity further than rendering them probable." But who could be so weak as to suppose that, by instructing the miracles of Xavier, Bernard, Augustine, and others, I meant to attempt to prove by them those of Prince Hohenlohe, farther than to render them independent of their own facts and circumstances, extremely probable? The object of my letter was rather to instruct a continuation of miraculous powers in the Christian Church after the Apostolic age, in opposition to the sweeping declaration of the writer in the Edinburgh Review, than to establish (if any thing I would have said could have added to the irresistible and overwhelming force of the testimony) the recent miracles which have taken place, not merely in England and Ireland, but also in Germany and other European kingdoms, and in the United States of Ame

rica.

The consequences which we draw from these miracles are ingeniously metamorphosed by the reviewer into objects, and these objects are said to be, "to settle doctrines," while "the object of the primitive miracles was not to explain doctrines, but to convert Pagans," and Jews too, certainly. Were not the truths of the Christian religion taught and explained by Christ and his Apostles, and were not the primitive miracles wrought to establish these? And if any of these truths are called in question, and a great defection from Christianity take place, is it not reasonable to suppose, that the same powers would be granted in later times to vindicate the truths of Christianity as formerly? Do we not find, that although Moses proved his mission by miracles, and established the worship of the true God, that miracles were often wrought in defence thereof, and to bring back the Israelites from idolatry? The reviewer thinks it absurd to imagine that the cures in question are wrought," that the faith in the divinity of Christ, which in these days is so much fallen away, might be revived amongst the many denominations of Christians"-adding, that "signs are for them that believe not, not for them that believe," a quotation which corroborates the position he argues against. If he meant to apply it to the Catholics of Ireland, I am sure they require not even the aid of miracles to convince them that their Church is a pure Church, the mass holy, and that Christ is a divine person, notwithstanding the unhallowed attempts which have been made to eradicate the ancient faith introduced into Green Erin by St. Patrick. Let those who deny the divinity of our Saviour deride the mass, blaspheme whatsoever things they know not," and disbelieve the promises of Christ to his Church, take warning and examine themselves whether they be in the faith, for it is undoubtedly certain, that that Church in which a continuation of those miraculous powers promised by Christ is exhibited, must be the true Church, and that the rites by which they are effected are of divine origin. This is the opinion of Dr Conyers Middleton, the ablest and most subtile, yet the most candid antagonist that ever assailed the miraculous powers of the Church: "If we admit the miracles, we must necessarily admit the rites or the sake of which they were wrought: they both rest on the same bot

1 Jude 10.

[ocr errors]

tom, and mutually establish each other. For it is a maxim which must be allowed by all Christians, that whenever any sacred rite or religious institution becomes the instrument of miracles, we ought to consider that rite as confirmed by divine approbation 1.”

The reviewer, near the conclusion of his labours, introduces a long detail taken from a note by Moshiem's translator about certain practices of some wicked Dominicans, who, for their impieties, were degraded from the priesthood and suffered death, after the whole affair had been inquired into by commissaries from Rome, and the fraud fully proved. For what purpose, then, does the reviewer introduce such an affair into the present discussion, if it be not for effect? Is the Church to be responsible for crimes which she herself condemns? Or is the guilt of a few persons to be extended to the whole body to which they belonged? Common sense says No; but prejudice, and passion, and ignorance, answer otherwise. The same observations would apply to the story told by the reviewer respecting the pretended false miracle at the Chapel of Loretto, near Musselburgh, if true; but I do not hesitate to state my conviction, that the account given is a COMPLETE FABRICATION from beginning to end, the invention of which, however, I do not attribute to our national reformers, as it must be the contrivance of some modern bungler. A laborious Protestant author, who has unravelled many of the pious frauds of our Reformers, says, "FORGERY, I blush for the honour of Protestantism while I write it, seems to have been peculiar to the Reformed." And he caudidly acknowledges, that he looked "in vain for one of those accursed outrages of imposition among the disciples of Popery 2." It could not, therefore, arise from any want of inclination on the part of our reformers to invent a story similar to the one in question; but to have published it-" aye, there's the rub"-would have been too flagrant an act to have escaped instant detection; and the best proof we can possibly have that the affair is an imposition, is the complete silence of Knox, Buchanan, and their reforming contemporaries, in regard to any such occurrence. What a glorious theme this would have been for their venal quills? Our head Reformer would assuredly have given us another "blast of the trumpet," which would have been heard from the Lands-end to John o'Groat's. But it is now full time that I should dispose of this Protestant wonder.

After giving the details relative to Jetzer and his associates, the reviewer observes, that, notwithstanding of the failure of their plans, detected and exposed as they were by commissaries from Rome, "new attempts were made; and the Reformation, in this country, a short time after, was, by a miracle also, endeavoured to be overthrown, but its instant detection brought them (who?) low." The affair is said to have happened in the year 1559, but no account of the transaction appears to have been published till 4th June 1772, that is to say, two-hundred and thirteen years thereafter, when a ridiculous letter, dated from Kyle, appeared in the Edinburgh Weekly Magazine, under the fictitious signature of " Palemon," giving a long and articulate account of what is said to have taken place at the Chapel of Loretto, and of the circumstances said to have preceded and followed that strange event; but without reference to any authority whatever; and upon the authority of this anonymous writer the Rev. Mr Scott, in his " History of the Lives of the Protestant Reformers in Scotland," says he "must beg leave to rely for some of the circumstances relating to the detection of a false miracle." He adds, "The anecdote of the false miracle, as therein mentioned, had, indeed, been before pretty generally known, especially to the families who are descended from Mr Row. But the ingenious writer, whose letter is dated from Kyle, thought proper to detail it, perhaps it may be said, rather too freely, but in a very animated and entertaining manner. I presume that he had found a relation of it, at least of its leading circumstances, in one or more of those numerous historical books and manuscripts which were collected by Mr Robert Wodrow, Minister of Eastwood, in the shire of Ren

66

1 Introductory Discourse, pp. 17 and 18. 2d. ed.

2 Whitaker's Vind. of Mary Queen of Scots, Vol. III. p. 2.

frew, who wrote and published, in two large volumes, 'A History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland.' Indeed I am well assured that Mr Wodrow received several accounts of the said miracle, some of them differing in some circumstances; and that he found it about the beginning of the last century" (about 140 or 150 years after the alleged event) "attested by an aged lady, who was a great-grand-daughter of Mr Row, and widow of a minister, and also attested by the tradition current among some old people of Edinburgh and its neighbourhood." Upon the authority of the nameless man of Kyle, Mr Scott relates the whole circumstances of the pretended plot, which are so ludicrous and absurd, as to carry a conviction of their falsity along with them. Yet the author of the Life of Knox repeats the calumny with a confidence which even his own belief of its truth (for I shall suppose he did believe it) could not warrant. A reference is indeed made by the learned Doctor to a copy, said to be transcribed in 1726, of a work which it seems passes under the name of Row's MS. History of the Kirk, which history, Mr Scott says, was begun by Mr David Ferguson, Minister of Dunfermline, continued by Mr John Row, Minister of Carnock, and interpolated and completed by Mr John Row, Principal of King's College, Old Aberdeen," the grandson of "the celebrated John Row," whose conversion to Protestantism is said to have been occasioned by the detection of the alleged false miracle. He also refers to Scott's history, already quoted, and to the "account" given by the nameless man of Kyle, which he thinks was "probably taken from the above MS." It is remarkable that Principal Row, instead of ascribing his grandfather's conversion to any such cause as is now alleged, should impute it to "the pure, godly, and pathetic preaching of the famous Knox." But enough has been said to convince every rational and impartial man of the utter falsehood of the alleged story, and if the reviewer shall still continue to give ear to such stuff, his credulity must be greater than that of any man in the land of St. Patrick.

[ocr errors]

It would scarcely be credited, were it not known, that among sober people a belief so harmless and reasonable in itself as that of miracles could have called forth such acrimonious feelings as those displayed in the numerous writings, the produce of malice or ignorance, which have of late issued from the press, on the state of unhappy Ireland. Ignorance, barbarity, and superstition, are their perpetual themes, and to remove these, every political empiric comes ready furnished with a recipe, compounded as bigotry, ignorance, or interest may direct. Now, of every kind of quackery, this appears to me to be the worst for professing liberal opinions. Writers of this description generally seek to perpetuate intolerance, under the pretence, that opinions purely religious, in which they cannot conscientiously agree, are inimical to that liberty which they themselves enjoy, but of which they are incapable of appreciating the just value. Accordingly, we incessantly hear a great deal of plausible nonsense about the glory of the British Constitution, as they fancy it, as if it consisted in those penal laws which disfigure it, or as if no part of it had existed antecedently to these blots upon humanity and religion, which stain the fair charter of British freedom. But who ever heard of liberty by restraint? Who ever heard of a free constitution of pains and penalties, of tithes and the glorious ascendancy? Yet this is the blessed constitution which has been "forced" upon the Irish nation, and because they spurn at it, they are declared incapable of freedom! "The essence of the constitution is, to make all who live under it free and happy; and the hoary bigot, or selfish monopolist, who would exclude us from it, on account of our religion, neither understands that religion nor the law of Nature, which has been written, not with ink, but with the finger of the living God, on the fleshly tablets of our hearts. Such a one does not, cannot understand the heart-burnings of a high-minded man, who is unjustly excluded from his rights; nor that first-fruit of the law of selfpreservation, which makes us love our country, reject whatever could diminish her glory or independence, and labour to make her free and happy. When I am told that I am unfit for freedom, on account of the religion which I profess,-when I have considered all that has been said in support

of so heinous a proposition, I feel amazed and confounded, and ask, Is it possible that any man could suppose, that, were I in possession of the rights and privileges of a British subject, that all the power on earth would induce me to forego them,-that I would be influenced by any consideration to reject the first and clearest principles of my religion,—to hate my country,—to subject her to the sway of a stranger, to destroy my own happiness and that of my kindred? No; I conclude it is impossible that any rational man could suppose that Catholics, under equal laws, would be less loyal, less faithful subjects, than any others." The followers of the religion of a Wallace, of a Bruce, of a More, and of a Fenelon, incapable of freedom, and “the dupes of a barbarous and slavish superstition!" Those who say so have every claim upon our pity, but their sentiments must receive the reprobation of our unqualified contempt. The eloquent writer from whom I have so often quoted, in his address to the Marquis Wellesley, thus speaks of our creed: " It was the creed, my Lord, of a Charlemagne, and of a St. Louis; of an Alfred, and an Edward; of the monarchs of the feudal times, as well as of the Emperors of Greece and Rome: it was believed at Venice and at Genoa ; in Lucca and the Helvetic nations, in the days of their freedom and greatness; all the Barons of the middle ages; all the free cities of later times professed the religion we now profess. You well know, my Lord, that the charter of British freedom, and the common-law of England, have their origin and source in Catholic times. Who framed the free constitutions of the Spanish Goths? Who preserved science and literature during the long night of the middle ages? Who imported literature from Constantinople, and opened for her an asylum at Rome, Florence, Padua, Paris, and Oxford? Who polished Europe by art, and refined her by legislation? Who discovered the new world, and opened a passage to another? Who were the masters of architecture, of painting, of music? Who invented the compass, and the art of printing? Who were the poets, the historians, the jurists, the men of deep research and profound literature? Who have exalted human nature, and made man appear again little less than the angels? Were not they almost exclusively the professors of our creed? Were they, who created and possessed Freedom under every shape and form, unfit for her enjoyment? Were men, deemed even now the lights of the world and the benefactors of the human race, the deluded victims of a slavish superstition? But what is there in our creed which renders us unfit for freedom? Is it the doctrine of passive obedience? No'; for the obedience we yield to authority is not blind, but reasonable; our religion does not create despotism; it supports every established constitution which is not opposed to the laws of Nature, unless it be altered by those who are entitled to change it. In Poland, it supported an elective monarch; in France, an hereditary Sovereign; in Spain, an absolute or constitutional King indifferently; in England, when the houses of York and Lancaster contended, it declared, that he who was King de facto was entitled to the obedience of the people. During the reign of the Tudors, there was a faithful adherence of the Catholics to their Prince, under trials the most severe and galling, because the constitution required it; the same was exhibited by them to the ungrateful race of Stuart; but since the expulsion of James, (foolishly called an abdication,) have they not adopted, with the nation at large, the doctrine of the Revolution, that the crown is held in trust for the benefit of the people; and that should the monarch violate his compact, the subject is freed from the bond of his allegiance?' Has there been any form of government ever devised by man, to which the religion of Catholics has not been accommodated? Is there any obligation, either to a Prince, or to a constitution, which it does not enforce 2?"

[ocr errors]

But we are said to be intolerant too. This charge we utterly deny, and it comes with a very bad grace indeed from British Protestants, who of all others should wish the very word to be obliterated from our language.

1 Vind. of the Civil and Religious Principles of the Irish Catholics, by J. K. L. pp. 28 and 29. 2 Vind. by J. K. L. pp. 24. 25.

« AnteriorContinuar »