say, if this same Acosta, in the very work which Dr. Douglas quotes, expressly asserts, that signs and miracles too numerous to be related, accompanied the preaching of the Gospel both in the East and the West Indies in his own time! (1) And when, with respect to this illustrious personage, he further adds: 'Blessed Father Francis,' as he calls him, being a man of an Apostolical life, so many and such great signs have been reported of him by numerous and credible witnesses, that hardly more in number or greater in magnitude are read of any one, except the Apostles? (2) Now all this I affirm Acosta does say, in the very work quoted by Bishop Douglas, a copy of which, I beg leave to inform your learned friend, (and through him, other learned men,) is to be found in the Bodleian library at Oxford, under the title which I insert below. (3) The author of The Criterion is hardly entitled to more mercy, for his cavils on what Ribadeneira says of the miracles of St. Ignatius, than for those on what Acosta says

(1) Et quidem dona Spiritus signa et miracula, quæ fidei prædicatione innotuerunt, his etiam temporibus, quando charitas usque adeo refrixit, ennumerare longum esset, tum in Orientali illa India, tum in hac Occidentali,'-De Procur. 1. i. c. 6. p. 141.

(2) Convertamus oculos in nostri sæculi hominem, B. Magistrum Franciscum, virum Apostolicæ vitæ, cujus tot et tam magna signa referuntur per plurimos, eosque idoneos testes, ut vix de alio, exceptis Apostolis, plura legantur. Quid Magister Gaspar aliique socii, &c.'-De Procur. Ind. Salut. 1. ii. c. 10. p. 226.

(3) The work of Joseph Acosta, De Procuranda Indorum Salute, is to be inquired for at the Bodleian library under the following quaint title: Johanna Papissa toti orbi manifesta, 80. c. 29, Art. Seld., because, for some reason or other, it is bound up with this fanatical treatise.

of the miracles of St. Xaverius. The fact is, the Council of Trent, having recently prohibited the publication of any new miracles, until they had been examined and approved of by the proper ecclesiastical authority, Ribadeneira, in the first edition of his life of St. Ignatius, observed due caution in speaking of this Saint's miracles. However, in that very edition, he declared that many such had been wrought by him; which having been afterwards juridically proved, in the process of the Saint's canonization, his biographer published them without scruple, as be candidly and satisfactorily informs his readers, in that third edition; which now stands in his folio work of The Saints' Lives. (1)

(1) Mihi tantum abest ut ad vitam Ignatii illustrandam miracula deesse videantur, ut multa eaque præstantissima judicem in media luce versari.' The writer proceeds to mention several cures, &c. edit. 1572-I cannot close this article without protesting against the disingenuity of several Protestant writers, in reproaching Catholics with the impositions practised by the Jansenist heretics at the tomb of Abbé Paris. In fact, who detected those impositions, and furnished Dr. Campbel, Dr. Douglas, &c. with arguments against them, except our Catholic Prelates and theologians? In like manner, Catholics have reason to complain of these and other Protestant writers, for the manner in which they discuss the stupendous miracle that took place at Saragossa in 1640, on one Michael Pellicer, whose leg, having been amputated, he, by his prayers, obtained a new, natural leg; just as if this miracle rested on no better foundation than the slight mention which Cardinal Retz makes of it in his Memoirs. In fact, we might have expected that learned Divines would have known that this miracle had been amply discussed, soon after it happened, between Dr. Stillingfleet and the Jesuit Edward Worsley; in which discussion, the latter produced such attestations of the fact as it seems impossible to discredit. -See Reason and Religion, p. 328.

I shall close this very long letter with a very few words respecting a work which has lately appeared, animadverting on my account of The Miraculous Cure of Winefrid White. (1) The writer sets out with the system of Dr. Middleton, by admitting none except Scripture-miracles; but very soon he undermines these miracles also, where he says: An independent and express divine testimony is that alone, which can assure us whether effects are miraculous or not, except in a few cases.' He thus reserves the proofs of Christianity, as its advocates and its Divine Founder himself have laid them down. He adds: No mortal ought to have the presumption to say, a thing is or is not contrary to the established laws of nature.' Again he says: To prove a miracle there must be a proof of the particular divine agency.' According to this system we may say: No one knows but the motion of the funeral procession, or some occult quality of nature, raised to life the widow of Naim's son! Mr. Roberts will have no difficulty in saying so, as he denies that the resurrection of the murdered man from the touch of the prophet Elisha's bones, 2 Kings, xiii., was a miracle! Possessed of this opinion, he can readily persuade himself, that a curvated spine and hemiplegia, or any other disease whatever, may be cured in an instant, by immersion in cold water, or by any other means. As it is not likely, however, that any one else will adopt his opinion, I will say no more of his physical arguments on this subject. He next proceeds to charge W. White and her friends with a studied imposition; in support of which charge, he

(1) By the Rev. Peter Roberts, Rector of Llanarmon, &c.

Q

asserts, that 'the Church of Rome had not announced a miracle for many years.' This only proves, that his ignorance of what is continually going on in the Church, is equal to his bigotry against it. The same ignorance and bigotry are manifested in the ridiculous story concerning Sixtus V., which he copies from the unprincipled Leti, as also in his account of the exploded and condemned book, the Taxa Cancellariæ, &c. (1) Towards the conclusion of his work, he expresses a doubt whether I have read Bishop Douglas's Criterion, though I have so frequently quoted it; because, he says, if I had read it, I must have known that Acosta proves that St. Xaverius wrought no miracles among the Indians, and that the same thing appears from the Saint's own letters. Now the only thing, dear Sir, which these assertions prove, is that Mr. Roberts himself, no more than Bishop Douglas, ever read either Acosta's work, or St. Xaverius's letters, notwithstanding they so frequently refer to them; for this is the only way of acquitting them of a far heavier charge.

I am, &c.

J. M.

(1) Euseb. Eccles. Hist. 1. vi. c. 15.

LETTER XXV.

To JAMES BROWN, Esq. &c.

ÔN THE TRUE CHURCH BEING CATHOLIC.

DEAR SIR,

In treating of this third mark of the True Church, as expressed in our common Creed, I feel my spirits sink within me, and I am almost tempted to throw away my pen, in despair. For what chance is there of opening the eyes of candid Protestants to the other marks of the Church, if they are capable of keeping them shut to this? Every time they address the God of Truth, either in solemn worship or in private devotion, they are forced, each of them to repeat: I believe in THE CATHOLIC Church; and yet if I ask any of them the question : Are

you a CATHOLIC? he is sure to answer me : No, I am a PROTESTANT!-Was there ever a more glaring instance of inconsistency and selfcondemnation among rational beings!

At the first promulgation of the Gospel, its followers were distinguished from the Jews by the name of Christians, as we learn from Scripture, Acts, xi. 26. Hence the title of Catholic did not occur in the primitive edition of the Apostles' Creed; (1) but no sooner did heresies and schisms arise, to disturb the peace of the Church, than there was found to be a necessity of discriminating the main stock of her faithful children, to whom the promises of Christ belonged, from those self-willed choosers

(1) See four collated copies of it in Dupin's Bib. Eccl. tom. i.