and tended to bring them to the knowledge and worship of the true God-how far it stopped the predatory warfare carried on at that very time, or in how many various ways it might have been eminently beneficial-it is impossible for any one to say. But it is certain that the fact belonged to the wonders of their history, and not to the system of their religion, just as in the case of the brazen serpent. And hence they suffered the body of the prophet to continue as before, without worshipping his relics, or appearing to look upon it in any other light than as a solitary miracle, such as had never taken place previously, and might never take place again. Had the Israelites in those days regarded it in the same light as the modern Church of Rome, they would have inscribed the prophet's name in the calendar to be worshipped, set a day apart in his honour, enshrined his relics in gold and silver, given them a place in their temple, pronounced an anathema against every one who refused to do them reverence, and looked to them as one of the regular parts of the divine institution, for the healing of diseases, raising the dead, and every other miraculous instrumentality. But nothing of the kind was done. There were no relics known to the Jewish system. And therefore, in our Saviour's time, the Pharisees showed their ostentatious piety, by adorning the sepulchres and tombs of the prophets; but rifling them of their contents, and converting the mouldering bones into objects of worship, was reserved for the wayward superstition of a far later day.

I come next, however, to the examples which our ingenious author presents to us from the New Testament; where the woman was healed of a hæmorrhage by touching the hem of the Saviour's garment; and handkerchiefs, taken from the body of St. Paul, cured the sick. And here, brethren, I marvel greatly to find Dr. Wiseman asserting, that in the first of these cases there was "no exercise of the Saviour's will." Where did he make that discovery? Even his own theory does

not regard the relics of the saints as instrumental in doing wonders by any inherent efficacy, but only on the ground that it pleased God to use them for such purpose. Surely, therefore, it is highly presumptuous in any one to say, that when the woman touched the Saviour's garment, her cure was without any exercise of his will. He who knew all things, even the secret thoughts of every heart, must have known the whole circumstances and have willed the result, else his own doctrine would be strangely falsified, that "even the sparrow doth not fall to the ground without our heavenly Father."

But in all these cases, the distinction applies. These miracles belonged to the wonders which attended the history of the Gospel dispensation in its establishment; and were no more intended to belong to its REGULAR SYSTEM than the brazen serpent, or the case of Elisha's bones, or any of the mighty works of God in ancient Israel, were intended to belong to the regular system of the Mosaic dispensation. The touching of our Saviour's garments, therefore, did wonders, when HE pleased to have the wonders done, and at no other season. We do not read of their being adopted as a part of the regular ordinances of God, neither do we find those garments working miracles after the soldiers had stripped them from his sacred body. And so, likewise, in the case of the handkerchiefs which were taken from the person of St. Paul, it is probable that his prayers accompanied their application; and that apart from this, they would have had no efficacy whatever. But had it been a part of the divine sYSTEM, that such things should be held in honour by the Church for ever, and be laid up and reverenced as the regular instruments by which health, and deliverance, and blessings innumerable should be dispensed to the end of the world, we should surely have had the apostles making presents to the Churches of their garments as well as their epistles; and instead of St. Stephen, the first martyr, being carried by devout men to his burial, we should read

of his being embalmed for the purpose of preserving his relics, and every article belonging to his person, down to the shoe latchet, would have been distributed by the order of St. Peter with as much care as the popes, who call themselves his successors, employ, when they send presents of much meaner relics than those of St. Stephen, in our own day. If then it be admitted, as it must needs be, that the duty of the Church is to be regulated by the precepts and example of Christ and his apostles, and neither precept nor example can be found for the veneration of relics, it manifestly results, that the Church of Rome has incurred an awful hazard by her decrees in behalf of such a doctrine, and especially by pronouncing her anathemas on all who differ from her. I shall only observe, in concluding this branch of our subject, that Dr. Wiseman has taken a most unwarrantable liberty with the meaning of words, where he says, that at the time the miracles were wrought by the garments of Christ and the handkerchiefs of St. Paul, they were “RELICS in the Catholic sense of the term." They were not relics at all, during the life of their respective wearers, and yet it was only during their life, and doubtless, by their desire, that the miracles were effected. But in order to entitle them to the appellation of relics, they must be taken after the death of the former wearers, for the word relic comes from relicta, signifying what is left behind, and therefore it is never applied by the Church of Rome to the garments of any saint, while he is yet in being. Hence it results, that there is no example in Scripture of the case which Dr. Wiseman's doctrine requires, namely, of a miracle being effected by the garments or other things which had belonged to a deceased saint, after the decease of the owner. The single instance which can properly be called a miracle by relics, is that of Elisha; and the argument already delivered on that instance is sufficient, I trust, to show, that it is directly hostile to the doctrine for which it is cited.

On the other point of controversy, namely, the worship of images, our author seems to give up the Scriptural argument altogether. He tells us, indeed, that the mere making of them cannot be unlawful, because the Lord commanded them to be placed on the ark, and in the tabernacle; and he grants that they ought not to be made for adoration or worship. "And the question," saith he, "is therefore whether the Roman Catholic is justified in praying before them, and using them as memorials, inspiring faith and devotion." "I may be asked,” continues our author, "what warrant there is in Scripture for all this. I might answer that I ask none, for rather I might ask what authority there is to deprive me of these objects? because it is the natural right of man to use any thing towards promoting the worship of God, which is not in any way forbidden."

Now here, brethren, is the direct avowal of a most corrupt principle, sufficient of itself to sanction a thousand follies and superstitions, and, as it appears to me, utterly unsustained by any argument, either of faith or reason. I refer to Dr. Wiseman's assertion that it is the natural right of man to use any thing he pleases in the worship of God, provided it be not forbidden. For what natural rights have we, where the worship of God is concerned? We are utterly condemned, as sinners, by nature and by practice, and all our rights in religion are conferred not by nature, but by grace, and must therefore be regulated by HIS Word, and not by our imagination. A similar error, although exhibited in a different way, was that of the Pharisees, who added an immense number of traditionary observances to the divine law, intending thereby to increase their devotion. But listen to the judgment of Christ concerning them: "In vain do they worship me," said the Saviour, "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

In the next place, however, it seems to my mind that our author's own concesssion utterly disproves his Church's doc

trine. For while he contends that the mere making of images cannot be sinful; since the Lord himself commanded the figures of cherubim to be placed in his temple; he nevertheless grants, expressly, that images ought not to be made for adoration or worship. But what then, I would ask Dr. Wiseman, are those acts which the councils order in honour of images? The uncovering the head, the falling prostrate, the kisses of devout affection, the burning of incense, and the lighting of candles before the holy images, as the second Council of Nice constantly calls them-what are all these, if they be not acts of worship? In the case of the brazen serpent, we only read of the people burning incense to it, and the Roman Catholic commentators admit that this was an act of idolatry which justified king Hezekiah in destroying it. But here we have the kisses, the incense, the lighting of candles, and prostration, all together. And besides this, what are we to understand by the express words of that very council, decreeing that "the honour of the image passes to its original, and whoever adores the image, adores in it, the substance of the representation?" It is not possible, brethren, to reconcile all this with the principle admitted by Dr. Wiseman. The true meaning of it, however, is well expressed by a far greater authority in the Roman Church than any living man, namely, the famous Thomas Aquinas, whom they call the angelical Doctor, and who stands on their Calendar as a canonized saint. For he says expressly, that "as Christ himself is adored with the highest worship, (latria) so his image is to be adored with the same." (Th. Aquin. Sum. Theol. Par. 3. Quæstio 25. Art. 3. p. 53.) He gives the very same decision as to the worship of the cross, that "because Christ was suspended on it, and he stained it with his precious blood, therefore not only the original cross, but every image of it, no matter of what material, should be adored with the same kind of worship, which is due to Christ himself." (lb. Art. 4.) It seems a mere trifling with language, therefore,