that Xavier's miracles are inventions posterior to his time, will appear from the following circumstances:

"Tursellinus in the preface prefixed to his first edition, laments that no one had ever thought of writing this saint's life till he had been dead thirty-five years. Before any credit can be given therefore to the miracles reported of Xavier, we must be satisfied that they were publicly known during the time intervening from his death; but so far is this from being the case, that we can produce, what I look upon as most conclusive evidence, that during that time Xavier's miracles had not been heard of. The evidence I shall allege is of Acosta, who himself had been a missionary among the Indians. His work de procuranda Indorum salute, was printed in the year 1589, that is above thirty-seven years after the death of Xavier, and in it we find an express acknowledgment that no miracles had ever been performed by missionaries among the Indians. For he assigns it as one reason, why the gospel was not propagated by them with the same success as it was by the apostles. "That the "power of working miracles did not subsist among the mission"aries, who not being able to excite the admiration or the fear of "the barbarians, by the majesty of any such works, were, con"sequently, despised by reason of their mean appearance.”*Is it to be imagined that Acosta would have reasoned in this manner, if, at the time he wrote his book, the miracles related by Tursellinus had been ascribed to Xavier? Had such accounts been public, Acosta could not but have heard of them, as he himself was a Jesuit; and, therefore, from his silence, we may infer, unexceptionably, that between thirty and forty years had elapsed before Xavier's miracles were thought of: or, which is equally subversive of their credibility, if they were heard of within this period, that they met with no credit from one who

* Altera causa in nobis est, cur apostolica prædicatio institui omnino non possit apostolice, quod miraculorum nulla facultas fit :--nostri nunc temporis cum talium operum majestate sese barbaris admirandos & timendos non præbeant, nihil restat nisi ut reliqua vitæ inopia & impotentia penitus contemnatur. B. 2. C. viii,

cannot be supposed deficient either in opportunities of information, or in readiness of believing them.

"That the miracles ascribed by Tursellinus to Xavier are posterior to the age of Xavier, may be deduced still more clearly from the testimony of the saint himself. The mission of this apostle lasted ten years; during which time he regularly corresponded with his friends, and the superiors of his order in Europe. These letters of his have been collected, and are now in the hands of the public. As they treat principally of his mission, of the progress he made, of the difficulties he had to struggle with, and the means he made use of to convert the Indians, it came, unavoidably, in his way, to mention his power of working miracles, if ever he had been vested with such a power. But so far is he from giving us the least hint of this, that he mentions a circumstance which is absolutely inconsistent with the supposition. For, in many of his letters, he expresses himself greatly unable to do any good amongst those poor people, from his being ignorant of their languages, telling us that he had masters to instruct him, and frankly owning that if he could not arrive at an acquaintance with them, he could do no service to Christianity. From Xavier himself therefore, we are furnished not only with a negative evidence against his having any miraculous power, but also with a positive fact, which is the strongest possible presumption against it. The end of his having a power of working miracles is supposed to be, that he might bring over the Indians to Christianity. And yet we see that he himself expressly disclaims all supernatural assistance in that very instance, in which it is reasonable to believe heaven would have assisted him, had it interposed at all; and his not being assisted in which, rendered all other miracles, though he had performed ever so many, of no effect. For unless he could draw consequences from the miracles, unless he could explain himself to those who were witnesses of them, they would be as far from becoming Christians as ever. The Roman Catholics, indeed, think they sufficiently answer this argument drawn from the silence of

Xavier, by ascribing it to an excess of modesty. But silence in Xavier, as to his miracles, would have been as criminal as it would be in a general who gains a victory, to make no mention of it to his prince; or as it would be in an ambassador, to conceal the success of his negociation from his constituent."-Douglas Criterion. p. 64-78.

NOTE H. (Page 40.)

It is well known that the disputes between the Jesuits and the Jansenists were on several points, precisely the same as those, which have divided the Arminians and Calvinists, in the Protestant Churches. The history of the Church of Rome is the history of its differences and divisions. Popes have anathematised the principles of their predecessors. General Councils have enacted and decreed in direct opposition to the enactments and decrees of prior General Councils: and saints and doctors without number, have been as fierce and as furious in their contentious, as the most free-thinking heretics in the world. "The divines of the Roman Church," says Claude, " may be every day, seen to rend one another, although they all live in one and the same communion. They acknowledge one another for brethren, they assist at the same altars, they call upon the same saints, and yet nevertheless, they write one against another, after the most passionate and violent manner. One sort of them say of their adversaries, "that they were infected with heresies and were "enemies of the Apostolic See, and that their opinion was full "of perfidiousness-presumptuous, injurious to the state of the "religious, and savoured of Calvinism; and that to speak plainly, it was erroneous in the faith, that it openly stifled the "word of God and the authority of the Fathers, that it was 'blasphemous against Jesus Christ and all the saints, plainly and "evidently heretical, and contrary to the Council of Trent." The others say on the contrary-" that the propositions of their

" opponents are false, rash, presumptuous, pernicious to all the "faithful, injurious to the bishops, contrary to the word of God "and the authority of the councils," &c.-Claude's Defence. Vol. I. p. 287.

The mysticism of Madame Guion was defended by Fenelon and condemned by Bossuet. A long and violent controversy ensued. Appeals were made to the See of Rome; and after much oscillation and doubt on the part of his infallible holiness, which proved that he loved Fenelon and feared Bossuet, he, at length decided against the advocate of the devout mystic, and the pious archbishop was silenced if he was not convinced.

The proceedings of the Council of Trent, as related by Father Paul and Monsieur Jurieu, afford many singular illustrations of the management that was requisite to suit the opposite and contending parties, in the Church of Rome. One specimen shall suffice. In the year 1546, at the fifth session, under the pontificate of Paul the third, one of the principal subjects of discussion was Predestination. They commissioned some divines," says Jurieu, "to make abstracts of the books of the Protestants, that they might know what propositions were to be condemned. Nothing was found in the writings of the Lutherans, but out of the books of the Zuinglians they drew eight propositions. 1. That in predestination and reprobation man has no hand, but only the will and pleasure of God. 2. That the predestinate cannot be damned, nor the reprobate saved. 3. That the elect alone are justified. 4. That the justified ought to have faith, and believe that they are predestinated. 5. That the jus tified cannot fall from grace. 6. That the reprobate do never receive grace. 7. That a man ought to believe that he shall persevere, when he is in grace. 8. That a justified man ought to believe that though he fall, he shall rise again.”

"Most part of the divines thought, that the first proposition was very sound and catholic, to wit, that in predestination and reprobation, the will of God alone does all: that is to say, they approved absolute and gratuitous predestination, and they pretended that it was not only consonant to the judgment of St.

Thomas, but also to that of Scotus. This opinion was supported by a great number of Authorities from Holy Scripture, and the fathers, particularly St. Austin, who in his old age had vigorously maintained this absolute and free predestination: yet the election by fore-knowledge of works found its champions. The bishops of Bitonto and Sulpi put themselves at the head of the Monks, and made a party against free and absolute predestination. They said that God resolved to give all men sufficient grace, and that in the fore-knowledge of God, election and reprobation depended on the good or bad use of that sufficient grace, because God elected those whom he had fore-known would consent to and accept of that grace, and reprobated those that would reject it, they added that the contrary opinion was cruel and inhuman, that it made God unjust and an accepter of persons, and supposed him to make his choice without any reason, but out of mere fancy,

"Ambrosio Catarino, was of their opinion who grounded predestination on the fore-knowledge of works; and to avoid the force of the texts of Scripture which prove free and absolute predestination, he made use of a ridiculous medium; he made two predestinations, the one certain, effectual, and absolute without the fore-knowledge of works, saying, that predestination extended only to a small number whom God absolutely decrees to save, and for whom in order to that he prepares effectual means: to that election he applied all the passages whereby absolute predestination is proved. As for instance, those of the ninth chapter of the epistle to the Romans, where St. Paul says, that God loved Jacob and hated Esau, before either of them had done good or evil: that of one lump he makes some vessels of honour and others of dishonour; that it is neither of him that runneth, nor of him that willeth, but God that giveth the blessing. But he added, that besides absolute predestination without fore-knowledge of works, there is another wherein God had decreed to save all those that should be converted; and that for that end he had given all men sufficient grace, to which some submit, and others do resist: and that this last election was un