ginning of S.2. in favour of voluntary poverty and celibacy, without even an hint of the interpretation of those texts received by Protestants upon grounds of solid criticism, looks rather like a wish to produce an impression upon the reader that there does not exist any other interpretation. Barely to cite a text of Scripture on the implied authority of Tradition may do for the ignorant part of a Popish Community; but when writing to a nation of Protestants, the courtesy of at least an attempt to justify the passage being so applied, may be expected.

But Mr. Butler's work is written in many respects throughout in this unfair manner. We particularly allude to those parts, where the doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome are treated of. Enough is said to make an impression: but that is all; and it is done in such an indirect way, that the author may question the propriety of being controverted: or if he be pressed upon a subject, shift his ground and deny the charge. Although it may be easy to discover that he is wrong, it may be difficult to track him through the indirect and circuitous paths he has chosen.

In what he has advanced upon the miraculous powers said to be exercised in the church, we question whether it would be deemed sufficiently orthodox in any truly Catholic Country, to bring him off without something like inquisitorial treatment. But it is politic in a Priesthood (situated like that of the Papists in this country) to conceal the real sentiments of the great body of their Church, by suffering the higher orders, whose opinions will be more scrutinised by coming into contact with the world, either by the press or their more extended intercourse with society, to entertain a larger faith on subjects so open to investigation as sensible miracles: and we much doubt, whether for the distinctions maintained by Mr. Butler on these subjects, he is not indebted to the light of the Reformation alone. Had that great event never taken place, would he have ever questioned the authenticity of these miracles? would he not have thought the miracles of St. Dunstan as good a proof of his actions being as approved by Heaven, of his words being as eternally obligatory, as those of the Inspired Apostles themselves?

But then* "the period in which the miracles, attributed to Dunstan, were performed was the darkest period in the Roman Catholic history." It is even admitted that sometimes under such a state of darkness, "like the Northmen gifted with second-sight, they would see what they did not see; and hear what they did not hear." And we are asked with the utmost complacency; "do not these observations solve the whole difficulty? do they not account for the abundance of miraculous relations, in the time of which we are writing? do they not render it unnecessary, (we had almost said inexcusable,) to account for them by imputing fraud, imposture or systematical deceit, as is done by Mr. Southey to the persons concerned in them?” and we are referred in confirmation to the Existence of Vulgar Superstitions, and the miracles of John Wesley!

It is certainly easy to ask questions, of which Mr. Butler is rather too fond; but surely a subject like this ought not to have been dismissed with so much self-satisfaction. It ap

Mr. Butler's Work, p. 68.

pears that a Canonization is founded on evidence of the person to be canonized having exercised miraculous powers. * And can such a canonization take place? Can any new Intercessor be seated in Heaven, on other than infallible authority. If the miracles are admitted false, it is in opposition to the solemn decision of the infallible Church, and to the belief of her children, who have all along trusted in the intercession of this supposed Saint! Yet what Priest ever attempted from the pulpit to warn his flock, that any miracles, however extravagant, were impostures? What care or anxiety has ever been taken on the part of their Church to guard mankind against believing them?

Whilst the powers of Prince Hohenlohe are disowned by some of the English Papists, is he not publicly upheld and supported by the Priesthood? Has it ever been hinted in a Popish Congregation that they even demand a scrutiny?. Instead of ransacking the Arsenal of Infidelity, and quoting Middleton to confound the miracles of the New Testament with those to which the

* Mr. B. p. 280.

Church of Rome appeals, and producing an impression that no difference exists between them, Mr. Butler would have done well to overthrow the strong arguments of the English Divines, and particularly of Paley, where the absolute distinction between the Scripture miracles, and those of the Church of Rome is incontrovertibly demonstrated.

To the questions so triumphantly asked on these subjects in page 39 we answer, That Christ promised no such continuance of miraculous powers to his Church; but that these Scriptures relate solely to the Apostolic age: that the Catholic Church is not exclusively that which owns the Supremacy of the Pope: and that therefore, though we have separated from the Church of Rome, we have an equal claim with that Church to be considered members of the One Catholic Church of Christ. Here Catholicism however is claimed for the Church of Rome exclusively: which is insinuated to be the only true Church, of which the Catechism of Dr. Butler authorised by the four Roman Ca