What is said in this book is founded on facts so uncertain, apocryphal, and false, that it is enough to state them in order to see their vanity and delusion. The first is, that this tear is one of those that our Lord shed on the death of Lazarus. 2. That an angel caught it, put it in a little vessel, which he shut up in a larger one, where it remains to the present day, and gave it to Magdalen. 3. That Magdalen brought it to France when she came there with Lazarus,' &c.

"The Religious of the Abbey of St. Peter, of S, of the order of diocese of A., also boast of having a similar tear of our Lord, which they expose to be adored publicly. And, to prove the truth of it, they have printed an 'Instruction for Pilgrims of the Holy Tear of our Lord Jesus Christ, adored in the church of St. Peter of S--.' But all they say to justify their 'tear' is not less suspicious and fabulous than the pretended 'true history' of the 'tear' of V. Calvin testifies that there is a 'tear' of the Son of God at Thiers, in Auvergne; one at St. Maximin, which fell from the eyes of the Divine Saviour as He washed the feet of the Apostles; and one at St. Peter, at Orleans.”—i. pp. 100-112.

There are a multitude of observances in the Church of Rome, of which we have no notion, until we come to a work like this, which lets us into the actual working of the system. Take the following as an example:

"ON CARRYING RELICS, &C.-As for Relics, the author of the Summa Angelica holds that we ought not to carry them hung round the neck. St. Thomas maintains, on the contrary, that it is not unlawful to carry them, and his opinion has been followed by almost all divines. Still it would be superstitious to be unwilling to carry relics only in a reliquary of a particular material and shape, or to have so much confidence in them as to believe that they alone can obtain pardon of our sins, and the grace of perseverance to the end, without the trouble of doing good works or changing our life."—p. 314.

"As to 'gospels,' it seems that the fathers of the Church do not approve of their being carried round the neck in order to cure illness. St. Chrysostom says of it-'Some persons carry a part of the Gospel in writing about their necks. But is not the Gospel read every day in the Church, that every one may hear it? If then he to whom the Gospel is read daily does not profit by it, how could he be profited and cured by it when he carries it round his neck? What does the virtue of the Gospel consist in? Is it in the mere shapes of the letters, or the meaning and sense they contain? If it consists merely in the figures of the letters, it is well to put it round your neck; but if it consists in understanding the meaning which it contains, it is much better to put it in your heart, and it will do you more good than hanging it round your neck."" p. 315.

"There are also some persons who imagine, that if we carry a rosary, or chaplet, or a scapulary, or a girdle of St. Augustine, a girdle

of St. Monica, a cord of St. Francis, a girdle of St. Francis de Paul, or some other sign or instrument of piety, we shall never be condemned, we shall assuredly receive the Sacraments of the Church at the moment of death, and shall have a true penitence, though we have neglected it during the whole course of our lives, and have renounced true piety, relying upon these signs and outward instruments. This fancy is, on the contrary, altogether superstitious in the opinion of Father Alexander, a learned divine of the order of St. Dominic (p. 317). He proves this doctrine by the testimony of the Provincial Council of Cambray in 1565, which says, that it is necessary to teach the people that those persons fall into vanity and abominable superstition, who promise infallibly, that we shall not die without penitence, and without the Sacraments, if we honour such or such a saint, who assure us that we shall certainly succeed in all we attempt, and flatter themselves with such promises as these.

"It is easy now to judge that the cross or medal, called St. Benedict's, has all the appearance of a superstitious preservative. The Benedictines of Germany discovered it first. The Benedictines of France have celebrated it after them, and have published the marvels of it in a little book, which says, that having been blessed by the monks of the order, they have produced wonderful effects (principally against charms and incantations), in regard to those who have used them, either by wearing them round the neck, or putting them in water which the bewitched animals had been just drinking."-p. 348.

The passages quoted above may remind us of the same kind of superstitions which are condemned in the Book of Homilies. The following is very curious:

"SUPERSTITIONS ABOUT ANIMALS. Some one, perhaps, would imagine that there was some astronomical figure, or some extraordinary and unknown character in the cells of the Carthusian monks, because it is commonly said, that no bugs can be found in them, although they may be found in the apartments of their servants! But Father James de Breul, monk of St. Germain des Prez, assures us that this happens by an especial privilege which God has granted to the monks of that order. 'God,' he says, 'has chosen that they should not be afflicted and disturbed by those odoriferous little animals called bugs, and has exempted all their cells from them, from which they could with difficulty have been otherwise preserved, because they lie down in their clothes, use no linen, seldom change their clothes, and have their cells made of wood.' Cardan says, that this arises from the Carthusians eating no But Scaliger treats this as fabulous: If the Carthusians have no bugs in their cells, it is not because there are talismans there, for it would require a prodigious quantity of them for all the cells; nor is it because God has preserved them from them by especial privilege; for where is this privilege? Nor is it because they abstain from meat, for there are other monks who do not eat meat except in case of indisposition, and who nevertheless have bugs in their cells but it is because they keep their cells very clean and neat.'"-p. 364,

meat.

We have already quoted some curious remarks on St. Margaret, who appears to be a very important saint. There are, however, some rather perplexing difficulties in the question, "Who is St. Margaret?" We quote the passage.

"ON SUPERSTITIONS REGARDING THE SACRAMENTS. The heretics of the last century believed that it was superstitious for Christian women to call upon St. Margaret in their pregnancy, in order to have a safe delivery. But they would not think so if they were persuaded of the truth of what the Council of Trent teaches us of the Invocation of Saints, This worship is good in itself, it is lawful, it is not superstitious. But women ought to be on their guard that it is not accompanied by any faulty or wrong circumstance.

"There are many St. Margarets whom they may invoke: there is St. Margaret the Virgin, who is the same as St. Marina, and who suffered martyrdom at Antioch; St. Margaret, Virgin of Parthenopolis, surnamed Contracta; St. Margaret, Queen of Scotland; the blessed Margaret of St. Dominic of the third order of St. Francis; the blessed Margaret of Lorraine, wife of René, Duke of Alençon. As the Church has not yet pronounced on the beatification of the two last-named Margarets, it is not sufficient to authorize such a public worship as pregnant women pay to St. Margaret. The difficulty then is to know which of the three first it is whom they implore to help them, It might very well be St. Margaret, Queen of Scotland, because she was married and had children, and every morning gave breakfast to nine orphans in her palace, which shows the care, charity, and tenderness of heart which she had for children. Yet since it is on the 20th of July that pregnant women go to pay their devotions in the churches and chapels of St. Margaret, it seems to be St. Margaret of Antioch, because it is on that day that the Latin Church celebrates the feast of this saint.

"However this may be, there are women in various places who believe that their prayers to St. Margaret would not have the effect they expect, if they did not have the pretended girdle of St. Margaret put on them. It is generally put on them by priests and monks. This does not very well suit persons of their character and profession; and it would be far more proper for women to put it on themselves."-ii, p. 292.

It would seem that there are some singular heresies lurking here and there in the Romish communion,

"The Maronites have another error and superstition on the subject of the holy Chrism (of Confirmation); for they believe that the person of the Holy Ghost is in it, in the same manner as the person of Jesus Christ is in the Eucharist. This is one of the propositions which Father Thomas de Jesus has drawn from some of their books and traditions."-ii. p. 185.

The following instances of ancient superstitions regarding the Eucharist are deserving of notice:

"St. Augustine relates a singular circumstance concerning a person named Acacius, who was born blind, and whom his mother, who was a woman of virtue and piety, cured by means of a poultice which she made of the holy Eucharist, and which she applied to his eyes! If the faith of this good woman excused her before God for having employed the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ for such a purpose, such extraordinary conduct ought not to be considered as establishing a rule, or to be acted on; and those who would do so would not be free from superstition, since, in the opinion of Cardinal de Cusa, it is a superstition to employ holy things to different uses from those for which they were intended; and the Eucharist was not intended to be made into poultices for the eyes of the blind.

"We read in the life of St. Basil, that this great Archbishop of Cæsarea, after having celebrated the holy mysteries for the first time, divided the bread of the Eucharist into three parts, one of which he reserved to be interred with him after his death. Pope St. Gregory tells us, that St. Benedict having heard that the earth had twice thrown up the body of a young novice who had been put in the grave, gave with his own hands the host to the parents of the deceased, desiring them to put it with great respect on his stomach, and to bury it in that state; and that after they had done what the saint desired, the earth retained the body of the novice, and did not throw it out as before. Amalarius, deacon of Metz, produces a passage from the Venerable Bede which shows clearly that at the burial of St. Cuthbert, Bishop of Lindissame, they put the Sacrament on his stomach, and buried him with that precious deposit. After which, he adds, that' such was the custom of the Roman Church.'

"But this custom has disappeared for a long time, and I believe there would be superstition in reviving it at present. And it is, doubtless, for this reason that Don Angelo du Noïer, Abbot of Monte Cassino, declares that it was wisely abolished by the Fathers who followed St. Benedict; and that any one who should establish it at present, would pass for a bad Catholic before the Inquisition. To me it appears to have come from the Pagan custom of putting a piece of money in the mouth to pay the passage to Charon, who otherwise would not have ferried the dead over Cocytus."-pp. 244-246.

"Pope St. Theodore I., having learnt that Pyrrhus, one of the chiefs of the Monothelites, had fallen again into his errors after having abjured them, held a council at Rome in which he deposed him. And to render this deposal more remarkable, he signed it with a pen full of ink, in which he had put some drops of the blood of Jesus Christ! Baronius avows, that he does not know of any example to authorize such singular conduct; yet there are two, one in the Eighth General Council of Constantinople against Photius, and the other in Aribert, who says that the false treaty of peace concluded between Charles the Bald and Bernard, Count of Toulouse, in 854, was drawn up and signed with the blood of the Eucharist. The character, dignity, and holiness of Pope Theodore I., the authority of the Eighth General Council of Constantinople, the dignity and rank of Charles the Bald

and Bernard, Count of Toulouse, are of great weight in justifying a signature of so much importance. Yet, as it has not been made the rule in the course of time, I should think that it could not be renewed at present without incurring the suspicion of false worship. We may here apply the maxim of St. Augustine, 'that it is certain that we ought not generally to imitate in our conduct every thing which we read of as being done by just and holy men.'

"According to this maxim, the Church would not approve of this practice being literally followed at present; in the example of St. Gorgonia, who having dragged herself to the holy altar, and having leant her head upon it with pious impudence (as St. Gregory Nazianzen says), mixed her tears with the body and blood of Christ which she had reserved according to the ancient custom of the Church, and having afterwards rubbed over her body with this mixture, she was cured in a moment of an extraordinary disease!

"Nor again, the example of St. Satyrus, who, according to his brother, St. Ambrose, tied up the Divine Eucharist in a handkerchief, put it round his neck, and afterwards threw himself into the sea, in order to escape from shipwreck.

"Nor the example of St. Bernard, who left the altar, and taking the host in the paten, went to meet William, Duke of Aquitaine, at the gate of the church, and said to him, 'We have made our supplications to you, but you have disregarded them. But here is the Son of the Virgin. Will you despise Him also? Will you be so bold as to disregard the Master as you have done his servants?'

"Nor the example of St. Dominic, who, in order to convince the heretics of the truth he maintained, put the Eucharist into a burning furnace, where it remained three days unconsumed, if we are to believe Pilbert de Themeswar.

"Nor again, the example of St. Antony of Padua, who, to convince a heretic of the truth of the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, presented this terrible mystery to a mule, which they had made to fast for three days, and obliged him to go on his knees, lower his head, and perform adoration; as it is related in the life of this saint.' -P. 262.

It seems from the following, that the Eucharist is sometimes received hypocritically in the Church of Rome, just as it is elsewhere.

"The Communion is not always received with the right ends and pure intentions which the Church requires. How many Pharisaical communions may be seen; that is to say, how many Christians communicate only through hypocrisy, and to appear righteous in the eyes of men! These communions are not only sacrilegious, but they are superstitious, in the opinion of Lactantius, who remarks that religion concerns true worship and true piety, and superstition regards false worship and false piety. They are so also in the opinion of St. Thomas and VOL. X.-NO. XX.-DEC. 1848.