maladies wherein it cannot do harm, either | recover her lost ground? If this is never through its own feeble efforts, or by taking the place of more efficient means. In such cases it may, indeed, be designated the art of amusing the patient, while nature cures the complaint, if complaint there be beyond the mere fancy of complaining. Whenever active and urgent disease, however, is to be dealt with, any dependence upon such fallacious means is not only unavailing, but mischievous; inasmuch, as being powerless itself to contend with any serious malady, it yet usurps the place of any really efficient medicinal treatment." a That the principle of "Similia similibus curantur" is not a sufficient basis for any system, has, I think, been satisfactorily shown by "Vinclum." If Homœopathists object, let them at once submit their system to the test suggested some time ago by a respectable journalist :-"We offer method of satisfying us, which we doubt not will be at once as successful with the public as ourselves. Let the Homeopathists select fifty healthful men, and in the use of fifty given medicines, let them produce in each of these fifty the separate malady of which that medicine is the professed cure; let this be done, and we shall at once believe that such medicines can cure the fifty individuals upon whom the said maladies have come from natural causes. Let this course be followed, and it will command our entire confidence, and we think that of mankind generally, in the soundness of the principle that 'like is cured by like." Now what say Dr. V. and his friends to this? Is not the course recommended a fair one? and if fair, ought it not to be carried out? Now, no shuffling, gentlemen; bring your system to the test, or we shall be compelled to believe the reports of the failure of your experiments, when conducted by impartial men, and shall say, You do not, because you dare not. But then we are pointed to "the proofs of the efficacy of Homeopathy" which are said everywhere to abound. Indeed! then you ascribe many wonderful cures to the application of your system; but are you quite sure that they result from it? You bave not forgotten the important law in philosophy, not to assume a new cause when known ones will explain a fact. May not the cures that you attribute to Homœopathy result merely from the efforts of nature to the case with other means, or how do you account for the wonders said to be wrought by Morison's pills, Holloway's ointment, and much more, by the olive oil and "laying on of hands" of the Mormonites? If, then, this is the case with other methods, may it not be sometimes the case with yours? especially as one of its principal characteristics is -to use your own words-that "it gives the system more time to rest and recover itself undisturbedly." And if, then, it be confessedly thus sometimes, may it not be thus frequently? I may Another plea urged for Homeopathy, suggests a rationale of many of its “cures.” It is said to lead the physician "to insist upon his patients attending more particularly to the rule of diet." Ah! how many disorders arise from neglect here. The way to many a man's head is, in more senses than one, through his stomach. Yea, further, from disarrangement in the said organ go forth many prejudicial influences to every part of the system. Let the cause be removed, and then the effects will either cease or be weakened. Hence the importance of dietary regulations, and the beneficial effects of their due observance, which Homœopathists know how to appreciate. adduce here a case in point. Dr. Jennings was a physician of transatlantic celebrity, and being convinced of the importance of attending to regimen, dispensed with all medicine throughout a very extended practice, but nevertheless amused his patients with bread pills and bottles of good spring water coloured. He was successful to an amazing extent, and outstripped all his competitors. "Fever in all its forms, and whatever else came in his way, he met and battled with a bread pill and coloured water, and the region rang with the praises of Dr. Jennings!" I hope my Homoeopathic friends will forgive me if I place their potent globules and bread pills on a par. A strong argument in favour of the belief that the Homœopathic 'cures" depend more upon regimen than anything else, may be drawn from some of those statistics to which Dr. V. refers to with such satisfaction. It is curious to notice the proportion between the "in" and "out" patients reported as cured in the Hahnemann Hospital, London. Upon the in-patients a strict dietary is of moeopathic practitioners reject no reasonable method of treatment-no method by which they incur no risk of unforeseen mischief; they use all these medical auxiliaries," viz.: course enforced, while to the out-patients it | few sentences further on admits that "Hocan only be recommended. That it is not generally adopted I have had many opportunities of ascertaining. How this affects the proportion of cures we shall see. The following is an extract from the first report of" Hydropathy, Mesmerism, Galvanism, fc." the above-mentioned institution, which was presented to a meeting of subscribers held April 3rd, 1851:— During the five months it has been in operation the patients have amounted to 1,569 persons, viz.:— Out-patients (since 16th Oct.).........1,485 84 1,569 Out. In. 347 40 Improved 206... 18 ... Total........... 553 58 7 33... 529 ... 14 252 17... 2 The number, then, of in-patients (or persous upon whom a strict dietary has been enforced) reported to have been "cured," is Dearly one-half of the whole, and those reported as "improved" nearly one-fourth; while the number of out-patients (or persons to whom a strict dietary has only been recommended) reported to have been “cured," is not one-fourth, and those "improved" not one-seventh. These are significant facts, and speak volumes. The large number of cases reported as aly improved, and significant of the slow progress of Homoeopathic patients, is favourable to the hypothesis that their cures are the result of nature's unaided and gradual operations. But if, after all, it can be shown that bona fide cures have been effected by medical practitioners of this school, the question may be put, Have they been effected on Homeopathic principles? For while Dr. V., in one part of his short paper, declares his pet system to be "the only real method of effectually treating all disorders to which the animal organism in general is subject," he a Do they not in acute cases frequently apply to Allopathy? It is reported that they do; and a writer in Tait's Magazine for December asserts that he knows an eminent Homeopathic physician who always has his children treated Allopathically. These are difficulties that must be removed, and apparent inconsistencies that must be cleared away, before I can be at one with my Homœopathic friends. Perhaps I cannot better conclude this paper than with the following pungent extract from the London Medical Examiner: Faith and proper diet will remove many disorders. We knew a blacksmith who sometimes cured ague by making his patients swallow a piece of paper upon which he wrote some "dog's latin" a few hours before the expected paroxysm. But our Homœopathic friends would probably attribute the cure to the gallate of iron in the ink. Hohenloe miracles, Morison's pills, Animal Magnetism, and Hydropathy, are on the decline, and infinitesimals are in the ascen→ dency; like other quackeries it will have its day, and then give place to some fresh delusion. Dr. S. Johnson used to say, "that if a man were to get upon a tree and preach with his head downwards, he would have a large congregation." And as with theology so with physic, the more absurd the doctrine the more numerous are its disciples. But how useful this science of Homœopathy would be if fully carried out: let a man try the ten-millionth part of a mutton chop for his dinner, or the billionth part of a bottle of wine, and then consult his feelings. Dr. James Johnson, we think, suggested when Homœopathy was first on the tapis, "that if a bushel of Epsom salts were put into the Thames at Richmond, all the inhabitants of London might be physicked." We should like to see the effect of the infusion of a grain of common sense into 500 members of the House of Commons; we might then get efficient medical reform, and our legislators might agree to the axiom, "That next to a man's spiritual welfare, his bodily health is of the most importance." L. G. G.. Vistory. CAN THE APOSTOLIC ORIGIN AND NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE OF THE BRITISH CHURCH BE PROVED? NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-II. MR. EDITOR,-The introduction of discussions of historical questions in the pages of the British Controversialist is, in my opinion, a very important feature; and I doubt not that it will prove a source of much interest and instruction to all, and especially to the young. That it was the privileged lot of Great Britain to receive Christianity, and some of her attendant blessings, at a very early period, we are all agreed, but as to who was the first publisher of the "glad tidings" is a matter of dispute. J. B., in the affirmative article, maintains that it was one of the apostles; and, further, that St. Paul was the individual. We purpose, then, briefly to examine the testimonies which he brings forward in evidence, and to show how far they fall short in substantiating his position. The assertion that "the fathers inform us, in general terms, that it was the apostles personally" who founded the church in Britain, if admitted, would not prove that Britain was ever favoured with their presence. In popular language, leaders and employers are said to accomplish objects, when those objects are secured mainly by their adherents or servants. On this principle, a few months ago, the air was rent with the cry, that the Pope had introduced a Romish hierarchy into England, although no one understood by that that we had been honoured by a personal visit from "his Holiness!" Far be it from us to attempt to undervalue, in historic researches, the testimony of contemporary writers, whether friends or foes, but we cannot place much reliance upon the record of events made some centuries after the events themselves had transpired, and a knowledge of which could only have been preserved by tradition-and mark, that kind of tradition which all true Protestants believe to be eminently untrustworthy. And is not this the kind of testimony upon which J. B. builds his theory? Jerome flourished in Palestine in the fourth century; Eusebius was bishop of Caesarea in the fourth century; Theodoret was bishop of Cyprus in the fifth century; and Venantius bishop of Poictiers in the sixth century. These, then, are J. B.'s witnesses, living thus far distant from the event concerning which they are supposed to testify, and far distant from the place where that event was supposed to have taken place. But what, after all, do these witnesses assert? Nothing very definite. Theodoret, we are told, asserts, that "the apostles persuaded even the Britons to receive the laws of the crucified Lord;" and Jerome says, that "Paul preached the gospel in the western parts." Well, with the consideration of these statements, conflicting ones should be taken, as well as popular belief. "The first publication of the gospel in Britain has been attributed to James, the son of Zebedee, whom Herod put to death (Acts xii. 2); to Simon Zelotes, another apostle; to Aristobulus (mentioned Rom. xvi. 10); to St. Peter, &c., by some few legendary writers, who are cited by Ussher, Eccl. Britann. Primordia, cap. 1. But, rejecting these accounts, William of Malmesbury, and after him many other monks, maintained that Joseph of Arimathea, with twelve others, were sent from Gaul by St. Philip into Britain, A.D. 63; that they were successful in planting Christianity; spent their lives in England; had twelve hides of land assigned to them by the king at Glastonbury, where they first built a church of hurdles, and afterwards established a monastery. By maintaining the truth of this story the English clergy obtained the precedence of some others in several councils of the fifteenth century, and particularly that of Basil, A.D. 1434."* So much, then, for the testimony of tradition to the apostolic christianization of Britain! J. B. quotes the intention of the apostle "Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History," Second Century, chap. i. note 4. Paul to journey into Spain," recorded Rom. xv., to give plausibility to his opinions. But is our friend not aware that it has been a disputed point with bible students, as to whether the country there referred to is the same as the one known to us by that name? Without entering upon that dispute, it should ever be remembered that there exists no evidence to prove that the apostle was ever able to carry out his intention! Further remarks here would therefore be unnecessary. But, Mr. Editor, had every position taken by J. B. proved unassailable, I maintain that he would have failed in making out a case sufficiently strong for his purpose-he might have shown that the Apostolic Origin of the British Church was probable, but he would not, as required by the question, have “prosed" it actual. sup preserved. One was called ILID, it One cannot help asking, What is the object of J. B. in introducing these views? Seeing that he lays his foundation with such care, surely he must have an important superstructure to rear. What, then, is that superstructure to contain? Are we not right in surmising that one of its "holy things" will prove to be the doctrine of the apostolic succession of the clergymen of the Established Church of England, and the consequent scripturality and authority of that church? If so, we would remind him and his friend, in the words of an Edinburgh Reviewer, that "It is impolitic to rest the doctrines of the English Church on an historical theory, which, to ninety-nine ProtestHere I might lay down my pen, but wish- ants out of a hundred, would seem to be ing to upbuild as well as destroy, I would more questionable than those doctrines. Nor suggest, for the consideration of J. B. and is this all. Extreme obscurity overhangs your readers generally, the following, as a the history of the middle ages; and the facts more probable account of the introduction of discernible through that obscurity prove that the gospel to Britain, than the one on which the church was exceeding ill regulated. We I have been animadverting. There is an read of sees of the highest dignity openly ancient British history, called the Triades, sold-transferred backwards and forwards of the Isle of Britain, and written in the by popular tumult; bestowed sometimes by Welsh language. These British records are a profligate woman upon her paramour; of undoubted credit, and state, that the sometimes by a warlike baron on a kinsman, famous British king, Caractacus, and his still a stripling. * In our own island it father, Bran, after a war of nine years in was the complaint of Alfred that not a single defence of their country, were defeated; and priest, south of the Thames, and very few in the year A.D. 52 or 53, were carried cap-on the north, could read either Latin or tive to Rome, where they were detained seven English. And this illiterate clergy exercised years. At that time the gospel was preached their ministry amidst a rude and half heathen in the imperial city, and Brân, with others population, in which Danish pirates, unchrisof his family, were made converts to the tened, or christened by hundreds, on a field faith of Christ. After seven years, they of battle, were mingled with a Saxon peasanwere permitted to return to their native try, scarcely better instructed in religion. land, and were instrumental in the early The state of Ireland was still worse: 'Tota preaching of the gospel among their country. illa per universam Hibernian dissolutio ecclee. On this account Bran was long dis-siasticæ disciplinæ―illa ubique pro consuetutinguished as one of the three blessed sove-dine Christiana sava sub introducta barreign, and his family as one of the holy baries,' are the expressions of St. Bernard. lineages of Britain. Christians from Rome We are therefore at a loss to conceive how actually accompanied the royal liberated any clergyman can feel confident that his captives. They are supposed to have been orders have come down correctly." all preachers. They were the means of taming great numbers of the Britons from paganism to Christianity. Their names are Waiting the further developinent of J.B.'s theory, I remain, Mr. Editor, yours faithfully, SCRUTATOR. AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-II. THE "National Independence" of the British Church now claims our attention. We have already seen that the church in our favoured island was founded by St. Paul, and now our object is to show that this was the commencement and nucleus of that church, which, although it has experienced many vicissitudes, continues to the present day. That the foundation thus laid did not decay, but that a glorious superstructure was raised upon it, we have the undoubted testimony of the christian fathers from the apostolic age downwards. woods and mountains and dens of the earth, re-establish the faith, build again the demolished churches, erect basilicas of the saints and martyrs, and, setting up again in triumph their victorious standards, celebrate their sacred rites with clean hands and hearts." The empire had now become christian; general councils were common; and it must not be forgotten, that three of the bishops from the principal cities then in England, representing their brethren and the church of the island at large, had seats in, and subscribed to the canons of, the councils held in Europe and Asia during this century. one of these (Nice) we must bear in mind that the independence of all national churches was settled, and all foreign jurisdiction excluded, by canon law. At Tertullian, a celebrated Carthagenian of the second century, in his tracts against the Jews, when enumerating the nations which had embraced Christianity at that time, thus refers to Britain :-"In whom else but that Christ, who is already come, have all these nations believed? all the borders of Spain, When the church was freed from persecuthe divers nations of Gaul, and those places tion, she was soon exposed to the desolating of Britain into which the Roman arms have ravages of heresy. Early in the fifth cennot yet been able to penetrate, but which are tury the British Church was assailed by the subject to Christ." An obvious inference fatal heresy of Pelagius, who is generally from these words is, that Christianity must called a Welshman, but was probably Scotus, have been well established in the more i.e., a native Irishman. This called forth civilized and accessible portions of Britain, the energies of native bishops; but it was ere her influence could be felt in the wildest not until the commencement of the sixth regions. In the next century, Origen, century that the "heresy was utterly dissiA.D. 230, triumphantly sums up the vic-pated and destroyed," and then chiefly by tories of Christ in these words:- "The the eloquence of St. David, bishop of power of our Lord and Saviour is both with Minevia, afterwards primate of the church those who, in Britain, are separated from in Wales. At this period, St. Jerome, our coast, and with those in Mauritania, speaking of the purity of the faith of the and with all who under the sun have be- British Church, puts it on a par with that lieved in his name." There is concurrent of Jerusalem. St. Chrysostoin refers to the witness that during this century the church British Church in several places, and in in these isles was not only existing, but such a way as shows that the faith received highly flourishing. by it from the apostles continued not only pure and sound, but flourishing, in his own time, the fifth century. In the fourth century (A.D. 303), under the emperor Diocletian, commenced that fiery trial, the last of the ten persecutions. Gil- We now arrive at the sixth century. das, and Bede, after him, tell us, in glowing Britain had become independent. The language, of the havoc it made in Britain. Caledonians, celebrated in the wars of Agri"Then it was," say they, that Britain en- cola, disappear, and their place is supplied joyed the highest glory by her devoted con- by the Piets and Scots. The Romans had fession of God, and great was the number of not taught our ancestors the art of warfare, her martyrs." This persecution terminated and Vortigern found it necessary to call to with the accession of our christian country-his aid a band of predatory Saxons. These man, Constantine, to the empire. "Now," say our authors whom we have just quoted, "the persecuted Christians return from the pirate savages soon succeeded in repelling the attacks of the Picts and Scots, and then turned their arms against their employers. |