{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_14072/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_14072","id":"gutenberg_14072","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14072","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christian saints -- Cult","Mary, Blessed Virgin, Saint -- Devotion to","Worship -- History -- Early church, ca. 30-600"],"text":"PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN WORSHIP\n\nOR,\n\nTHE EVIDENCE\n\nOF\n\nHOLY SCRIPTURE AND THE CHURCH,\n\nAGAINST THE\n\nINVOCATION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS, AND THE\nBLESSED VIRGIN MARY.\n\n * * * * *\n\nBY\n\nJ. ENDELL TYLER, B.D.\n\nRECTOR OF ST. GILES-IN-THE-FIELDS,\nAND CANON RESIDENTIARY OF ST. PAUL'S.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSpeaking the truth in love.--EPH. iv. 15\n\nProve all things; hold fast that which is good.--1 THESS. v. 21.\n\nSECOND EDITION\n\nLONDON\n\nPrinted for the\n\nSOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE;\nSOLD AT THE DEPOSITORY,\nGREAT QUEEN STREET, LINCOLN'S INN FIELDS,\nNO. 4, ROYAL EXCHANGE;\nAND BY ALL BOOKSELLERS.\n\n * * * * *\n\n1847.\n\n\n\n\nTO\n\nTHE ONE\n\nHOLY, CATHOLIC, AND APOSTOLIC\n\nCHURCH,\n\nAS A TRIBUTE OF VENERATION AND LOVE,\n\nTHIS WORK IS DEDICATED,\n\nBY HER DEVOTED SERVANT AND SON.\n\nNov. 25, 1840.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPREFACE.\n\nMembers of the Church of Rome, and members of the Church of England,\nhave too long entertained towards each other feelings of hostility.\nInstead of being drawn together as brethren by the cords of that one\nfaith which all Catholics hold dear, their sentiments of sympathy and\naffection have been absorbed by the abhorrence with which each body has\nregarded the characteristic tenets of its adversary; whilst the terms\n\"heretic\" on the one side, and \"idolater\" on the opposite, have rendered\nany attempt to bring about a free and friendly discussion of each\nother's views almost hopeless.\n\nEvery Christian must wish that such animosities, always ill-becoming the\nservants and children of the God of love, should cease for ever. Truth\nindeed must never be sacrificed to secure peace; nor must we be tempted\nby the seductiveness of a liberality, falsely so called, to soften down\nand make light of those differences which keep the Churches of England\nand Rome asunder. But surely the points at issue may be examined without\nexasperation and rancour; and the results of inquiries carried on with a\nsingleness of mind, in search only for the truth, may be offered on the\none side without insult or offence, and should be received and examined\nwithout contempt and scorn on the other.\n\nThe writer of this address is not one in whom early associations would\nfoster sentiments of evil will against members of the Church of Rome; or\nencourage any feeling, incompatible with regard and kindness, towards\nthe conscientious defenders of her creed. From his boyhood he has lived\non terms of friendly intercourse and intimacy with individuals among her\nlaity and of her priesthood. In his theological pursuits, he has often\nstudied her ritual, consulted her commentators, and perused the homilies\nof her divines; and, withal, he has mourned over her errors and\nmisdoings, as he would have sighed over the faults of a friend, who,\nwith many good qualities still to endear him, had unhappily swerved from\nthe straight path of rectitude and integrity.\n\nIn preparing these pages, the author is not conscious of having been\ninfluenced by any motive in the least degree inconsistent with\nsentiments of charity and respect; at all events, he would hope that no\nsingle expression may have escaped from his pen tending to hurt\nunnecessarily the feelings of any sincere Christian. He has been\nprompted by a hope that he may perhaps induce some individuals to\ninvestigate with candour, and freedom, and with a genuine desire of\narriving at the truth, the subjects here discussed; and that whilst\nsome, even of those who may have hitherto acquiesced in erroneous\ndoctrines and practices, may be convinced of their departure from\nChristian verity; others, if tempted to desert the straight path of\nprimitive worship, may be somewhat strengthened and armed by the views\npresented to them here, against the captivating allurements of religious\nerror.\n\nWhether the present work may, by the Divine favour, be made in some\ndegree instrumental in forwarding these results, or in effecting any\ngood, the author presumes not to anticipate; but he will hope for the\nbest. He believes that the honest pursuit of the truth, undertaken with\nan humble zeal for God's glory, and in dependence on his guidance and\nlight, is often made successful beyond our own sanguine expectations.\n\nWith these views the following pages are offered, as the result of an\ninquiry into the doctrine and practice of the Invocation of Saints and\nAngels, and of the Blessed Virgin Mary.\n\nTo prevent misconception as to the nature of this work, the author would\nobserve, that since the single subject here proposed to be investigated\nis, \"The Invocation of Saints and Angels and the Blessed Virgin Mary,\"\nhe has scrupulously avoided the discussion of many important and\ninteresting questions usually considered to be connected with it. He has\nnot, for example, discussed the practice of praying for the dead; he has\ninvestigated no theory relating to the soul's intermediate state between\nour dissolution and the final judgment; he has canvassed no opinion as\nto any power in the saints and the faithful departed to succour either\nby their prayers or by any other offices, those who are still on earth,\nand on their way to God. From these and such like topics he has\nabstained, not because he thinks lightly of their importance, nor\nbecause his own mind is perplexed by doubts concerning them; but because\nthe introduction of such points would tend to distract the thoughts from\nthe exclusive contemplation of the one distinct question to be\ninvestigated.\n\nHe is also induced to apprise the reader, that in his work, as he\noriginally prepared it, a far wider field, even on the single subject of\nthe present inquiry, was contemplated than this volume now embraces. His\nintention was to present an historical survey of the doctrine and\npractice of the invocation of Saints and Angels, and the Virgin, tracing\nit from the first intimation of any thing of the kind through its\nvarious progressive stages, till it had reached its widest prevalence in\nChristendom. When, however, he had arranged and filled up the results of\nthe inquiries which he made into the sentiments and habits of those\nlater writers of the Church, whose works he considered it necessary to\nexamine with this specific object in view, he found that the bulk of the\nwork would be swollen far beyond the limits which he had prescribed to\nhimself; he felt also that the protracted investigation would materially\ninterfere with the solution of that one independent question which he\ntrusts now is kept unmixed with any other. He has, consequently, in the\npresent address limited the range of his researches on the nature of\nPrimitive Christian Worship, to the writers of the Church Catholic who\nlived before the Nicene Council, or were members of it.\n\nIn one department, however, he has been under the necessity of making,\nto a certain extent, an exception to this rule. Having found no allusion\nto the doctrine of the Assumption of the Virgin, on which much of the\nreligious worship now paid to her seems to be founded, in any work\nwritten before the middle of the fifth century, he has been induced, in\nhis examination of the grounds on which that doctrine professes to be\nbuilt, to cite authors who flourished subsequently to the Nicene\nCouncil.\n\nThe author would also mention, that although in substance he has\nprepared this work for the examination of all Christians equally, and\ntrusts that it will be found not less interesting or profitable to the\nmembers of his own Church than to any other, yet he has throughout\nadopted the form of an address to his Roman Catholic countrymen. Such a\nmode of conveying his sentiments he considered to be less controversial,\nwhile the facts and the arguments would remain the same. His object is\nnot to condemn, but to convince: not to hold up to obloquy those who are\nin error, but, as far as he may be allowed, to diminish an evil where it\nalready exists, and to check its further prevalence.\n\n * * * * *\n\nCONTENTS.\n\nPART I.--CHAPTER I.\n\nIntroduction--The duty of examining the grounds of our Faith--Principles\nof conducting that examination--Errors to be avoided--Proposed plan of\nthe present work.\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n\u00a7 1. Evidence of Holy Scripture, how to be ascertained\n 2. Direct Evidence of the Old Testament\n 3. Evidence of the Old Testament, continued\n 4. ------ New Testament\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n\u00a7 1. Evidence of Primitive Writers\n 2. ------ Apostolic Fathers\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n\u00a7 1. Evidence of Justin Martyr\n See also Appendix\n 2. Evidence of Iren\u00e6us\n 3. ------ Clement of Alexandria\n 4. ------ Tertullian\n ------ Methodius\n 5. ------ Origen\n See also Appendix\n 6. Supplementary Section on Origen\n See also Appendix\n 7. Evidence of St. Cyprian\n See also Appendix\n 8. Evidence of Lactantius\n 9. ------ Eusebius\n See also Appendix\n 10. Apostolical Canons and Constitutions\n 11. Evidence of St. Athanasius\n See also Appendix\n\nPART II.--CHAPTER I.\n\nState of Worship at the time of the Reformation\n\u00a7 1. \"Hours of the Virgin\"\n 2. Service of Thomas Becket\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nCouncil of Trent\n See also Appendix\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nPresent Service in the Church of Rome\n\nPART III.\n\nWORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN MARY.\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n\u00a7 1. Introductory Remarks\n 2. Evidence of Holy Scripture\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nEvidence of Primitive Writers\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nAssumption of the Virgin Mary\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nCouncils of Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n\u00a7 1. Present authorized Worship of the Virgin\n 2. Worship of the Virgin, continued\n 3. Bonaventura\n 4. Biel, Damianus, Bernardinus de Bustis, Bernardinus Senensis,&c.\n See also Appendix\n5. Modern Works of Devotion\n See also Appendix\n\nCONCLUSION\n\n * * * * * {1}\n\n\n\n\nPART I.\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nTHE DUTY OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT.\n\n\nFellow Christians,\n\nWhilst I invite you to accompany me in a free and full investigation of\none of those tenets and practices which keep asunder the Roman and the\nAnglican Church, I am conscious in how thankless an undertaking I have\nengaged, and how unwelcome to some is the task in which I call upon you\nto join. Many among the celebrated doctors of the Roman Church have\ntaught their disciples to acquiesce in a view of their religious\nobligation widely different from the laborious and delicate office of\nascertaining for themselves the soundness of the principles in which\nthey have been brought up. It has been with many accredited teachers a\nfavourite maxim, that individuals will most acceptably fulfil their duty\nby abstaining {2} from active and personal inquiries into the\nfoundations of their faith; and by giving an implicit credence to\nwhatever the Roman Church pronounces to be the truth[1]. Should this\nbook fall into the hands of any who have adopted that maxim for the rule\nof their own conduct as believers, its pages will of course afford them\nno help; nor can they take any interest in our pursuit, or its results.\nWhilst, however, I am aware, that until the previous question (involving\nthe grounds on which the Church of Rome builds her claim to be the sole,\nexclusive, and infallible teacher of Christians in all the doctrines of\nreligion,) shall have been solved, many members of her body would throw\naside, as preposterous, any treatise which professed to review the\nsoundness of her instructions; I have been at the same time assured,\nthat with many of her communion the case is far otherwise; and that\ninstead of their being averse to all investigation, a calm, candid, and\nfriendly, but still a free and unreserved inquiry into the disputed\narticles of their creed, is an object of their sincere desire. On this\nground I trust some preliminary reflections upon the duty of proving all\nthings, with a view of holding the more fast {3} and sure what is good,\nmay be considered as neither superfluous nor out of place.\n\n [Footnote 1: It is sometimes curious to observe the language in\n which the teachers and doctors themselves profess their entire,\n unlimited, and implicit submission of all their doctrines, even\n in the most minute particulars, to the judgment and will of the\n authorities of Rome. Instances are of very frequent occurrence.\n Thus Joannes de Carthagena, a very voluminous writer of\n homilies, closes different parts of his work in these words,\n \"These and all mine I willingly subject to the judgment of the\n Catholic Roman Church, ready, if there be written any thing in\n any way in the very least point contrary to her doctrine, to\n correct, amend, erase, and utterly abolish it.\" Hom. Cath. De\n Sacris Arcanis Deipar\u00e6 et Josephi. Paris, 1615. page 921.]\n\nBut just as it would belong to another and a separate province to\nexamine, at such length as its importance demands, the claims of the\nChurch of Rome to be acknowledged as that universal interpreter of the\nword and will of God, from whose decisions there is no appeal; so would\nit evidently be incompatible with the nature of the present address, to\ndwell in any way corresponding with the magnitude and delicacy of the\nsubject, on the duty, the responsibility, and the privilege of private\njudgment; on the dangers to which an unchastened exercise of it may\nexpose both an individual, and the cause of Christian truth; or on the\nrules which sound wisdom and the analogy of faith may prescribe to us in\nthe government of ourselves with respect to it. My remarks, therefore,\non this subject will be as few and brief as I believe to be consistent\nwith an acknowledgment of the principles upon which this work has been\nconducted.\n\nThe foundation, then, on which, to be safe and beneficial, the duty of\nprivate judgment, as we maintain, must be built, is very far indeed\nremoved from that common and mischievous notion of it which would\nencourage us to draw immediate and crude deductions from Holy Scripture,\nsubject only to the control and the colouring of our own minds,\nresponsible for nothing further than our own consciousness of an honest\nintention. Whilst we claim a release from that degrading yoke which\nneither are we nor were our fathers able to bear, we deprecate for\nourselves and for our fellow-believers that licentiousness which in\ndoctrine and practice tempts a man to follow merely what is right in his\nown eyes, uninfluenced by the example, the precepts, {4} and the\nauthority of others, and owning no submissive allegiance to those laws\nwhich the wise and good have established for the benefit of the whole\nbody. The freedom which we ask for ourselves, and desire to see imparted\nto all, is a rational liberty, tending to the good, not operating to the\nbane of its possessors; ministering to the general welfare, not to\ndisorder and confusion. In the enjoyment of this liberty, or rather in\nthe discharge of the duties and trusts which this liberty brings with\nit, we feel ourselves under an obligation to examine the foundations of\nour faith, to the very best of our abilities, according to our\nopportunities, and with the most faithful use of all the means afforded\nto us by its divine Author and finisher. Among those means, whilst we\nregard the Holy Scriptures as paramount and supreme, we appeal to the\nwitness and mind of the Church as secondary and subsidiary; a witness\nnot at all competing with Scripture, never to be balanced against it;\nbut competing with our own less able and less pure apprehension of\nScripture. In ascertaining the testimony of this witness, we examine the\nsentiments and practice of the ancient teachers of the Church; not as\ninfallible guides, not as uniformly holding all of them the same\nopinions, but as most valuable helps in our examination of the evidence\nof the Church, who is, after all, our appointed instructor in the truths\nof the Gospel,--fallible in her individual members and branches, yet the\nsure witness and keeper of Holy Writ, and our safest guide on earth to\nthe mind and will of God. When we have once satisfied ourselves that a\ndoctrine is founded on Scripture, we receive it with implicit faith, and\nmaintain it as a sacred deposit, entrusted to our keeping, to be\ndelivered down whole and entire without our adding {5} thereto what to\nus may seem needful, or taking away what we may think superfluous.\n\nThe state of the Christian thus employed, in acting for himself in a\nwork peculiarly his own, is very far removed from the condition of one\nwho labours in bondage, without any sense of liberty and responsibility,\nunconscious of the dignity of a free and accountable agent, and\nsurrendering himself wholly to the control of a task-master. Equally is\nit distant from the conduct of one who indignantly casting off all\nregard for authority, and all deference to the opinions of others,\nboldly and proudly sets up his own will and pleasure as the only\nstandard to which he will submit. For the model which we would adopt, as\nmembers of the Church, in our pursuit of Christian truth, we find a\nparallel and analogous case in a well-principled and well-disciplined\nson, with his way of life before him, exercising a large and liberal\ndiscretion in the choice of his pursuits; not fettered by peremptory\npaternal mandates, but ever voluntarily referring to those principles of\nmoral obligation and of practical wisdom with which his mind has been\nimbued; shaping his course with modest diffidence in himself, and\nhabitual deference to others older and wiser than himself, yet acting\nwith the firmness and intrepidity of conscious rectitude of principle,\nand integrity of purpose; and under a constant sense of his\nresponsibility, as well for his principles as for his conduct.\n\nAgainst the cogency of these maxims various objections have been urged\nfrom time to time. We have been told, that the exercise of private\njudgment in matters of religion, tends to foster errors of every\ndiversity of character, and leads to heresy, scepticism, and infidelity:\nit is represented as rending the Church of Christ, and totally {6}\nsubverting Christian unity, and snapping asunder at once the bond of\npeace. So also it has been often maintained, that the same cause robs\nindividual Christians of that freedom from all disquietude and\nperplexity and anxious responsibility, that peace of mind, satisfaction,\nand content, which those personally enjoy, who surrender themselves\nimplicitly to a guide, whom they believe to be unerring and infallible.\n\nFor a moment let us pause to ascertain the soundness of such objections.\nAnd here anticipating, for argument's sake, the worst result, let us\nsuppose that the exercise of individual inquiry and judgment (such as\nthe best teachers in the Anglican Church are wont to inculcate) may lead\nin some cases even to professed infidelity; is it right and wise and\njustifiable to be driven by an abuse of God's gifts to denounce the\nlegitimate and faithful employment of them? What human faculty--which\namong the most precious of the Almighty's blessings is not liable to\nperversion? What unquestionable moral duty can be found, which has not\nbeen transformed by man's waywardness into an instrument of evil? Nay,\nwhat doctrine of our holy faith has not the wickedness or the folly of\nunworthy men employed as a cloke for unrighteousness, and a vehicle for\nblasphemy? But by a consciousness of this liability in all things human,\nmust we be tempted to suppress the truth? to disparage those moral\nduties? or to discountenance the cultivation of those gifts and\nfaculties? Rather would not sound philosophy and Christian wisdom\njointly enforce the necessity of improving the gifts zealously, of\ndischarging the moral obligation to the full, and of maintaining the\ndoctrine in all its integrity; but guarding withal, to the utmost of our\npower and watchfulness, against the abuses to which {7} any of these\nthings may be exposed? And we may trust in humble but assured\nconfidence, that as it is the duty of a rational being, alive to his own\nresponsibility, to inquire and judge for himself in things concerning\nthe soul, with the most faithful exercise of his abilities and means; so\nthe wise and merciful Ruler of our destinies will provide us with a sure\nway of escaping from all evils incident to the discharge of that duty,\nif, in reliance on his blessing, we honestly seek the truth, and\nperseveringly adhere to that way in which He will be our guide.\n\nIt is a question very generally and very reasonably entertained among\nus, whether the implicit submission and unreserved surrender of\nourselves to any human authority in matters of faith, (though whilst it\nlasts, it of course affords an effectual check to open scepticism,) does\nnot ultimately and in very deed prove a far more prolific source of\ndisguised infidelity. Doubts repressed as they arise, but not solved,\nsilenced but not satisfied, gradually accumulate in spite of all\nexternal precaution; and at length (like streams pent back by some\ntemporary barrier) break forth at once to an utter discarding of all\nauthority, and an irrecoverable rejection of the Christian faith. From\nunlimited acquiescence in a guide whom our associations have invested\nwith infallibility, the step is very short, and frequently taken, to\nentire apostasy and the renunciation of all belief.\n\nThe state of undisturbed tranquillity and repose in one, who has\ndivested himself of all responsibility in matters of religious belief\nand practice, enjoying an entire immunity from the anxious and painful\nlabour of trying for himself the purity and soundness of his faith, is\noften painted in strong contrast with the {8} lamentable condition of\nthose who are driven about by every wind of novelty. The condition of\nsuch a man may doubtless be far more enviable than theirs, who have no\nsettled fixed principles, and who wander from creed to creed, and from\nsect to sect, just as their fickle and roving minds suggest some\ntransitory preference. But the believer must not be driven by the evils\nof one extreme to take refuge in the opposite. The whirlpool may be the\nmore perilous, but the Christian mariner must avoid the rock also, or he\nwill equally make shipwreck of his faith. He must with all his skill,\nand all his might, keep to the middle course, shunning that presumptuous\nconfidence which scorns all authority, and boldly constitutes itself\nsole judge and legislator; but equally rescuing his mind from the\nthraldom which prostrates his reason, and paralyzes all the faculties of\nhis judgment in a matter of indefeasible and awful responsibility.\n\nHere, too, it is questioned, and not without cause, whether the\nsatisfaction and comfort so often represented in warm and fascinating\ncolours, be really a spiritual blessing; or whether it be not a\ndeception and fallacy, frequently ending in lamentable perplexity and\nconfusion; like guarantees in secular concerns, which as long as they\nmaintain unsuspected credit afford a most pleasing and happy security to\nany one who depends upon them; but which, when adverse fortune puts\ntheir responsibility to the test, may prove utterly worthless, and be\ntraced only by losses and disappointments. Such a blind reliance on\nauthority may doubtless be more easy and more free from care, than it is\nto gird up the loins of our mind, and engage in toilsome spiritual\nlabour. But with a view to our own ultimate safety, wisdom bids us look\nto our foundations in time, and assure ourselves {9} of them;\nadmonishing us that if they are unsound, the spiritual edifice reared\nupon them, however pleasing to the eye, or abounding in present\nenjoyments, will at length fall, and bury our hopes in its ruin.\n\nOn these and similar principles, we maintain that it well becomes\nChristians, when the soundness of their faith, and the rectitude of\ntheir acts of worship, are called in question, \"to prove all things, and\nhold fast that which is good.\" Thus, when the unbeliever charges us with\ncredulity in receiving as a divine revelation what he scornfully\nrejects, it behoves us all (every one to the extent of his means and\nopportunities) to possess ourselves of the accumulated evidences of our\nholy faith, so that we may be able to give to our own minds, and to\nthose who ask it of us, a reason for our hope. The result can assuredly\nbe only the comfort of a still more unshaken conviction. Thus, too, when\nthe misbeliever charges us with an undue and an unauthorized ascription\nof the Divine attributes to our Redeemer and to our Sanctifier, which he\nwould confine to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, exclusively of the\nEternal Son and the Blessed Spirit, it well becomes every Catholic\nChristian to assure himself of the evidence borne by the Scriptures to\nthe divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, together with the\ninseparable doctrines of redemption by the blood of Christ, and\nsanctification by the Spirit of grace; appealing also in this\ninvestigation to the tradition of the Church, and the testimony of her\nindividual members from the earliest times, as under God his surest and\nbest guides. In both these cases, I can say for myself that I have acted\nupon my own principles, and to the very utmost of my faculties have\nscrutinized the foundations {10} of my faith, and from each of those\ninquiries and researches I have risen with a satisfaction increased far\nbeyond my first anticipations. What I had taken up in my youth on\nauthority, I have been long assured of by a moral demonstration, which\nnothing can shake; and I cling to it with an affection, which, guarded\nby God's good providence, nothing in this world can dissolve or weaken.\n\nIt is to engage in a similar investigation that I now most earnestly but\naffectionately invite the members of the Church of Rome, in order to\nascertain for themselves the ground of their faith and practice in a\nmatter of vast moment, and which, with other points, involves the\nprinciple of separation between the Roman and Anglican branches of the\nuniversal Church. Were the subjects of minor importance, or what the\nancient writers were wont to call \"things indifferent,\" reason and\ncharity would prescribe that we should bear with each other, allowing a\nfree and large discretion in any body of Christians, and not severing\nourselves from them because we deemed our views preferable to theirs. In\nsuch a case we might well walk in the house of God as friends, without\nany interruption of the harmony which should exist between those who\nworship the true God with one heart and one mind, ever striving to keep\nthe unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. But when the points at\nissue are of so vast moment; when two persons agreeing in the general\nprinciples of belief in the Gospel and its chief characteristic\ndoctrines, yet find it impossible to join conscientiously in the same\nprayer, or the same acts of faith and worship, then the necessity is\nimperative on all who would not be parties to the utter breaking up of\nChristian unity, nor assist in propagating error, to make sure of their\n{11} foundations; and satisfy themselves by an honest inquiry and\nupright judgment, that the fault does not rest with them.\n\nSuch appear to me both the doctrine and the practice of the INVOCATION\nOF SAINTS. I have endeavoured to conjecture in what light this doctrine\nand this practice would have presented itself to my mind, after a full\nand free inquiry into the nature and history and circumstances of the\ncase, had I been brought up in communion with the Church of Rome; the\nquestion to be solved being, \"Could I continue in her communion?\" And\nthe result of my inquiry is, that I must have either discarded that\ndoctrine at once and for ever, or have joined with my lips and my knees\nin a worship which my reason condemned, and from which my heart shrunk.\nI must have either left the communion of Rome, or have continued to\noffer prayers to angels, and the spirits of departed mortals. Unless I\nhad resolved at once to shut my eyes upon my own personal\nresponsibility, and to surrender myself, mind and reason, soul and body,\nto the sovereign and undisputed control of others, never presuming to\ninquire into the foundation of what the Church of Rome taught; I must\nhave sought some purer portion of the Catholic Church, in which her\nmembers addressed the One Supreme Being exclusively, without\ncontemplating any other in the act of religious invocation. The\ndistinction invented in comparatively late years, of the three kinds of\nworship; one for God, the second for the Virgin Mary, the third for\nAngels and Saints;--the distinction, too, between praying to a saint to\ngive us good things, and praying to that saint to procure them for us at\nGod's hand, (or, as the distinction {12} is sometimes made, into prayer\ndirect, absolute, final, sovereign, confined to the Supreme Being on the\none hand; and prayer oblique, relative, transitory, subordinate, offered\nto saints on the other,) would have appeared to me the ingenious and\nfinely-drawn inventions of an advocate, not such a sound process of\nChristian simplicity as the mind could rest upon, with an undoubting\npersuasion that all was right.\n\nThis, however, involves the very point at issue; and I now invite you,\nmy Christian Brethren, to join with me, step by step, in a review of\nthose several positions which have left on my mind the indelible\nconviction that I could never have passed my life in communion with that\nChurch whose articles of fellowship maintained the duty of invoking\nsaints and angels; and whose public offices were inseparably interwoven\nwith addresses in prayer to other beings, than the Holy and undivided\nTrinity, the one only God.\n\nIn pursuing this inquiry I have thought the most convenient and\nsatisfactory division of our work would be--\n\nFirst, to ascertain what inference an unprejudiced study of the revealed\nwill of God would lead us to make; both in the times of the elder\ncovenant, when \"holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy\nGhost,\" and in that \"fulness of time\" when God spoke to us by his Son.\n\nSecondly, to examine into the belief and practice of the Primitive\nChurch, beginning with the inspired Apostles of our Lord.\n\nThirdly, to compare the results of those inquiries with the tenets and\npractice of the Church of Rome, with reference to three periods; the\nfirst immediately {13} preceding the Reformation; the second comprising\nthe Reformation, and the proceedings of the Council of Trent; the third\nembracing the belief and practice of the present day.\n\nIn this investigation, I purpose to reserve the worship of the Virgin\nMary, called by Roman Catholic writers \"Hyperdulia,\" and for various\nreasons the most important and interesting portion of the whole inquiry,\nfor separate and distinct examination; except only so far as our review\nof any of the primitive writers may occasion some incidental departure\nfrom that rule.\n\nMay God guide us to his truth! {14}\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nSECTION I.--THE EVIDENCE OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.\n\n\nHere, Christian Brethren, bear with me if I briefly, but freely, recall\nto our thoughts on this first entrance upon a review of the inspired\nvolume, the principles, and tone of mind, the temper and feelings, in a\nword, the frame both of the understanding and of the heart, with which\nwe should study the sacred pages, on whatever subject we would try all\nthings, and hold fast what should prove itself to be most in accordance\nwith the will of God. Whether we would regard the two great parts into\nwhich the Holy Scriptures are divided, as the Old and the New Covenants;\nor whether we would prefer to call them the Old and the New Testaments,\nit matters not. Although different ideas and associations are suggested\nby those different names, yet, under either view, the same honest and\ngood heart, the same patience of investigation, the same upright and\nunprejudiced judgment, the same exercise of our mental faculties, and\nthe same enlightened conscience, must be brought to the investigation.\nIn the one case we must endeavour to ascertain for ourselves the true\nintent and {15} meaning of the inspired word of God, on the very same\nprinciples with those on which we would interpret a covenant between\nourselves, and a person who had made it in full and unreserved reliance\non our integrity, and on our high sense of equity, justice, and honour.\nIn the other case we must bring the selfsame principles and feelings to\nbear on our inquiry, as we should apply in the interpretation of the\nlast will and testament of a kind father, who with implicit confidence\nin our uprightness and straightforward dealing and affectionate anxiety\nto fulfil his intentions to the very utmost, had assigned to us the\nsacred duty of executor or trustee.\n\nUnder the former supposition, our sincere solicitude would be to\nascertain the true intent and meaning of the contracting parties, not to\nseek out plausible excuses for departing from it; not to cull out and\nexaggerate beyond their simple and natural bearing, such expressions in\nthe deed of agreement, as might seem to justify us in adopting the view\nof the contract most agreeable to our present wishes and most favourable\nto our own interests. Rather it would be our fixed and hearty\nresolution, at whatever cost of time, or labour, or pecuniary sacrifice,\nor personal discomfort, to apply to the instrument our unbiassed powers\nof upright and honest interpretation.\n\nOr adopting the latter analogy, we should sincerely strive to ascertain\nthe chief and leading objects of our parent's will; what were his\nintentions generally; what ruling principles seemed to pervade his views\nin framing the testament; and in all cases of obscurity and doubt, in\nevery thing approaching an appearance of inconsistency, we should refer\nto that paramount principle as our test and guide. We should not for a\nmoment {16} suffer ourselves to be tempted to seek for ambiguous\nexpressions, which ingenuity might interpret so as to countenance our\ndeparture from the general drift of our parent's will, in cases where it\nwas at variance with our own inclination, and where we could have wished\nthat he had made another disposition of his property, or given to us a\ndifferent direction, or trusted us with larger discretion. Moreover, in\nany points of difficulty, we should apply for assistance, in solving our\ndoubts, to such persons as were most likely to have the power of judging\ncorrectly, and whose judgment would be least biassed by partiality and\nprejudice;--not to those whose credit was staked on the maintenance of\nthose principles which best accorded with our own inclination.\nEspecially if in either case some strong feeling should have been raised\nand spread abroad on any point, we should seek the judgment and counsel\nof those who had been familiar with the testator's intentions, or with\nthe views of the covenanting party, before such points had become matter\nof discussion.\n\nNow only let us act upon these principles in the interpretation of THAT\nCOVENANT in which the Almighty has vouchsafed to make Himself one of the\ncontracting parties, and man, the creature of his hand, is the other:\nonly let us act on these principles in the interpretation of THAT\nTESTAMENT of which the Saviour of the world is the Testator; and with\nGod's blessing on our labours (a blessing never denied to sincere prayer\nand faithful exertions) we need not fear the result. Any other principle\nof interpretation will only confirm us in our prejudices, and involve us\nmore inextricably in error. {17}\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\nSECTION II.--DIRECT EVIDENCE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.\n\n\nThe first step in our proposed inquiry is to ascertain what evidence on\nthe doctrine and practice of the Invocation of Saints and Angels can be\nfairly drawn from the revealed word of God in the Old Testament.\n\nNow, let us suppose that a person of a cultivated and enlightened mind,\nand of a sound and clear judgment, but hitherto a stranger to\nrevelation, were required to study the ancient Scriptures with the\nsingle view of ascertaining what one object more than any other,\nsubordinate to the great end of preparing the world for the advent of\nMessiah, seemed to be proposed by the wisdom of the Almighty in\nimparting to mankind that revelation; could he fix upon any other point\nas the one paramount and pervading principle with so much reason, as\nupon this, the preservation in the world of a practical belief in the\nperfect unity of God, and the fencing of his worship against the\nadmixture of any other, of whatever character or form; The announcement\nthat the Creator and Governor of the universe is the sole Giver of every\ntemporal and spiritual blessing; the one only Being to whom, his\nrational creatures on earth should pay any religious service whatever;\nthe one only Being to whom mortals must seek by prayer and invocation\nfor the supply of any of their wants? Through the entire volume the\ninquirer would find that the unity of God is announced in every variety\nof expression; and that the exclusive worship {18} of HIM alone is\ninsisted upon and guarded with the utmost jealousy by assurances, by\nthreats, and by promises, as the God who heareth prayer, alone to be\ncalled upon, alone to be invoked, alone to be adored. So to speak, he\nwould find that recourse was had to every expedient for the express\npurpose of protecting God's people from the fatal error of embracing in\ntheir worship any other being or name whatever; not reserving supreme\nadoration for the Supreme Being, and admitting a sort of secondary\nhonour and inferior mode of invocation to his exalted saints and\nservants; but banishing at once and for ever the most distant\napproximation towards religious honour--the veriest shadow of spiritual\ninvocation to any other Being than Jehovah HIMSELF ALONE.\n\nIn process of time, the heathen began to deify those mortals who had\nconferred signal benefits on the human race, or had distinguished\nthemselves by their power and skill above their fellow-countrymen. Male\nand female divinities were multiplying on every side. Together with\nJupiter, the fabled father of gods and men, worshipped under different\nnames among the various tribes, were associated those \"gods many and\nlords many,\" which ignorance and superstition, or policy and craft, had\ninvented; and which shared some a greater, some a less portion of\npopular veneration and religious worship. To the people of God, the\nworshippers of Jehovah, it was again and again most solemnly and awfully\ndenounced, that no such thing should be. \"Thou shalt worship the Lord\nthy God, and Him only shalt thou serve,\" is a mandate repeated in every\nvariety of language, and under every diversity of circumstance. In some\npassages, indeed, together with the most clear assurances, {19} that\nmankind need apply to no other dispenser of good, and can want no other\nas Saviour, advocate, or intercessor, that same truth is announced with\nsuch superabundance of repetition, that in the productions of any human\nwriter the style would be chargeable with tautology. In the Bible, this\nrepetition only the more forces upon the mind, and fixes there, that\nsame principle as an eternal verity never to be questioned; never to be\ndispensed with; never to be diluted or qualified; never to be invaded by\nany service, worship, prayer, invocation, or adoration of any other\nbeing whatever. Let us take, for example, the forty-fifth chapter of\nIsaiah, in which the principle is most strongly and clearly illustrated.\n\"I am the LORD, and there is none else: there is no God beside me; I\ngirded thee, though thou hast not known me; that they may know from the\nrising of the sun and from the west, that there is none beside me: I am\nthe Lord, and there is none else. They shall be ashamed, and also\nconfounded, all of them; they shall go to confusion together, that are\nmakers of idols. But Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an\neverlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world\nwithout end: I am the Lord, and there is none else. I said not unto the\nseed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain. They have no knowledge that set up\nthe wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.\nThere is no god beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none\nbeside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for\nI am God, and there is none else.\"\n\nBut it is needless to multiply these passages; and members of the Church\nof Rome will say, that they themselves acknowledge, as fully as members\nof the Anglican Church can do, that there is but one supreme {20} God\nand Lord, to whom alone they intend to offer the worship due to God; and\nthat the appeals which they offer by way of invocation to saints and\nangels for their services and intercession, do not militate against this\nprinciple. But here let us ask ourselves these few questions:--\n\nFirst, if it had been intended by the Almighty to forbid any religious\napplication, such as is now professedly the invocation of saints and\nangels, to any other being than Himself alone, what words could have\nbeen employed more stringently prohibitory?\n\nSecondly, had such an address to saints and angels, as the Church of\nRome now confessedly makes, been contemplated by our heavenly Lawgiver\nas an exception to the general rule, would not some saving clause, some\nexpressions indicative of such an intended exception, have been\ndiscovered in some page or other of his revealed will?\n\nThirdly, if such an appeal to the angels of heaven, or to the spirits of\nthe just in heaven, had been sanctioned under the elder covenant, would\nnot some example, some solitary instance, have been recorded of a\nfaithful servant of Jehovah offering such a prayer with the Divine\napprobation?\n\nLastly, when such strong and repeated declarations and injunctions\ninterspersed through the entire volume of the Old Testament,\nunequivocally show the will of God to be, that no other object of\nreligious worship should have place in the heart or on the tongue of his\nown true sons and daughters, can it become a faithful child of our\nHeavenly Father to be seeking for excuses and palliations, and to invent\ndistinctions between one kind of worship and another?\n\nGod Himself includes all in one universal prohibitory {21} mandate,\n\"Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.\" So\nfar from according with those general rules for the interpretation of\nthe revealed will of God, which we have already stated, and from which,\nin the abstract, probably few would dissent, an anxiety to force the\nword of God into at least an acquiescence in the invocation of saints\nand angels, indicates a disposition to comply with his injunctions,\nwherever they seem to clash with our own view, only so far as we cannot\navoid compliance; and to seek how we may with any show of propriety\nevade the spirit of those commands. Instead of that full, free, and\nunstinted submission of our own inclinations and propensities to the\nAlmighty's will wherever we can discover it, which those entertain whom\nthe Lord seeketh to worship Him; to look for exceptions and to act upon\nthem, bears upon it the stamp of a reserved and grudging service. After\nso many positive warnings, enactments, and denunciations, against\nseeking by prayer the aid of any other being whatever, surely a positive\ncommand would have been absolutely necessary to justify a mortal man in\npreferring any prayer to any being, saint, angel, or archangel, save\nonly the Supreme Deity alone. Instead of any such command or even\npermission appearing, not one single word occurs, from the first\nsyllable in the Book of Genesis to the last of the prophet Malachi,\nwhich could even by implication be brought to countenance the practice\nof approaching any created being in prayer.\n\nBut let us now look to the examples on this subject afforded in the Old\nTestament. Many, very many a prayer is recorded of holy men, of inspired\nmen, of men, to whose holiness and integrity and acceptance {22} the\nHoly Spirit bears witness; yet among these prayers there is not found\none invocation addressed to saint or angel. I will not here anticipate\nthe observations which it will be necessary to make in consequence of\nthe extraordinary argument which has been devised, to account for the\nabsence of invocations to saints before the resurrection of Christ,\nnamely, that before that event the saints were not admitted into heaven.\nAlthough pressed forward with such unhesitating confidence in its\nvalidity, that argument is so singular in its nature, and so important\nin its consequences, and withal so utterly groundless, as to call for a\nseparate examination, on which we will shortly enter: meanwhile, we are\nnow inquiring into the matter of fact.\n\nThe whole Book of Psalms is a manual of devotion, consisting\nalternately, or rather intermixedly, of prayers and praises, composed\nsome by Moses, some by other inspired Israelites of less note, but the\ngreater part by David himself; and what is the force and tendency of\ntheir example? Words are spoken in collaudation of \"Moses and Aaron\namong the saints of the Lord,\" and of \"Samuel among such as called upon\nhis name;\" and mention is made with becoming reverence of the holy\nangels; but not one word ever falls from the pen of the Psalmist,\naddressed, by way of invocation, to saint or angel. In the Roman Ritual\nsupplication is made to Abel and Abraham as well as to Michael and all\nangels. If it is now lawful, if it is now the duty of the worshippers of\nthe true God to seek his aid through the mediation of those holy men,\ncan we avoid asking, Why the inspired patriarchs did not appeal to Abel\nfor his mediation? Why did not the inspired David invoke the father of\nthe faithful to intercede for him with God? If the departed spirits {23}\nof faithful men may be safely addressed in prayer; if those who in their\nlifetime have, to their fellow-mortals, (who can judge only from outward\nactions, and cannot penetrate the heart,) appeared accepted servants and\nhonoured saints of our Creator, may now be invoked by an act of\nreligious supplication either to grant us aid, or to intercede with God\nfor aid in our behalf, why did not men whom God declared to be partakers\nof his Spirit of truth, offer the same supplication to those departed\nspirits, who, before and after their decease, had this testimony from\nOmniscience itself, that they pleased God? Why is no intimation given in\nthe later books of the Old Testament that such supplications were\noffered to Moses, or Aaron, or Abraham, or Noah? When wrath was gone out\nfrom the presence of the Lord, and the plague was begun among the\npeople, Aaron took a censer in his hand, and stood between the living\nand the dead, and the plague was stayed. If the soul of Aaron was\ntherefore to be regarded as a spirit influential with God, one whose\nintercession could avail, one who ought to be approached in prayer, were\nit only for his intercession, could a stronger motive be conceived for\nsuggesting that invocation, than David must have felt, when the\npestilence was destroying its thousands around him, and all his glory\nand strength, and his very life too, were threatened by its resistless\nravages? But no! neither Abel, nor Abraham, nor Moses, nor Aaron, must\nbe petitioned to intercede with God, and to pray that God would stay his\nhand. To God and God alone, for his own mercy's sake, must his afflicted\nservant turn in supplication. We find among his prayers no \"Holy\nAbraham, pray for us,\"--\"Holy Abel, pray for us.\" His own Psalm of\nthanksgiving describes full well the object and the nature of his {24}\nprayer: \"When the waves of death compassed me, the floods of ungodly men\nmade me afraid, the sorrows of hell compassed me about, the snares of\ndeath prevented me; in my distress I called upon the Lord, and cried to\nmy God; and He did hear my voice out of his temple, and my cry did enter\ninto his ears.\" [2 Sam. (2 Kings Vulg.) xxii. 5. or Ps. xviii.] Abraham,\nwhen on earth, prayed God to spare the offending-people; but he invoked\nneither Noah, nor Abel, nor any of the faithful departed, to join their\nintercessions with his own. Isaac prayed to God for his son Jacob, but\nhe did not ask the mediation of his father Abraham in his behalf; and\nwhen Jacob in his turn supplicated an especial blessing upon his\ngrandsons Ephraim and Manasseh, though he called with gratitude to his\nmind, and expressed with his tongue, the devotedness both of Abraham and\nof Isaac to the Almighty, yet we do not find him appealing to them, or\ninvoking their intercession with Jehovah.\n\nWhen the conscience-struck Israelites felt that they had exposed\nthemselves to the wrath of Almighty God, whose sovereign power, put\nforth at the prayer of Samuel, they then witnessed, distrusting the\nefficacy of their own supplication, and confiding in the intercession of\nthat man of God, they implored him to intercede for them; and Samuel\nemphatically responded to their appeal, with an assurance of his\nearnestly undertaking to plead their cause with heaven: \"And all the\npeople said unto Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God,\nthat we die not. And Samuel said unto the people, Fear not.... The Lord\nwill not forsake his people, for his great name's {25} sake....\nMoreover, God forbid that I should sin against the Lord in ceasing to\npray for you.\" [1 Sam. (1 Kings Vulg.) xii. 19.] Samuel is one whom the\nHoly Spirit numbers among those \"who called upon God's name;\" and when\nSamuel died, all Israel gathered together to lament and to bury\nhim,--but we read of no petition being offered to him to carry on the\nsame intercessory office, when he was once removed from them. As long as\nhe was entabernacled in the flesh and sojourned on earth with his\nbrethren, they besought him to pray for them, to intercede with their\nGod and his God for blessings at his hand, (just as among ourselves one\nChristian asks another to pray for him,) but when Samuel's body had been\nburied in peace, and his soul had returned to God who gave it, the Bible\nnever records any further application to him; we no where read, \"Holy\nSamuel, pray for us.\"\n\nAgain, what announcement could God Himself make more expressive of his\nacceptance of the persons of any, than He actually and repeatedly made\nto Moses with regard to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? How could He more\nclearly intimate that if the spirits of the faithful departed could\nexercise intercessory or mediatorial influence with Him, those three\nholy patriarchs would possess such power above all others who had ever\nlived on the earth? \"I am the God of your fathers; the God of Abraham,\nthe God of Isaac, the God of Jacob: and Moses hid his face, for he was\nafraid to look upon God.\" \"Thus shalt thou say unto the children of\nIsrael, The God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac,\nthe God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you. This is my name for ever, and\nthis is my memorial throughout all generations.\" [Exod. iii. 6. 15.] Did\nMoses in his alarm and dread, when he was afraid {26} to look upon God,\ncall upon those holy and accepted servants to aid him in his perplexity,\nand intercede for him and his people with the awful Eternal Being on\nwhose majesty he dared not to look? Did he teach his people to invoke\nAbraham? That was far from him. When Moses, that saint of the Lord, was\nhimself called hence and was buried, (though no mortal man was allowed\nto know the place of his sepulture,) did the surviving faithful pray to\nhim for his help and intercession with God? He had wrought so many and\ngreat miracles as never had been before witnessed on earth; whilst in\nthe tabernacle of the flesh he had talked with God as a man talketh with\nhis friend; and yet the sacred page records no invocation ever breathed\nto his departed spirit. The same is the result of our inquiry\nthroughout.\n\nI will specify only one more example--Hezekiah, who \"trusted in the Lord\nGod of Israel, and clave to the Lord, and departed not from following\nhim, but kept his commandments,\" when he and his people were in great\nperil, addressed his prayer only to God. He offered no invocation to\nholy David to intercede with the Almighty for his own Jerusalem; he made\nhis supplication directly and exclusively to Jehovah; and, yet, the very\nanswer made to that prayer would surely have seemed to justify Hezekiah\nin seeking holy David's mediation, if prayer for the intercession of any\ndeparted mortal could ever have been sanctioned by Heaven: \"Thus saith\nthe Lord, the God of David thy father; I have heard thy prayer, I have\nseen thy tears; _I_ will heal thee. I will save this city for mine own\nsake, and for my servant David's sake.\" [2 Kings (Vulg. 4 Kings) xix.\n15. and xx. 6.] Of what saint in the calendar was ever such a thing as\nthis spoken? {27}\n\nI have already intimated my intention of referring, with somewhat more\nthan a cursory remark, to the position assumed, and the argument built\nupon it by writers in communion with Rome, for the purpose of nullifying\nor escaping from the evidence borne by the examples of the Old Testament\nagainst the invocation of saints. The writers to whom I refer, with\nBellarmin at their head, openly confess that the pages of the Old\nTestament afford no instance of invocation being offered to the spirits\nof departed mortals; and the reason which they allege is this, No one\ncan be invoked who is not admitted to the presence of God in heaven; but\nbefore Christ went down to hell[2] and released the spirits from prison,\nno mortal was admitted into heaven; consequently, before the\nresurrection of Christ the spirit of no mortal was invoked. The\nfollowing are the words of Bellarmin at the close of the preface to his\n\"Church Triumphant:\"--\"The spirits of the patriarchs and prophets before\nthe coming of Christ were for this reason not worshipped and invoked, as\nwe now worship and invoke the Apostles and martyrs, because they were\nyet shut up and detained in prisons below[3].\" Again, he says, \"Because\nbefore {28} the coming of Christ the saints who died did not enter\nheaven and saw not God, nor could ordinarily know the prayers of\nsuppliants, therefore, it was not customary in the Old Testament to say,\n'Holy Abraham, pray for me,' &c.; but the men of that time prayed to God\nonly, and alleged the merits of the saints who had already departed,\nthat their own prayers might be aided by them.\"\n\n [Footnote 2: The word Hell, signifying, in Saxon, a\n hidden-place, altogether corresponding in its etymology with\n \"hades,\" is now used for the place of torment called by the\n Hebrews \"Gehennah;\" and we must perhaps regret that the same\n Saxon word is employed to signify also the unseen region of\n departed spirits. This circumstance has been the source of much\n difficulty and confusion.]\n\n [Footnote 3: \"Nam idcirco ante Christi adventum non ita\n colebantur neque invocabantur spiritus patriarcharum atque\n prophetarum, quemadmodum nunc Apostolos et martyres colimus et\n invocamus, quod illi adhuc infernis carceribus clausi\n detinebantur.\"--Ingolstadii, 1601. vol. ii. p. 833. \"The last\n edition, enlarged and corrected by the Author.\"]\n\nNow let us inquire into this statement thus broadly made, and ascertain\nfor ourselves whether the point assumed and the argument built upon it\ncan stand the test of examination. Is this argument such as ought to\nsatisfy the mind of one, who would humbly but honestly follow the\napostolic rule, \"Prove all things: hold fast that which is good?\" Is\nthis such an exposition as that the reason of a cultivated mind, and the\nfaith of an enlightened Christian, can acquiesce in it? Let it be\nexamined neither with prejudice in its favour, nor with any undue\nsuspicion of its soundness, but with candour and impartiality\nthroughout.\n\nIt is not necessary to dwell at any length on the inconsistencies and\nperplexities involved in this assumed abstract theory with regard to the\nsouls of the faithful who died before the resurrection of Christ, and\nwhich require to be cleared away before its advocates can reasonably\nexpect to obtain for it any general acceptance among thinking men. I do\nnot wish to contravene the theory, far less to substitute another in its\nstead. On the contrary, I am fully content, in company with some of the\nmost valuable among Roman Catholic writers, following the example of\nAugustin [Aug. De Pecc. Orig. c. 23. tom. vii. p. 338.--Quoted by De\nSacy. 2 Kings (Vulg. 4 Kings) ii.], to leave the subject where Scripture\nhas left it. To the arguments {29} alleged, I would wish to reply\nindependently of any opinion, as a matter of Christian belief, with\nregard to the place, the condition, and the circumstances of the souls\nof the patriarchs and prophets before our blessed Lord's resurrection.\nIt may, nevertheless, materially facilitate an inquiry into the\nsoundness of the reasons alleged for the total absence of invocation to\nthose souls, if we briefly contemplate some of the difficulties which\nsurround this novel theory. At all events, such a process will incline\nus to abstain from bold assumptions on a point upon which the Almighty\nhas been pleased to throw so little light in his Holy Word, or at least\navoid all severity of condemnation towards those who may differ from our\nviews.\n\nIt is very easy to assert, that all the souls of the faithful departed\nwere kept in the prison-house of Hades, and to allege in its behalf an\nobscure passage of St. Peter, to which many of the most learned and\nunprejudiced Christian teachers assign a meaning totally unconnected\nwith the subject of departed spirits. But surely the case of Enoch's\ntranslation from this life to heaven, making, as it has been beautifully\nexpressed, but one step from earth to glory, which St. Paul, in his\nEpistle to the Hebrews, cites with a most important comment of his own,\nrequires to be well and patiently weighed. He was taken from the earth\nby an immediate act of Providence, that he should not see death; and\nbefore his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.\nSurely the case of Elijah too, when we would ascertain the soundness of\nthis theory, must not be dismissed summarily from our thoughts, of whom\nthe book of eternal truth declares, that Jehovah took him {30} in a\nwhirlwind into heaven; his ascent being made visible to mortal eyes, as\nwas afterwards the ascension of the blessed Saviour Himself. Indeed the\naccounts of Elijah's translation, and of our Lord's ascension, whether\nin the Septuagint and Greek Testament, the Vulgate, or our own\nauthorized version, present a similarity of expression very striking and\nremarkable.\n\nOn this subject we are strongly reminded, first, with what care and\ncandour and patience the language of Holy Scripture should be weighed,\nwhich so positively declares, that Moses and Elijah, both in glory,\nappeared visibly to the Apostles at the transfiguration of our blessed\nSaviour, and conversed with Him on the holy mount: \"And behold there\ntalked with Him two men, who were Moses and Elias, who appeared in glory\n(in majesty, as the Vulgate renders the word), and spake of his decease\nwhich He should accomplish at Jerusalem;\" [Luke ix. 30.]--and, secondly,\nhow unwise it is to dogmatize on such subjects beyond the plain\ndeclaration of the sacred narrative. Moreover, how very unsatisfactory\nis the theory which we are examining as to the state of the souls of the\nfaithful who died before Christ, even the words of Jerome himself prove,\nwho, commenting on the transfiguration of the blessed Jesus, is\nunhappily led to represent the Almighty as having summoned Elijah to\ndescend from heaven, and Moses to ascend from Hades, to meet our Lord in\nthe Mount[4].\n\n [Footnote 4: \"Elia inde descendente quo conscenderat, et Moyse\n ab inferis resurgente.\"--Hieron. in Matt. xvii. 1. Paris, 1706.\n vol. iv. p. 77.]\n\nStrange and startling as is this sentiment of Jerome, it is, you will\nobserve, utterly irreconcileable with the theory, that the reason why\nthe ancient Church did not {31} pray to the saints departed, was because\nthey were not yet in heaven.\n\nOn this point, among Roman Catholic writers themselves, there prevails a\nvery great diversity of opinion, arising probably from the difficulty\nwhich they have experienced in their endeavours to make all facts and\ndoctrines square with the present tenets and practices of their\nChurch[5]. Thus, whilst some maintain that Elijah was translated to the\nterrestrial paradise in which Adam had been placed, not enjoying the\nimmediate divine presence; others cite the passage as justifying the\nbelief that the saints departed pray for us[6]. But not only are\ndifferent authors at variance with each other on very many points here;\nthe same writer in his zeal is betrayed into great and palpable\ninconsistency. Bellarmin, anxious to enlist the account given by our\nLord of the rich man and Lazarus, to countenance the invocation of\nsaints by the example of the rich man appealing to Abraham, maintains\nthat section of Holy Writ to be not a parable, but a true history of a\nmatter of fact which took place between two real individuals; and of his\nassertion he adduces this proof, that \"the Church worships that Lazarus\nas verily a holy man[7];\" and yet he denies that any of the holy men\nwere in heaven before the {32} death of Christ. Either Abraham was in\nheaven in the presence of God, or not; if he was in heaven, why did not\nhis descendants invoke his aid? if he was not in heaven, the whole\nargument drawn from the rich man's supplication falls to the ground.\n\n [Footnote 5: See De Sacy on 4 Kings i. 1. See also Estius, 1629.\n p. 168. Pope Gregory's Exposition; Rome, 1553. p. 99. Stephen's\n Bible in loc. 1557, &c. The Vulgate ed. Antwerp, 1624, cites a\n note, \"Thy prayers are stronger than chariots and horsemen.\"]\n\n [Footnote 6: Gaspar Sanctius, Antwerp, 1624. p. 1360, considers\n the fable not improbable, that Elijah, living in the terrestrial\n paradise, wrote there the letters to Joram (mentioned 2 Chron.\n xxi. 12), and sent them by angels.]\n\n [Footnote 7: Colit Lazarum ilium ut vere sanctum\n hominem.--Bellarm. De Ecd. Triumph, p. 864.]\n\nAnother very extraordinary inconsistency, arising from the same\nsolicitude, forces itself upon our notice, when the same author urges a\npassage in Leviticus [Levit. xix. 13.] to prove, that the saints are now\nadmitted at once into the enjoyment of the presence of God in heaven,\nwithout waiting for the day of final judgment. [Bell vol. ii. p. 865.]\n\"God (such are his words) commanded it to be written, 'The work of the\nhireling shall not remain with thee till the morning;' therefore, unless\nGod would appear inconsistent with Himself, He will not keep back the\nreward of his saints to the end of the world.\" How strange, that in the\nsame treatise [Ibid. p. 833.] this author should expressly maintain,\nthat the reward of Abel and Abraham, and the holy prophet and lawgiver\nMoses, the very man who was commanded to write that law in Leviticus,\nwas kept back,--the last for a longer period than a thousand years; the\nfirst well nigh four thousand years.\n\nI mention these particulars merely to point out how very unsatisfactory\nand unsound is the attempted solution of the difficulties which surround\non every side the theory of those who maintain, that the reason why we\nhave no instance of the righteous departed being invoked in the times of\nthe elder covenant is, that they were not as yet admitted into heaven,\nbut were kept in prison till the resurrection of Christ. I would also\nobserve, even at the risk {33} of repetition, that I am here not\nmaintaining any opinion as to the appointed abiding-place, the\ncondition, and circumstances, the powers of consciousness, volition or\nenjoyment of the departed, before Christ's resurrection; on the\ncontrary, I am rather urging the consideration of the great and serious\ncaution requisite before we espouse, as an article of faith, any opinion\nwhich rests on so questionable a foundation, and which involves such\ninterminable difficulties.\n\nBut while we need not dwell longer on this immediate point, yet there\nare two considerations which appear to be altogether decisive as to the\nevidence borne against the Invocation of Saints by the writers of the\nOld Testament. If the spirits of the saints departed were not invoked\nbefore the resurrection of Christ, purely because they were not then\nadmitted into heaven; the first consideration I would suggest is this:\nWhy did the faithful and inspired servants of Jehovah not invoke the\nangels and archangels who were in heaven? The second is this: Why did\nnot the inspired Apostles and faithful disciples of our Lord invoke the\nspirits of those saints after his resurrection; that is (according to\nthe theory before us), after those saints had been taken by Christ with\nhim into his Father's presence? I wish not to anticipate here our\ninquiry into the testimony borne by the writers of the New Testament as\nto the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church in this particular; and\nI will only add, that whatever be the cause of the absence from the Old\nTestament of all worship and invocation of Abel and Abraham, whom the\nRoman Church now invokes, the alleged reason that it was because they\nwere not in heaven till after Christ's resurrection, is utterly set\naside by the conduct of the Apostles and disciples of our Lord recorded\nin the New {34} Testament, for more than half a century after his return\nto his Father's glory.\n\nThis, however, seems to be the proper place for entertaining the first\nconsideration, Why did not the holy men of old, under the elder\ncovenant, invoke angels and archangels, as the Roman Church now does?\nWriters, indeed, who have declared themselves the defenders of that\ndoctrine and practice, refer us to passages, which they cite, as\naffording examples of the worship of angels; and we will not knowingly\nallow any one of those sections of Holy Writ to remain unexamined. We\nmust first endeavour to ascertain the testimony borne by the books of\nthe Old Testament: and that presents to us such a body of evidence as\ngreatly increases our surprise at the perseverance with which the\ninvocation of angels has been maintained by any community of men\nacknowledging the inspiration of the sacred volume.\n\nThe inspired writers of the Old Testament, and those to whom through\ntheir mouth and pen the Divine word was addressed, were as fully as\nourselves acquainted with the existence of angelic beings. They were\naware of the station of those angels in the court of heaven, of their\npower as God's ambassadors, and agents for good. Either their own eyes\nhad seen the mighty operations of God by the hands of those celestial\nmessengers; or their ears had heard their fathers tell what HE had done\nby their instrumentality in times of old. Why then did not God's chosen\npeople offer to the angels the same worship and invocation which the\nChurch of Rome now addresses to them in common with the patriarchs and\nprophets of the elder covenant, and with saints and martyrs under the\nnew? In the condition of the holy angels no one ever suggests that {35}\nany change, affecting the argument, has taken place since the time when\nman was created and made. And as the angels of heaven were in themselves\nthe same, equally in the presence of God, and equally able to succour\nmen through that long space of four thousand years, which intervened\nbetween Adam's creation and the birth of HIM who was Son of Adam and Son\nof God, so was man in the same dependent state, needing the guidance and\nprotection of a power above his own. Nay, surely, if there was in man\nany difference affecting the argument, it would all add weight to the\nreason against the invocation of angels by Christians. The Israelites of\nold had no clear knowledge, as we have, of one great Mediator, who is\never making intercession for us; and yet they sought not the mediation\nand intercession and good offices of those superhuman beings, of whose\nexistence and power, and employment in works of blessing to man, they\nhad no doubt[8]. This is a point of great importance to our argument,\nand I will refer to a few passages in support of it.\n\n [Footnote 8: A small section indeed of their countrymen in our\n Saviour's time denied the reality of a future state, and the\n existence of angels and spirits; but the sect was of then recent\n origin, and the overwhelming majority believed as their fathers\n had believed.]\n\nWhen David, who had, as we know [1 Chron. xxi. 16.], visible\ndemonstration afforded him of the existence and ministration of the\nangels, called upon them to unite with his own soul, and with all the\nworks of creation through all places of God's dominion, in praising\ntheir merciful, glorious, and powerful Creator, he thus conveys to us\nthe exalted ideas with which he had been filled of their nature, their\nexcellence, and their ministration. \"The Lord hath prepared his throne\nin the heavens, and his {36} kingdom ruleth over all: Bless the Lord, ye\nhis angels that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening\nunto the voice of his word. Bless ye the Lord, all ye his hosts, ye\nministers of his that do his pleasure.\" [Ps. ciii. 19-21.] David knew\nmoreover that one of the offices, in the execution of which the angels\ndo God's pleasure, is that of succouring and defending us on earth. For\nexample, in one of the psalms used by the Church of Rome at complin, and\nwith the rest repeated in the Church of England, and prophetic of the\nRedeemer, David, to whom this psalm is probably to be ascribed, declares\nof the man who had made the Most High his refuge and strength, \"There\nshall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy\ndwelling; for he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in\nall thy ways; they shall bear thee up in their hands lest thou dash thy\nfoot against a stone.\" [Ps. xci. 10-12.] And again, with exquisitely\nbeautiful imagery, he represents those same blessed servants of heaven\nas an army, as a host of God's spiritual soldiers keeping watch and ward\nover the poorest of the children of men, who would take refuge in his\nmercy: \"The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him,\nand delivereth them[9].\" And yet David, the prophet of the Lord, never\naddresses to these beings, high and glorious though they are, one single\ninvocation: he neither asks them to assist him, nor to pray for him, nor\nto pray with him in his behalf.\n\n [Footnote 9: Ps. xxxiv. 7. (Vulg. xxxiii. 8.) \"Immittet angelus\n Domini in circuitu timentium eum, et eripiet eos.\" In the\n Vulgate the beauty of the figure is lost; which, however, Roman\n Catholic writers restore in their comments. Basil makes a\n beautiful use of the metaphor. See De Sacy in loc.] {37}\n\nIsaiah was admitted by the Holy Spirit to witness in the fulness of its\nglory the court and the throne of heaven; and he heard the voices of the\nseraphim proclaiming their Maker's praise; he experienced also\npersonally the effect of their ministration, when one of them said, \"Lo,\nthis hath touched thy lips, and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy\nsin purged.\" [Isaiah vi. 7.] Still, though Isaiah must have regarded\nthis angel as his benefactor under God, yet neither to this seraph, nor\nto any of the host of heaven, does he offer one prayer for their good\noffices, even by their intercession. He ever ascribes all to God alone;\nand never joins any other name with His either in supplication or in\npraise. Let us also take the case of Daniel. He acknowledges not only\nthat the Lord's omnipotent hand had rescued him from the jaws of the\nlions, but that the deliverance was brought about by the ministration of\nan angel. \"My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths,\nthat they have not hurt me.\" [Dan. vi. 22.] Yet when we look through\nDaniel's prayers, we find no allusion to any of the highest angels. He\nhad seen Gabriel before his prayer; he had heard the voice and felt the\nhand of that heavenly messenger who was commissioned to reveal to him\nwhat should be done in the latter end; and immediately after the\noffering of his prayer, the same Gabriel announces himself as one who\nwas come forth to give the prophet skill and understanding. And yet\nneither towards Gabriel, nor any other of the angels of God, does one\nword of invocation fall from the lips of Daniel. In the supplications of\nthat holy, intrepid, and blessed servant and child of God, we search in\nvain for any thing approaching in spirit to the invocation, \"Sancte\nGabriel, ora pro nobis.\" {38}\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\nSECTION III.--EVIDENCE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT (continued)\n\n\nWe must now briefly refer to those passages, by which Roman Catholic\nwriters have endeavoured to maintain that religious adoration was paid\nto angels by the faithful sons of God. The two principal instances cited\nare, first, the case of Abraham bowing down before three men, whom he\nrecognizes as messengers from heaven; and, secondly, the words of Jacob\nwhen he gave his benediction to his grandsons.\n\nWith regard to the first instance, how very far the prostration of\nAbraham was in itself from implying an act of religious worship, being\nas it was the ordinary mode of paying respect to a fellow mortal, is\nevident from the very words of Scripture. The Hebrew word, which we\ntranslate by \"bowed himself,\" and which the Vulgate unhappily renders\n\"adoravit\" (\"adored\"), is, letter for letter, the same in the case of\nAbraham saluting his three heavenly visitors, and in the case of Jacob\nsaluting his brother Esau. The parallelism of the two passages is very\nstriking.\n\nGEN. xviii. 2. GEN. xxxiii. 1 and 3.\n\nAnd he [Abraham] lift up his And Jacob lifted up his eyes,\neyes, and lo! three men stood and looked, and behold! Esau\nby him; and when he saw them, came ... And he passed over, and\nhe ran to meet them from the _bowed himself to the ground_ seven\ntent door; and _bowed himself_ times until he came near to his\n_toward the ground_. brother. {39}\n\nBy rendering the Hebrew word[10], which means to \"bow or bend oneself,\"\nby the word \"adoravit,\" which is literally \"to pray to,\" the Latin\nVulgate has laid the foundation for much unsound and misleading\ncriticism. But suppose the word had meant, what it does not mean, an act\nof solemn religious worship; and let it be granted (as I am not only\nready to grant, but prepared to maintain) that Abraham paid religious\nadoration at that time, what inference can fairly and honestly be drawn\nfrom that circumstance in favour of the invocation of angels? The\nancient writers of the Christian Church, and those whom the Church of\nRome habitually holds in great respect, are full and clear in\nmaintaining that the person whom Abraham then addressed, was no created\nbeing, neither angel nor seraph; but the Angel of the Covenant; the\nWord, the eternal Son of God, Himself God[11]. Before the visible and\nmiraculous presence of the God of heaven, who for his own glory and in\ncarrying on the work of man's salvation, sometimes deigned so to reveal\nHimself, the patriarchs of old bowed themselves to the earth. Can this,\nwith any shadow of {40} reason, be employed to sanction the invocation\nof Michael and all the myriads of angels who fill the court of heaven?\n\n [Footnote 10: Not only is the Hebrew word precisely the same,\n letter for letter, and point for point, [Hebrew: shahah], but\n the Septuagint in each case employs the same, [Greek:\n prosekunaesen]; and the Vulgate in each case renders it by the\n same word, \"adoravit.\" The Roman Catholic commentator De Sacy\n renders it in each case, \"se prosternavit,\" which corresponds\n exactly with our English version. The Douay Bible in each case\n renders it \"adored.\"]\n\n [Footnote 11: Many early Christian writers may be cited to the\n same purpose: it is enough, however, to refer to Justin Martyr\n and to Athanasius; who are very full and elaborate in\n maintaining, that the angel here mentioned was no created being,\n but was the Angel of the Covenant, God, in the fulness of time\n manifested in the flesh. The passage from Athanasius will be\n quoted at some length, when we come to examine that father's\n testimony. For Justin Martyr, see Dial. cum Tryph. ch. 56, &c.\n p. 150, &c. (Paris, 1742.)]\n\nThe only other instance to which it will be necessary to call your\nattention, occurs in the forty-eighth chapter of Genesis. The passage,\nhowever, is so palpably and on the very face of it inapplicable, that\nits examination needs not detain us long. \"And he [Jacob] blessed\nJoseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did\nwalk, the God who fed me all my life long unto this day, the ANGEL which\nredeemed me from all evil, bless the lads.\" [Gen. xlviii. 15.] Here the\npatriarch speaks of God as the Angel, and the Angel as God: being the\nAngel or Messenger of the Covenant--God manifested to man. He speaks not\nof Michael or Gabriel, or archangel or seraph, or any created being; but\nof the Lord Himself, who appeared to him, agreeably to the revelation of\nGod Himself recorded in a previous chapter, and thus communicated by the\npatriarch to Rachel and Leah: \"And the ANGEL of God spake unto me in a\ndream, saying, Jacob; and I said, Here am I. And he said ... _I_ am the\nGOD of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar, and vowedst a vow unto\nme.\" [Gen. xxxi. 11.] The Angel whose blessing he desired for the lads\nwas the God[12], to whom he had vowed a vow in Bethel, the Lord Himself.\n\n [Footnote 12: It may not be superfluous to add, that this is the\n interpretation of the passage adopted by primitive writers,\n Among others see Eusebius Demonstr. Evan. lib. v. ch. 10: who\n declares that the Angel spoken of by Jacob was God the Son.]\n\nIndependently, however, of this conclusive consideration, if the latter\nmember of this sentence had merely expressed a wish, that an angel might\nbe employed as {41} an instrument of good in behalf of Ephraim and\nManasseh, I could readily offer such a prayer for a blessing on my own\nchildren. My prayer would be addressed to the angel neither immediately\nnor transitively, but exclusively to God alone, supplicating Him\ngraciously to employ the service of those ministering spirits for our\ngood. Such a prayer every Catholic in communion with the Church of\nEngland is taught and directed to offer. Such a prayer is primitive and\nscriptural; and such is offered in the Church on the anniversary of\nSaint Michael and all angels:\n\n\"O Everlasting God, who hast ordained and constituted the services of\nangels and men in a wonderful order, mercifully grant that as Thy holy\nangels alway do Thee service in heaven, so by Thy appointment they may\nsuccour and defend us on earth; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.\"\n\nSuch is the prayer of the Church Catholic, whether of the Roman or the\nAnglican branch; it is in spirit and in truth a Christian prayer, fit\nfor faithful mortals to offer on earth to the Lord of men and of angels\nin heaven. Would that the Church of Rome, preserving, as she has\npreserved, this prayer in all its original purity, had never been\nsuccessfully tempted to mingle in the same service, supplications, which\nrob the one only God of his exclusive honour and glory, as the God \"who\nheareth prayer;\" and to rob Christ of his exclusive honour and glory, as\nour only Mediator and Advocate!\n\nHere, though unwilling, by departing from the order of our argument, to\nanticipate our examination in its place of the Roman ritual, I cannot\nrefrain from contrasting this prayer, the genuine offspring of Christian\nfaith, with some forms of invocation contained in {42} the Roman service\non St. Michael's day, in which I could not join, and the adoption of\nwhich I deeply lament. The first is appointed to be said at the part of\nthe Mass called \"The Secret:\" \"We offer to Thee, O Lord, the sacrifice\nof praise, humbly beseeching Thee, That by the intervention of the\nprayers of the angels for us, Thou, being appeased, mayest both accept\nthe same, and make them profitable for our salvation. Through ...\" The\nsecond is offered at the Post Communion: \"Supported [propped up,\nsuffulti] by the intercession of Thy blessed archangel Michael, we\nhumbly beseech Thee, O Lord, that what with honour we follow[13], we may\nobtain also in mind. Through ...\"\n\n [Footnote 13: I do not understand the exact meaning of these\n words, which however contain no portion of that sentiment, the\n presence of which in this prayer I deplore. The original is\n this: \"Beati archangeli tui Michaelis intercessione suffulti,\n supplices te Domine deprecamur, ut quod honore prosequimur,\n contingamus et in mente. Per ...\" Probably the general sense is,\n that what we reverently seek we may actually realize.]\n\nStill, though here the Christian seems to be taught to rest on a broken\nreed, to support and prop himself up by a staff which must bend and\nbreak; yet I acknowledge that so much violence is not done to my\nChristian principles, nor do my feelings, as a believer in God and his\never-blessed Son, meet with so severe a shock by either of these\nprayers, as by the invocation addressed to the archangel himself in the\n\"Gradual\" on that same day:\n\n\"O holy Michael, O archangel, defend us in battle, that we perish not in\nthe dreadful judgment.\"\n\nChristians of the Church of Rome! for one moment meditate, I beseech\nyou, on this prayer. It is not addressed to God; in it there is no\nmention made of {43} Christ: having called upon the angels, and on your\nown soul in the words of the psalmist, to praise the Lord, you address\nyour supplication to Michael himself; not even invoking him for his\nintercession, but imploring of him his protection. If it be said, that\nhis intercession is all that is meant, with most unfeigned sincerity I\nrequest you to judge for yourselves, whether any prayer from poor sinful\nman, putting his whole trust in the Lord and imploring his help, could\nbe addressed to our God and Saviour more immediate and direct than this?\nIn the place of the name of his servant Michael, substitute the highest\nand the holiest name ever uttered in heaven or on earth, and can words\nform a prayer more direct to God? \"O Lord God Almighty, O Lord Jesus our\nonly Saviour, defend us in battle, that we perish not in the dreadful\njudgment. Hallelujah!\"--Can this be right? Were the archangel allowed\nnow, by his Lord and ours, to make his voice heard upon earth by\nChristians offering to him this prayer, would he utter any other words,\nthan the angel, his fellow-servant and ours, once addressed to Saint\nJohn, when he fell down to worship before him, \"See thou do it not; for\nI am thy fellow-servant: worship God.\"\n\nSuch then is the evidence borne by the writers of the Old Testament. No\nprayer to angel or beatified spirit occurs from its first to its last\npage. The theory which would have us account for the absence of all\nprayer to the saints before the advent of Messiah, by reason of their\nnot having been then admitted into their everlasting habitations, and\nthe immediate presence of God proves to be utterly groundless. The holy\nangels were confessedly in heaven [Matt. xviii. 10.], beholding the face\nof {44} God; but no invocation was ever addressed to them, by patriarch,\nor prophet, or people, as mediators or intercessors. God, and God alone,\nthe one eternal Jehovah, is proclaimed by Himself throughout, and is\nacknowledged throughout to be the only object of any kind of spiritual\nworship; the only Being who heareth prayer, to whom alone therefore all\nmankind should approach with the words and with the spirit of\ninvocation. It has been argued by some writers, that in the times of the\nOld Testament, prayer was not offered to God through a mediator at all;\nand that as the one Mediator was not then revealed in his person and his\noffices, the subsidiary intercessors could not of course act; and\ntherefore could not be invoked by man. The answer to this remark is\nconclusive. That Mediator has been revealed in his person and his\noffices; and has been expressly declared to be the one Mediator between\nGod and man: we therefore seek God's covenanted mercies through Him.\nThose subsidiary intercessors have never been revealed; and therefore we\ndo not seek their aid. To assure us that it was the mind and will of our\nHeavenly Father that we should approach Him by secondary and subsidiary\nmediators and intercessors, the same clear and unquestionable revelation\nof their persons and their offices as mediators would have been\nrequired, as He has vouchsafed of the mediation of his Son. Had God\nwilled that the faithful should approach Him by the intercessions of the\nsaints and martyrs, is it conceivable that He would not have given some\nintimation of his will in this respect? If believers in the Gospel were\nto have unnumbered mediators of intercession in heaven, as well as the\none Mediator of redemption, would not the {45} Gospel itself have\nannounced it? Could such declarations as these have remained on record\nwithout any qualifying or limiting expression, \"He[14] is able also to\nsave to the uttermost them who come unto God by Him, seeing He ever\nliveth to make intercession for them.\" \"There is one God, and one\nMediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.\" But this involves\nthe question to which the next section must be devoted. All I would\nanticipate here is, that if the irresistible argument from the Old\nTestament is sought to be evaded on the ground that no mediator at all\nwas then revealed, we must require a distinct revelation of the\nexistence and offices of other mediators and intercessors, before we can\nbe justified in applying to them for their intervention in our behalf.\nAnd the question now is. Are they so revealed?\n\n [Footnote 14: Heb. vii. 25. I Tim. ii. 5.--Unde et salvare in\n perpetuum potest accedentes per semetipsum ad Deum, semper\n vivens ad interpellandum pro nobis.--_Vulg._]\n\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\nSECTION IV.--EVIDENCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\n\nThough such is the evidence borne against the invocation of saints and\nangels by the Old Testament, yet it has been said that we are living\nneither under the patriarchal, nor the Mosaic dispensation, but under\nthe Gospel, to whom therefore as Christians neither the precepts nor the\nexamples of those ancient times are applicable: {46} the injunctions\nconsequently given of old to preserve the chosen people from idolatry\nand paganism, cannot be held to prohibit Christians from seeking the aid\nof those departed saints who are now reigning with Christ. But, surely,\nthose precepts, and denunciations, and commands, are still most strictly\napplicable, as conveying to us a knowledge of the will of our Heavenly\nFather, that his sons and daughters on earth should associate no name,\nhowever exalted among the principalities and powers in heavenly places,\nwith his own holy name in prayer, and spiritual invocation. I am\nthroughout this address supposing myself to be speaking to those whose\nheart's desire is to fulfil the will of God in all things; not those who\nare contented to depart from the spirit of that will, whenever they can\ndevise plausible arguments to countenance such departure.\n\nThe cases both of precept and example through the Old Testament\naffording so stringent and so universal a rule against the association\nof any name with the name of the Almighty in our prayers; before we can\nconclude that Christians have a liberty denied to believers under the\nformer dispensations, we must surely produce a declaration to that\neffect, clear, unequivocal, and precisely in point. Nothing short of an\nenactment, rescinding in terms the former prohibitory law, and\npositively sanctioning supplications and prayers to saints and angels,\nseems capable of satisfying any Christian bent on discovering the will\nof God, and resolved to worship Him agreeably to the spirit of that will\nas it has been revealed. But let us read the New Testament from its\nfirst to its very last word, and we shall find, that the doctrines, the\nprecepts, and the examples, the pervading reigning spirit of the entire\n{47} volume, combine in addressing us with voices loud and clear. Pray\nto God Almighty solely in the name and for the sake of his dear and only\nSon Jesus Christ our Lord, and offer no prayer, no supplication, no\nintreaty, to any other being or power, saint or angel, though it be only\nto ask for their intercession with the great God. But this involves the\nwhole question, and must be sifted thoroughly. Let us then review the\nentire volume with close and minute scrutiny, and ask ourselves, Is\nthere a single passage, interpreted to the best of our skill, with the\naid of those on whose integrity and learning we can rely, which directly\nand unequivocally sanctions any religious invocation of whatever kind to\nany being except God alone? And then let us calmly and deliberately\nresolve this point: In a matter of so vital importance, of so immense\ninterest, and of so sacred a character as the worship of the Supreme\nBeing, who declares Himself to be a jealous God, ought we to suffer any\nrefinements of casuistry to entice us from the broad, clear light of\nrevelation? If it were God's good pleasure to make exceptions to his\nrule--a rule so repeatedly, and so positively enacted and\nenforced--surely the analogy of his gracious dealings with mankind would\nhave taught us to look for an announcement of the exceptions in terms\nequally forcible and explicit. Instead, however, of this, we find no\nsingle act, no single word, nothing which even by implication can be\nforced to sanction any prayer or religious invocation, of whatever kind,\nto any other being save to God alone.\n\nLet us first look to the language and conduct of our blessed Lord, whose\nprayers to his Father are upon record for our instruction and comfort,\nand whose precepts and example form the best rule of a Christian's {48}\nlife. So far from repealing the ancient law, he repeats in his own\nperson its solemn announcement, \"Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one\nLord.\" [Mark xii. 29.] While the same heavenly Teacher commands us with\nauthority, \"When thou prayest, pray to thy Father which is in secret,\nand thy Father, who seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.\" [Matt.\nvi. 6.] No allusion in any word of His do we find to any prayer from a\nmortal on this earth to an angel or saint in heaven. And yet occasions\nwere multiplied on which a reference to the invocation of angels would\nhave been natural, and apparently called for. He again and again places\nbeyond all doubt the reality of their good services towards mankind, but\nit is as God's servants, and at God's bidding; not in answer to any\nsupplication or invoking of ours. The parable of the rich man and\nLazarus has been cited [Bellarmin, p. 895.] to bear contrary evidence;\nbut, in the first place, that parable does not offer a case in point; in\nthe second place, were it in point, it might be fairly and strongly\nurged against the practice of invoking the spirit of any departed\nmortal, even the father of the faithful himself. For what are the\ncircumstances of the parabolic representation? A lost spirit in the\nregions of torment prays to Abraham in the regions of the blessed, and\nthe spirit of the departed patriarch professes himself to have no power\nto grant the request of the departed and condemned spirit. [Luke xvi.\n19.] The practice indeed of our Roman Catholic brethren would have been\nexemplified, had our blessed Lord represented the rich man's five\nbrethren still on earth as pious men, and as supplicating Abraham in\nheaven to pray for themselves, or to mitigate {49} their lost brother's\npunishment and his woes. But then it would have afforded Christians\nlittle encouragement to follow their example, when they found Abraham\ndeclaring himself unable to aid them in attaining the object of their\nprayer, or in any way to assist them at all. Without one single\nexception, we find our blessed Lord's example, precepts, and doctrines\nto be decidedly against the practice of invoking saint or angel; whilst\nnot one solitary act or word of His can be cited to countenance or\npalliate it.\n\nNext it follows, that we inquire into the conduct and the writings of\nChrist's Apostles and immediate followers, to whom He graciously\npromised that the Holy Spirit should guide them into all truth. In the\nActs of the Apostles, various instances of prayer attract our notice,\nbut not one ejaculation is found there to any other being save God\nalone. Neither angel nor saint is invoked. The Apostles prayed for\nguidance in the government of Christ's infant Church, but it was, \"Thou,\nLord, who knowest the hearts of all men.\" [Acts i. 24.] They prayed for\ntheir own acceptance, but it was \"Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.\" [Acts\nvii. 59.] They prayed for each other, as in behalf of St. Peter when in\nprison; but we are expressly told, that the prayer which was made\nwithout ceasing by the Church for him was addressed to GOD. [Acts xii.\n5.]\n\nTo deliver St. Peter from his chains, an angel was sent on an especial\nmission from heaven; but though St. Peter saw him, and heard his voice,\nand followed him, and knew of a surety that the Almighty had employed\nthe ministration of an angel to liberate him from his bonds, yet we do\nnot hear thereafter of {50} Peter having himself prayed to an angel to\nsecure his good offices, and his intercession with God, nor has he once\nindirectly intimated to others that such supplications would be of\navail, or were even allowable. He exhorts his fellow-Christians to pray,\n\"Watch unto prayer,\" but it is because \"The eyes of the LORD are over\nthe righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers.\" [1 Pet. iv. 7;\niii. 12.] He Himself prays for them, but it is, that the God of all\ngrace might make them perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle them. He\nsuggests no invocation of saint or angel to intercede with God for them.\nHe bids them cast all their care upon GOD, on the assurance that God\nHimself careth for them.\n\nPrecisely the same result issues from a contemplation of the acts and\nexhortation of St. Paul. He too experienced in his own person the\ncomfort of an angel's ministration, bidding him cast off all fear when\nin the extreme of imminent peril. [Acts xxvii. 23, 24.] Many a prayer of\nthat holy Apostle is upon record; many an earnest exhortation to prayer\nwas made by him; we find many a declaration relative to his own habits\nof prayer. But with him God and God alone is the object of prayer\nthroughout: by him no saint or angel or archangel is alluded to, as one\nwhose intercession might be sought by himself or by us. He could speak\nin glowing language of patriarchs, prophets, and angels, but unto none\nof these would he turn. \"Be careful for nothing, but in every thing by\nprayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made\nknown unto God.\" [Phil. iv. 6.] And let any one receive, in the plain\nmeaning of his words, his prohibitory monition [Col. ii. 18.], and say,\ncould St. Paul have {51} uttered these words without any qualifying\nexpression, had he worshipped angels by invocation, even asking them\nonly to aid him by their prayers. \"Let no one beguile you of your reward\nin a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels; not holding the\nHead,\" which Head he had in the first chapter (v. 18) declared to be the\ndear Son of God, \"in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the\nforgiveness of our sins.\"\n\nThe author of the Epistle to the Hebrews could bring before our minds\nwith most fervent uplifting eloquence Abel and Abraham and David,--that\ngoodly fellowship of the prophets, that holy army of martyrs; he could\nspeak as though he were an eye-witness of what he describes, of the\ngeneral assembly and church of the first-born, whose names are written\nin heaven. And, surely, had the thought of seeking the support or\nintercession of saint or angel by invocation addressed to them, been\nfamiliar to him; had the thought even occurred to his mind with\napprobation, he would not have allowed such an occasion to pass by,\nwithout even alluding to any benefit that might arise from our invoking\nsuch friends of God. So far from that allusion, the utmost which he says\nat the close of his eulogy is this, \"These all, having obtained a good\nreport through faith, received not the promise; God having provided some\nbetter thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.\"\n[Heb. xi. 39, 40.]\n\nThe beloved Apostle who could look forward in full assurance of faith to\nthe day of Christ's second coming, and knew that \"when He shall appear\nwe shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is,\" has left us this\nrecord of his sentiments concerning prayer: {52} \"This is the confidence\nthat we have in HIM, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he\nheareth us; and if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know\nthat we have the petitions that we desired of him.\" [1 John v. 14, 15.]\nSt. John alludes to no intercessor, to no advocate, save only that\n\"Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, who is also the\npropitiation for our sins.\" [1 John ii. 1.] St. John never suggests to\nus the advocacy or intercession of saint or angel; with him God in\nChrist is all in all.\n\nI will only refer to one more example, that of St. James: the instance\nis equally to the point, and is strongly illustrative of the truth. This\nApostle is anxious to impress on his fellow-Christians a due sense of\nthe efficacy of our intercessions: \"The effectual fervent prayer of a\nrighteous man availeth much.\" [James v. 16.] He instances its power with\nGod by the case of Elijah, a man so holy, that the Almighty suffered him\nnot to pass through the regions of death and the grave, but translated\nhim at once from this life to glory: \"Elias was a man subject to like\npassions as we are, and he prayed that it might not rain; and it rained\nnot on the earth by the space of three years and six months; and he\nprayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her\nfruit.\" [James v. 17, 18.] And yet St. James is very far from suggesting\nthe lawfulness or efficacy of any invocation to the hallowed spirit of\nthis man, to whose prayer the elements and natural powers of the sky and\nthe earth had been made obedient. He exhorts all men to pray, but it\nmust be to God alone, and directly to God, without applying for the\nintervention of any mediators or intercessors from among angels or men.\n{53} \"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth\nliberally to all men, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him; but\nlet him ask in faith, nothing wavering.\" [James i. 5, 6.] Like the\nwriter to the Hebrews, he would have us come ourselves \"boldly\" and\ndirectly \"to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find\ngrace to help in time of need.\"\n\nSurely, these Apostles, chosen vessels for conveying the truths of\nsalvation throughout the world, knew well how the Almighty could best be\napproached by his children on earth; and had the invocation of saint or\nangel found a place in their creed, they would not have kept so\nimportant a truth from us.\n\nBefore leaving this part of our inquiry, I would propose the patient and\nunprejudiced weighing of the import of two passages in the New\nTestament, often quoted on this subject; one in the Acts of the\nApostles, the other in the Apocalypse.\n\nThe holy Apostles Barnabas and Paul, by the performance of a striking\nmiracle, had excited feelings of religious reverence and devotion among\nthe people of Lystra, who prepared to offer sacrifice to them as two of\ntheir fabled deities. [Acts xiv. 11-18.] The indignant zeal with which\nthese two holy men rushed forward to prevent such an act of impiety,\nhowever admirable and affecting, does not constitute the chief point for\nwhich reference is here made to this incident. They were men, still\nclothed with the tabernacle of the flesh, and the weakness of human\nnature; and the priests and people were ready to offer to them the\nwonted victims, the abomination of the heathen. Now, I am fully aware of\nthe wide difference, in many {54} particulars, between such an act and\nthe act of a Christian praying to their spirits after their departure\nhence, and supplicating them to intercede with the true God in his\nbehalf: and on this difference Roman Catholic writers have maintained\nthe total inapplicability of this incident to the present state of\nthings. But, surely, if any such prayer to departed saints had been\nfamiliar to their minds, instead of repelling the religious address of\nthe inhabitants of Lystra at once and for ever, they would have altered\nthe tone of their remonstrance, and not have suppressed the truth when a\ngood opportunity offered itself for imparting it. And, supposing that it\nwas part of their commission to announce and explain the invocation of\nsaints at all, on what occasion could an explanation of the just and\nproper invocation of angels and saints departed have been more\nappropriate in the Apostles, than when they were denouncing the\nunjustifiable offering of sacrifice to themselves while living? But\nwhether the more appropriate place for such an announcement were at\nLystra, in Corinth, at Athens, or at Rome, it matters not; nor whether\nit would have been more advantageously communicated by their oral\nteaching, or in their epistles. Doubtless, had the Apostles, by their\nexample or teaching, sanctioned the invocation of saints and angels, in\nthe course of fifty years or more after our blessed Saviour's\nresurrection, it would infallibly have appeared in some page or other of\nthe New Testament. Instead of this the whole tenor of the Holy Volume\nbreathes in perfect accordance with the spirit of the apostolical\nremonstrance at Lystra, to the fullest and utmost extent of its meaning,\n\"We preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities to serve the\nliving God.\" {55}\n\nOf the other instance, it well becomes every Catholic Christian to\nponder on the weight and cogency. John, the beloved disciple of our\nLord, when admitted to view with his own eyes and hear with his mortal\nears the things of heaven, rapt in amazement and awe, fell down to\nworship before the feet of the angel who showed him these things. [Rev.\nxxii. 8, 9.] If the adoration of angels were ever justifiable, surely it\nwas then; and what a testimony to the end of the world would have been\nput upon record, had the adoration of an angel by the blessed John at\nsuch a moment, when he had the mysteries and the glories of heaven\nbefore him, been received and sanctioned. But what is the fact? \"Then\nsaith he to me, See thou do it not. I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy\nbrethren the prophets, and of them who keep the sayings of this book.\nWorship God.\" I cannot understand the criticism by which the\nconclusiveness of this direct renouncement of all religious adoration\nand worship is attempted to be set aside. To my mind these words,\nuttered without any qualification at such a time, by such a being, to\nsuch a man, are conclusive beyond gainsaying. The interpretation put\nupon this transaction, and the words in which it is recorded, and the\ninference drawn from them by a series of the best divines, with St.\nAthanasius at their head, presents so entirely the plain common-sense\nview of the case to our minds, that all the subtilty of casuists, and\nall the ingenuity of modern refinements, will never be able to\nsubstitute any other in its stead. \"The angel (such are the words of\nthat ancient defender of the true faith), in the Apocalypse, forbids\nJohn, when desiring to worship him, saying, 'See thou {56} do it not; I\nam thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them who\nkeep the sayings of this book. Worship God.' Therefore, to be the object\nof worship belongs to God only; and this even the angels themselves\nknow: though they surpass others in glory, but they are all creatures,\nand are not among objects of worship, but among those who worship the\nsovereign Lord.\" [Athan. Orat. 2. Cont. Ar. vol. i. p. 491.] To say that\nSt. John was too fully illuminated by the Holy Spirit to do, especially\na second time, what was wrong; and thence to infer that what he did was\nright, is as untenable as to maintain, that St. Peter could not,\nespecially thrice, have done wrong in denying our Lord. He did wrong, or\nthe angel would not have chided and warned him. And to say that the\nangel here forbade John personally to worship him, because he was a\nfellow-servant and one of the prophets; and thus that the prohibition\nonly tended to exalt the prophetic character, not to condemn the worship\nof angels, is proved to be also a groundless assumption, from the\nangel's own words, who reckons himself as a fellow-servant with not St.\nJohn only, but all those also who keep the words of the book of\nGod,--thus equally forbidding every faithful Christian to worship their\nfellow-servants the angels. They are almost the last words in the volume\nof inspired truth, and to me, together with those last words, they seem\nwith \"the voice of a great multitude, and of many waters, and of mighty\nthunderings,\" from the very throne itself of the Most High, to proclaim\nto every inhabiter of the earth, Fall down before no created being;\nadore no created being; pray to, invoke, call upon no created being,\nwhether saint or angel: worship {57} and adore God only; pray to God\nonly. Trust to his mercy; seek no other mediator or intercessor than his\nown only and blessed Son. \"He who testifieth these things saith, Surely,\nI come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord\nJesus Christ be with you all. Amen.\" [Rev. xxii. 20, 21.]\n\nThus the New Testament, so far from mitigating the stringency of the\nformer law, so far from countenancing any departure from the obligation\nof that code which limits religious worship to God alone, so far from\nsuggesting to us invocation to sainted men, and to angels as\nintercessors with the eternal Giver of all good, reiterates the\ninjunction, and declares, that invocation in order to be Christian must\nbe addressed to God alone; and that there is one and only one Mediator\nbetween God and men, the man Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of\nhis Father, a merciful High Priest sympathizing with us in our\ninfirmities, ever making intercession for us, able to save to the\nuttermost those who come unto God through Him.\n\nThe present seems to be a convenient place for observing, that however\nthe distinction is strongly insisted upon, or rather implicitly\nacquiesced in by many, which would admit of a worship or service called\ndulia (the Greek [Greek: douleia]) to saints and angels, and would limit\nthe worship or service called latria ([Greek: latreia]) to the supreme\nGod only, yet that such distinction has no ground whatever to rest upon\nbeyond the will and the imagination of those who draw it. The two words\nare used in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, and in the\noriginal Greek of the {58} New promiscuously, without any such\ndistinction whatever. The word which this distinction would limit to the\nsupreme worship of the Most High, is used to express the bodily service\npaid by the vanquished to their conquerors, as well as the religious\nservice paid by idolaters to their fabled deities, and by the true\nworshippers to the Most High. The word which this distinction would\nreserve for the secondary worship paid to saints and angels, is employed\nto express not only the service paid by man to man, but also the service\nand worship paid to God alone, even when mentioned in contradistinction\nto other worship. It will be necessary to establish this by one or two\ninstances; and first as to \"latria.\" One single chapter in the Book of\nDeuteronomy supplies us with instances of the word used in the three\nsenses, of service to men, service to idols, and service to God, xxviii.\n36. 47, 48: \"Because thou servedst [Greek: elatreusas] not the Lord thy\nGod with joyfulness and gladness of heart; Therefore thou shalt serve\n[Greek: latreuseis] thine enemies which the Lord shall send against thee\nin hunger and in thirst and nakedness.\" \"The Lord shall bring thee unto\na nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt\nthou serve [Greek: latreuseis] other gods, wood and stone.\" Next as to\nthe word \"dulia.\" The First Book of Samuel (called also the First of\nKings) alone supplies us with instances of this word being used in each\nof the same three senses of service from man to man, from man to idols,\nand from man to his Maker and God. 1 Sam. xvii. 9. \"Ye shall be our\nservants and serve [Greek: douleusite haemin] us.\" xii. 24. \"Only fear\nthe Lord, and serve [Greek: douleusate] him in truth with all your\nheart.\" xxvi. 19. {59} \"They have driven me out from the inheritance of\nthe Lord, saying, Go, serve[15] other gods.\"\n\n [Footnote 15: [Greek: douleue]. In this case also the Vulgate\n translates all the three passages alike by the same verb,\n \"servire.\"]\n\nIt is worthy of remark, that the same word \"dulia[16]\" is employed, when\nthe Lord by his prophet speaks of the most solemn acts of religious\nworship; not in general obedience only, but in the offerings and\noblations of their holy things. Ezek. xx. 40. \"In mine holy mountain, in\nthe mountain of the height of Israel, saith the Lord God, there shall\nall the house of Israel, all of them in the land, serve me [Greek:\ndouleusousi. Vulg: serviet.]; there will I accept them, and there will I\nrequire your offerings, and the first-fruits of your oblations, with all\nyour holy things.\" St. Matthew also uses the same word when he records\nthe saying of our blessed Lord, \"Ye cannot serve God and mammon.\" [Matt.\nvi. 24.; Greek: douleuein. Vulg: servire.]\n\n [Footnote 16: It is also remarkable that in all these cases,\n whether the Septuagint employs the word \"dulia,\" or \"latria,\"\n the word in the Hebrew is precisely the same, [Hebrew: avad].\n That in the fifth century the words were synonymous is evident\n from Theodoret. I. 319. See Edit. Halle.--Index.]\n\nI will only detain you by one more example, drawn from two passages,\nwhich seems the more striking because each of the two words \"dulia\" and\n\"latria\" is used to imply the true worship of God in a person, who was\nchanged from a state of alienation to a state of holiness. The first is\nin St. Paul's 1st Epistle to the Thessalonians, i. 9. \"How ye turned to\nGod from idols, to serve [Greek: douleuein theo zonti] the living and\ntrue God.\" The second is in Heb. ix. 14. \"How much more shall the blood\nof Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself {60} without\nspot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve[17] the\nliving God.\"\n\n [Footnote 17: [Greek: latoeuein theo zonti.] In each of these\n two cases the Vulgate uses \"servire.\"]\n\nThe word \"hyperdulia,\" now used to signify the worship proper to the\nVirgin Mary, as being a worship of a more exalted character than the\nworship offered to saints and angels, archangels, and cherubim and\nseraphim, will not require a similar examination. The word was invented\nin later times, and has been used chiefly to signify the worship of the\nVirgin, and is of course found neither in the Scriptures, nor in any\nancient classical or ecclesiastical author. {61}\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nSECTION I.--THE EVIDENCE OF PRIMITIVE WRITERS.\n\n\nBefore we enter upon the next branch of our proposed inquiry, allow me\nto premise that I am induced to examine into the evidence of Christian\nantiquity not by any misgiving, lest the testimony of Scripture might\nappear defective or doubtful; far less by any unworthy notion that God's\nword needs the additional support of the suffrages of man[18]. On the\ncontrary, the voice of God in his revealed word is clear, certain, and\nindisputable, commanding the invocation of Himself alone in acts of\nreligious worship, and condemning any such departure from that\nsingleness of adoration, as they are {62} seduced into, who invoke\nsaints and angels. And it is a fixed principle in our creed, that where\nGod's written word is clear and certain, human evidence cannot be\nweighed against it in the balance of the sanctuary. When the Lord hath\nspoken, well does it become the whole earth to be silent before him;\nwhen the eternal Judge Himself hath decided, the witness of man bears on\nits very face the stamp of incompetency and presumption.\n\n [Footnote 18: While some authors seem to go far towards the\n substitution of the fathers for the written word of God, others\n in their abhorrence of that excess have run into the opposite,\n fancying, as it would seem, that they exalt the Divine oracles\n just in the same proportion as they disparage the uninspired\n writers of the Church. The great body of the Church of England\n adhere to a middle course, and adopt that golden mean, which\n ascribes to the written Word its paramount authority, from which\n is no appeal, and yet honours Catholic tradition as the handmaid\n of the truth.]\n\nFor myself I can say (what I have good hope these pages will of\nthemselves evince) that no one can value the testimony of Christian\ntradition within its own legitimate sphere more sincerely, or more\nhighly, than the individual who is now soliciting your attention to the\nconclusions which he has himself drawn from it. When Scripture is\nsilent, or where its meaning is doubtful, Catholic tradition is to me a\nguide, which I feel myself bound to follow with watchful care and\nsubmissive reverence.\n\nNow let it be for the present supposed, that instead of the oracles of\nGod having spoken, as we believe them to have spoken, with a voice\nclear, strong, and uniform against the doctrine and practice of the\ninvocation of saints and angels, their voices had been weak, doubtful,\nand vague; in other words, suppose in this case the question had been\nleft by the Holy Scriptures an open question, then what evidence would\nhave been deducible from the writings of the primitive Church? What\ntestimony do the first years and the first ages after the canon of\nScripture was closed, bear upon this point? And here I would repeat the\nprinciple of inquiry, proposed above for our adoption in the more\nimportant and solemn examination of the Holy Volume itself.--We ought to\nendeavour to ascertain what may {63} fairly and honestly be regarded as\nthe real bearing of each author's remains, and not suffer the general\ntone and spirit of a writer to be counterbalanced by single expressions,\nwhich may be so interpreted as to convey an opposite meaning. Rather we\nshould endeavour to reconcile with that general spirit and pervading\ntendency of a writer's sentiments any casual expressions which may admit\nof two acceptations. We adopt this principle in our researches into the\nremains of classical antiquity; we adopt the same principle in\nestimating the testimony of a living witness. In the latter case,\nindeed, the ingenuity of the adverse advocate is often exercised in\nmagnifying the discrepancies between some minor facts or incidental\nexpressions with the broad and leading assertions of the witness, with a\nview to invalidate his testimony altogether, or at least to weaken the\nimpression made by it. But then a wise and upright judge, assured of the\ntruth of the evidence in the main, and of the integrity of the\nindividual, will not suffer unessential, apparent inconsistencies to\nstifle and bury the body of testimony at large, but will either extract\nfrom the witness what may account for them, or show them to be\nimmaterial. Inviting, therefore, your best thoughts to this branch of\nour subject, I ask you to ascertain, by a full and candid process of\ninduction, this important and interesting point,--Whether we of the\nAnglican Church, by religiously abstaining from the presentation, in\nword or in thought, of any thing approaching prayer or supplication,\nentreaty, request, or any invocation whatever, to any other being except\nGod alone, do or do not tread in the steps of the first Christians, and\nadhere to the very pattern which they set; and whether members of the\nChurch of Rome by addressing angel or saint in any form of invocation\nseeking {64} their aid, either by their intercession or otherwise, have\nnot unhappily swerved decidedly and far from those same footsteps, and\ndeparted widely from that pattern?\n\nIn one point of view it might perhaps be preferable to enter at once\nupon our investigation, without previously stating the conclusions to\nwhich my own inquiries have led; but, on the whole, I think it more fair\nto make that statement, in order, that having the inferences already\ndrawn placed before the mind, the inquirer may in each case weigh the\nseveral items of evidence bearing upon them separately, and more justly\nestimate its whole weight collectively at the last.\n\nAfter then having examined the passages collected by the most celebrated\nRoman Catholic writers, and after having searched the undisputed\noriginal works of the primitive writers of the Greek and Latin Churches,\nthe conclusion to which I came, and in which every day of further\ninquiry and deliberation confirms me more and more in this:--\n\nIn the first place, negatively, that the Christian writers, through the\nfirst three centuries and more, never refer to the invocation of saints\nand angels as a practice with which they were familiar: that they have\nnot recorded or alluded to any forms of invocation of the kind used by\nthemselves or by the Church in their days; and that no services of the\nearliest times contain hymns, litanies, or collects to angels, or to the\nspirits of the faithful departed.\n\nIn the second place, positively, that the principles which they\nhabitually maintain and advocate are irreconcileable with such a\npractice.\n\nIn tracing the history of the worship of saints and angels, we proceed\n(gradually, indeed, though by no {65} means at all periods, and through\nevery stage, with equal rapidity,) from the earliest custom established\nand practised in the Church,--of addressing prayers to Almighty God\nalone for the sake of the merits of his blessed Son, the only Mediator\nand Intercessor between God and man,--to the lamentable innovation both\nof praying to God for the sake of the merits, and through the mediation\nof departed mortals, and of invoking those mortals themselves as the\nactual dispensers of the spiritual blessings which the suppliant seeks\nfrom above. It is not only a necessary part of our inquiry for\nascertaining the very truth of the case; it is also curious and\npainfully interesting, to trace the several steps, one after another,\nbeginning with the doctrine maintained by various early writers, both\nGreek and Latin, that the souls of the saints are not yet reigning with\nChrist in heaven, and ending with the anathema of the Council of Trent,\nagainst all who should maintain that doctrine; beginning with prayer and\nthanksgiving to Almighty God alone, and ending with daily prayers both\nto saints and angels; one deviation from the strict line of religious\nduty, and the pure singleness of Christian worship, successively gliding\ninto another, till at length the whole of Christendom, with a few\nremarkable exceptions, was seen to acquiesce in public and private\ndevotions, which, if proposed, the whole of Christendom would once with\nunanimity have rejected.\n\nBefore I offer to you the result of my inquiries as to the progressive\nstages of degeneracy and innovation in the worship of Almighty God, I\nwould premise two considerations:\n\nFirst, I would observe, that the soundness of my conclusion on the\ngeneral points at issue does not depend at all on the accuracy of the\narrangement of those stages {66} which I have adopted. Should any one,\nfor example, think there is evidence that two or more of those\nprogressive steps, which I have regarded as consecutive, were\nsimultaneous changes, or that any one which I have ranked as subsequent\ntook rather the lead in order of time, such an opinion would not tend in\nthe least to invalidate my argument; the substantial and essential point\nat issue being this: Is the invocation of saints and angels, as now\npractised in the Church of Rome, agreeable to the primitive usage of the\nearliest Christians?\n\nSecondly, I would observe, that the places and occasions most favourable\nfor witnessing and correctly estimating the changes and gradual\ninnovations in the worship of those early times, are the tombs of the\nmartyrs, and the Churches in which their remains were deposited; and at\nthe periods of the annual celebration of their martyrdom, or in some\ninstances at what was called their translation,--the removal, that is,\nof their mortal remains from their former resting-place to a church, for\nthe most part dedicated to their memory. On these occasions the most\nextraordinary enthusiasm prevailed; sometimes the ardour of the\nworshippers, as St. Chrysostom [St. Chrys. Paris, 1718. Vol. xii. p.\n330.] tells us, approaching madness. But even at times of less\nexcitement, by contemplating, immediately after his death, the acts and\nsufferings of the martyr, and recalling his words, and looks, and\nstedfast bearing, and exhorting each other to picture to themselves his\nholy countenance then fixed on them, his tongue addressing them, his\nsufferings before their eyes, encouraging all to follow his example,\nthey began habitually to consider him as actually himself one of the\nfaithful assembled round {67} his tomb. Hence they believed that he was\npraying with them as well as for them; that he heard their eulogy on his\nmerits, and was pleased with the honours paid to his memory: hence they\nfelt sure of his goodwill towards them, and his ability, as when on\nearth, to promote their welfare. Hence they proceeded, by a fatal step,\nfirst, to implore him to give them bodily relief from some present\nsufferings; then invoking him to plead their cause with God, and to\nintercede for the supply of their spiritual wants, and the ultimate\nsalvation of their souls; and, lastly, they prayed to him generally as\nhimself the dispenser of temporal and spiritual blessings.\n\nThe following then is the order in which the innovations in Christian\nworship seem to have taken place, being chiefly introduced at the annual\ncelebrations of the martyrs:--\n\n1st. In the first ages confession and prayer and praise were offered to\nthe Supreme Being alone, and that for the sake of his Son our only\nSaviour and Advocate: when mention was made of saint or martyr, it was\nto thank God for the graces bestowed on his departed holy ones when on\nearth, and to pray to God for grace that we might follow their good\nexamples, and attain, through Christ, to the same end and crown of our\nearthly struggles. This act of worship was usually accompanied by a\nhomily setting forth the Christian excellences of the saint, and\nencouraging the survivors so to follow him, as he followed Christ.\n\n2nd. The second stage seems to have been a prayer to Almighty God, that\nHe would suffer the supplications and intercessions[19] of angels and\nsaints to prevail {68} with him, and bring down a blessing on their\nfellow-petitioners on earth; the idea having spread among enthusiastic\nworshippers, as I have already observed, that the spirits of the saints\nwere suffered to be present around their tombs, and to join with the\nfaithful in their addresses to the throne of grace.\n\n [Footnote 19: The Greek word [Greek: presbeia], \"embassy,\"\n employed on such occasions, is still used in some eastern\n Churches in the same sense.]\n\n3rd. The third stage seems to have owed its origin to orators constantly\ndwelling upon the excellences of the saints in the panegyrics delivered\nover their remains, representing their constancy and Christian virtues\nas superhuman and divine, and as having conferred lasting benefits on\nthe Church. By these benefits at first was meant the comfort and\nencouragement of their good example, and the honour procured to the\nreligion of the cross by their bearing witness to its truth even unto\ndeath; but in process of time the habit grew of attaching a sort of\nmysterious efficacy to their merits; hence this third gradation in\nreligious worship, namely, prayers to God that \"He would hear his\nsuppliants, and grant their requests for the sake of his martyred\nservant, and by the efficacy of that martyr's merits.\"\n\n4th. Hitherto, unauthorized and objectionable as the two last forms of\nprayer are, still the petitions in each case were directed to God alone.\nThe next step swerved lamentably from that principle of worship, and the\npetitioners addressed their requests to angels and sainted men in\nheaven; at first, however, confining their petitions to the asking for\ntheir prayers and intercessions with Almighty God.\n\n5th. The last stage in this progressive degeneracy of Christian worship\nwas to petition the saints and angels, directly and immediately\nthemselves, at first for the temporal, and afterwards for the spiritual\nbenefits which the petitioners desired to obtain from heaven. For it\n{69} is very curious, but not more curious than evident, that the\nworshippers seem for some time to have petitioned their saints for\ntemporal and bodily benefits, before they proceeded to ask for spiritual\nblessings at their hands, or by their prayers. (See Basil. Oral. in\nMamanta Martyrem.)\n\nOf these several gradations and stages we find traces in the records of\nChristian antiquity, after superstition and corruption had spread\nthrough Christian worship, and leavened the whole. Of all of them we\nhave lamentable instances in the present ritual of the Church of Rome,\nas we shall see somewhat at large when we reach that division of our\ninquiry. But from the beginning it was not so. In the earliest ages we\nfind only the first of these forms of worship exemplified, and it is the\nonly form now retained in the Anglican Ritual; of which, among other\nexamples, the following passage in the prayer for Christ's Church\nmilitant on earth supplies a beautiful specimen: \"We bless Thy holy name\nfor all Thy servants departed this life in Thy faith and fear;\nbeseeching Thee to give us grace so to follow their good examples, that\nwith them we may be partakers of Thy heavenly kingdom: Grant this, O\nFather, for Jesus Christ's sake, our only Mediator and Advocate. Amen.\"\n\nWe now proceed to examine the invaluable remains of Christian antiquity,\nnot for the purpose of testing the accuracy of the above catalogue of\ngradations _seriatim_ and in order of time; but to satisfy ourselves on\nthe question, whether the invocation of saints and angels prevailed from\nthe first in the Christian Church; or whether it was an innovation\nintroduced after pagan superstition had begun to mingle its poisonous\ncorruptions with the pure worship of {70} Almighty God. And here, I\nconceive, few persons will be disposed to doubt, that if the primitive\nbelievers were taught by the Apostles to address the saints reigning in\nheaven and the holy angels, and the Virgin Mother of our Lord, with\nadoration and prayers, the earliest Christian records must have\ncontained clear and indisputable references to the fact, and that\nundesigned allusions to the custom would inevitably be found offering\nthemselves to our notice here and there. I do not mean that we should\nexpect to meet with full and explicit statements either of the doctrine\nor the practice of the primitive Church in this particular; much less\nsuch apologies and elaborate defences of the practice as abound to the\noverflow in later times. But, what is more satisfactory in proof of the\ngeneral and established prevalence of any opinions or customs, we should\nsurely find expressions incidentally occurring, which implied an\nhabitual familiarity with such opinions or customs. In every record, for\nexample, of primitive antiquity, from the very earliest of all,\nexpressions are constantly meeting us which involve the doctrine of the\never-blessed Trinity, the atoning sacrifice of Christ's death, the\ninfluences of the Holy Spirit; habitual prayer and praise offered to the\nSaviour of the world, as very and eternal God; the holy Sacraments of\nBaptism and the Lord's Supper; with other tenets and practices of the\nApostolic Church. It is impossible to study the remains of Christian\nantiquity without being assured beyond the reach of doubt, that such\nwere the doctrines and practice of the universal Church from the days of\nthe Apostles. Is the invocation of saints and angels and the blessed\nVirgin to be made an exception to this rule? Can it stand this test? The\ngreat anxiety and labour of Roman Catholic {71} writers to press the\nauthors of every age to bear witness on their side in this behalf,\nproves that in their judgment no such exception is admissible. It is\nclearly beyond gainsaying, that if the present doctrine of the Church of\nRome, with respect to the worship of angels and saints, as propounded by\nthe Council of Trent; and if her present practice as set forth in her\nauthorized liturgies and devotional services, and professed by her\npopes, bishops, clergy, and people, had been the doctrine and practice\nof the primitive Church, we should have found evident and indisputable\ntraces of it in the earliest works of primitive antiquity, in the\nearliest liturgies, and in the forms of prayer and exhortations to\nprayer with which those works abound. It by no means follows that if\nsome such allusions were partially discoverable, therefore the doctrines\nand practice must forthwith be pronounced to be apostolical; but if no\nsuch traces can be found, their absence bears witness that neither did\nthose doctrines nor that practice exist. If, for example, through the\nremains of the first three centuries we could have discovered no trace\nof the doctrine or practice of holy Baptism and the Eucharist, we must\nhave concluded that the doctrine and the practice were the offspring of\nlater years. But when we read every where, in those remains,\nexhortations to approach those holy mysteries with a pure heart and\nfaith unfeigned; when we find rules prescribed for the more orderly\nadministration of the rites; in a word, when we perceive throughout as\nfamiliar references to these ordinances as could be now made by\nCatholics either of Rome or of England, while this would not of itself\nnecessarily prove their divine origin, we should with equal plausibility\nquestion the existence of Jerusalem or Constantinople, or of David or\nConstantine, as we {72} should doubt the prevalence both of the doctrine\nand practice of the Church in these particulars, even from the Apostles'\ndays.\n\nWith these principles present to our minds, I now invite you to\naccompany me in a review of the testimonies of primitive Christian\nantiquity with regard to supplications and invocations of saints and\nangels, and of the blessed Virgin Mary.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\nSECTION II--CENTURY I.--THE EVIDENCE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.\n\n\nIt will be necessary for the satisfaction of all parties, that we\nexamine, in the first place, those ancient writings which are ascribed\nto an Apostle, or to fellow-labourers of the Apostles; familiarly known\nas the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. They are five in number,\nBarnabas, Clement, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Many able writers, as\nwell of the Roman as of the Anglican communion, have discussed at large\nthe genuineness of these writings; and have come to very different\nresults. Some critics are of opposite and extreme opinions, others\nranging between them with every degree and shade of variation. Some of\nthese works have been considered spurious; others have been pronounced\ngenuine; though, even these have been thought to be, in many parts,\ninterpolated. The question, however, of their genuineness, though deeply\ninteresting in itself, will not affect their testimony with {73} regard\nto the subject before us[20]. They were all in existence before the\nCouncil of Nic\u00e6a; and we shall probably not be wrong in assigning to the\nfirst two a date at the very lowest computation not less remote than the\nmiddle of the second century; somewhere, it may be, at the furthest,\nabout one hundred years after the death of our Lord. (A.D. 130-150.)\nWith all their errors and blemishes and interpolations taken at the\nworst, after every reasonable deduction for defects in matter, taste,\nand style, the writings which are ascribed to the Apostolic Fathers are\ntoo venerable for their antiquity, too often quoted with reverence and\naffection by some who have been the brightest ornaments of the Christian\nChurch, and possess too copious a store of genuine evangelical truth,\nsound principle, primitive simplicity, and pious sentiment, to be passed\nover with neglect by any Catholic Christian. The few extracts {74} made\nhere will, I am assured, be not unacceptable to any one, who holds dear\nthe religion of Christ[21].\n\n [Footnote 20: I do not think it suitable in this address to\n enter upon the difficult field of inquiry, whether all or which\n of these works were the genuine productions of those whose names\n they bear; and whether the Barnabas, Clement, and Hermas to\n which three of them are ascribed, were the Barnabas, Clement,\n and Hermas of whom express mention is made in the pages of Holy\n Scripture. I have determined, in conducting my argument, to\n affix to them in each case the lowest proposed antiquity. The\n edition of Archbishop Wake, (who maintains the highest antiquity\n for these works, though I have not here adopted his\n translation,) may be consulted with much profit.\n\n Did the question before us relate to the genuineness and dates\n of these works, they could not, with any approach to fairness,\n be all five placed without distinction under the same category.\n The evidence for the genuineness of Clement, Ignatius in the\n shorter copy, and Polycarp, is too valuable to be confounded\n with that of the others, which are indisputably subject to much\n greater doubt. But this question has only an incidental bearing\n on our present inquiry, and will be well spared.]\n\n [Footnote 21: The edition of the works of these Apostolic\n Fathers used here is that of Cotelerius as revised by Le Clerc,\n Antwerp, 1698.]\n\n * * * * *\n\nTHE EPISTLE OF ST. BARNABAS.\n\nIn the work entitled The Catholic Epistle of Barnabas, which was written\nprobably by a Jew converted to the Christian faith, about the close of\nthe first century, or certainly before the middle of the second[22], I\nhave searched in vain for any thing like the faintest trace of the\ninvocation of saint or angel. The writer gives directions on the subject\nof prayer; he speaks of angels as the ministers of God; he speaks of the\nreward of the righteous at the day of judgment; but he suggests not the\nshadow of a supposition, that he either held the doctrine himself which\nthe Church of Rome now holds, or was aware of its existence among\nChristians. In his very beautiful but incomplete summary of Christian\nduty [Sect. 18, 19. p. 50, 51, 52.], which he calls \"The Way of Light,\"\nwe perceive more than one most natural opening for reference to that\ndoctrine, had it been familiar to his mind. In the midst indeed of his\nbrief precepts of religious and moral obligation, he directs the\nChristian to seek out every day \"the persons of the saints,\" but they\nare our fellow-believers on earth; those saints or holy ones, for\nadministering to whose necessities, the Scripture assures us that God\nwill not forget our work and labour of love [Heb. vi. 10.]: these the\nauthor bids the Christians {75} search out daily, for the purposes of\nreligious intercourse, and of encouragement by the word.\n\n [Footnote 22: Archbishop Wake considers this Epistle to have\n been written by St. Barnabas to the Jews, soon after the\n destruction of Jerusalem.]\n\nThe following interesting extracts shall conclude our reference to this\nwork:--\n\n\"There are two ways of doctrine and authority, one of light, the other\nof darkness; and the difference between the two ways is great. Over the\none are appointed angels of God, conductors of the light; over the\nother, angels of Satan: and the one (God) is Lord from everlasting to\neverlasting; the other (Satan) is ruler of the age of iniquity. The way\nof light is this ... Thou shalt love Him that made thee; thou shalt\nglorify Him that redeemed thee from death. Thou shalt be single in\nheart, and rich in spirit. Thou shalt not join thyself to those who are\nwalking in the path of death. Thou shalt hate to do what is displeasing\nto God; thou shalt hate all hypocrisy. Thou shalt entertain no evil\ncounsel against thy neighbour. Thou shalt not take away thy hand from\nthy son or thy daughter, but shalt teach them the fear of the Lord from\ntheir youth. Thou shalt communicate with thy neighbour in all things,\nand call not things thine own. Thou shalt not be of a froward tongue,\nfor the mouth is the snare of death. To the very utmost of thy power\nkeep thy soul chaste. Do not open thine hand to receive, and close it\nagainst giving. Thou shalt love as the apple of thine eye every one who\nspeaketh to thee the word of the Lord. Call to remembrance the day of\njudgment, night and day. Thou shalt search out every day the persons of\nthe saints [23]; both meditating by the word, {76} and proceeding to\nexhort them, and anxiously caring to save a soul by the word. Thou shalt\npreserve what thou hast received, neither adding thereto, nor taking\ntherefrom. Thou shalt not come with a bad conscience to thy prayer.\"\n\n [Footnote 23: There is much obscurity in the phraseology of this\n passage: [Greek: ekzaetaeseis kath hekastaen haemeran ta prosopa\n ton hagion kai dia logou skopion kai poreuomenos eis to\n parakalesai, kai meleton eis sosai psuchaen to logo]. In the\n corresponding exhortation among the Apostolical Constitutions\n (book vii. ch. 9), the expression is, \"Thou shalt seek the\n person ([Greek: prosopon]) of the saints, that thou mayest find\n rest (or find refreshment, or refresh thyself) ([Greek: in\n epanapanae tois logois auton]) in their words.\" The author seems\n evidently to allude to the reciprocal advantage derived by\n Christians from religious intercourse.]\n\nThe closing sentences contain this blessing: \"Now God, who is the Lord\nof all the world, give to you wisdom, skill, understanding, knowledge of\nhis judgments, with patience. And be ye taught of God; seeking what the\nLord requires of you, and do it, that ye may be saved in the day of\njudgment.... The Lord of glory and of all grace be with your spirit.\nAmen.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nTHE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS.\n\nThis work, which derives its title from the circumstance of an angelic\nteacher being represented as a shepherd, is now considered by many to\nhave been the production of Hermas, a brother of Pius, Bishop of\nRome[24] though others are persuaded that the work is of a much earlier\ndate[25]. The author speaks of guardian angels and of evil angels, and\nhe speaks much of prayer; but not the faintest hint shows itself\nthroughout the three books, of which the work consists, that he had {77}\nany idea of prayer being addressed to any created being, whether saint\nor angel. On the evidence of this writer I will not detain you much\nlonger than by the translation of a passage as it is found in the Greek\nquotation from Hermas, made by Antiochus (Homil. 85), on a point the\nmost nearly, of all that I can find, connected with the immediate\nsubject of our inquiry. The Latin is found in the second book, ninth\nmandate. It contains sound spiritual advice, of universal application.\n\n [Footnote 24: Ecclesiastical writers refer the appointment of\n Pius, as Bishop of Rome, to the year 153.]\n\n [Footnote 25: Archbishop Wake thinks it not improbable that this\n book was written by the same Hermas, of whom mention is made by\n St. Paul.]\n\n\"Let us then remove from us double-heartedness and faint-heartedness,\nand never at all doubt of supplicating any thing from God; saying within\nourselves, 'How can I, who have been guilty of so many sins against Him,\nask of the Lord and receive?' But with thine whole heart turn to the\nLord, and ask of Him without doubting; and thou shalt know his great\nmercy, that He will not forsake thee, but will fulfil the desire of thy\nsoul. For God is not as men are, a rememberer of evil, but is Himself\none who remembers not evil, and is moved with compassion towards his\ncreature. Do thou, therefore, cleanse thy heart of doubt, and ask of\nHim, and thou shalt receive thy request. But when thou doubtest, thou\nshalt not receive. For they who doubt towards God are the\ndouble-hearted, and shall receive nothing whatever of their desires. For\nthose who are whole in the faith, ask every thing, trusting in the Lord,\nand they receive because they ask nothing doubting. [See St. James i.\n6.] And if thou shouldest be tardy in receiving, do not doubt in thy\nmind because thou dost not receive soon the request of thy soul. For the\ncause of the tardiness of thy receiving is some trial, or some\ntransgression which thou knowest not of. Do thou then {78} not cease to\noffer the request of thy soul, and thou shalt receive it. But if thou\ngrow faint in asking, accuse thyself, and not the Giver. For\ndouble-heartedness is a daughter of the devil, and works much mischief\ntowards the servants of God. Do thou, therefore, take to thyself the\nfaith that is strong.\"\n\nIn the twelfth section of the ninth Similitude, in the third book, in\nthe midst of much to the same import, and of much, too, which is strange\nand altogether unworthy of the pen from which the previous quotation\nproceeded, he thus writes, as the Latin records his words, the Greek of\nthis passage having been lost.\n\n\"These all are messengers to be reverenced for their dignity. By these,\ntherefore, as it were by a wall, the Lord is girded round. But the gate\nis the Son of God, who is the only way to God. For no one shall enter in\nto God except by his Son.\" [Book iii. Simil. 2.]\n\nOn the subject of prayer, I cannot refrain from referring you to a\nbeautiful similitude, illustrative of the powerful and beneficial\neffects of the intercession of Christians for each other. The author\ncompares a rich man, abounding in deeds of charity, to a vine full of\nfruit supported by an elm. The elm seems not to bear fruit at all; but\nby supporting the vine, which, without that support, would bear no fruit\nto perfection, it may be said to bear fruit itself. So the poor man, who\nhas nothing to give in return for the rich man's fruits of charity,\nbeyond the support which his prayers and praises ascending to God in his\nbehalf will obtain, confers a far more substantial benefit on the rich\nman than the most liberal outpouring of alms from the rich can confer on\nthe poor. [Ibid.] Yet the writer, who {79} had formed such strong\nnotions of the benefits mutually obtained by the prayers of Christians\nfor each other, says not a word about the intercession of saints and\nangels, nor of our invoking them. He will not suffer us to be deterred\nby any consciousness of our own transgressions from approaching God\nHimself, directly and immediately ourselves; but He bids us draw near\nourselves to the throne and mercy seat of our heavenly Father.\n\n * * * * *\n\nST. CLEMENT, BISHOP OF ROME.\n\nIt is impossible to read the testimony borne by Eusebius, and other most\nancient writers, to the character and circumstances of Clement, without\nfeeling a deep interest in whatever production of his pen may have\nescaped the ravages of time. \"Third from the Apostles,\" says Eusebius,\n\"Clement obtained the bishopric of Rome; one who had seen the Apostles\nand conversed with them, and had still the sound of their preaching in\nhis ears, and their tradition before his eyes;--and not he alone, for\nmany others[26] at that time were still living, who had been taught by\nthe Apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small schism having arisen\namong the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a most important\nletter to the Corinthians, urging them to return to peace, renewing {80}\ntheir faith, and [reminding them of] the tradition which had been so\nlately received from the Apostles.\" [Euseb. Eccl. Hist. v. c. 6.]\n\n [Footnote 26: See St. Paul to the Philippians, iv. 3. \"And I\n entreat thee also, true yoke-fellow, help those women which\n laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with\n other my fellow-labourers, whose names are in the book of\n life.\"]\n\nOf the many works which have been attributed to Clement, it is now\ngenerally agreed, that one, and only one, can be safely received as\ngenuine, whilst some maintain that even that one is not altogether free\nfrom interpolations, if not itself spurious[27]. But though we must\nbelieve the other works to have been assigned improperly to Clement; yet\nI have not thought it safe to pass them by unexamined, both because some\nof them are held in high estimation by writers of the Church of Rome,\nand especially because whatever pen first composed them, of their very\ngreat antiquity there can be entertained no reasonable doubt. Indeed,\nthe Apostolical Canons, and the Apostolical Constitutions, both ascribed\nto Clement as their author, acting under the direction of the Apostolic\nCouncil, stand first among the records of the Councils received by the\nChurch of Rome.\n\n [Footnote 27: Archbishop Wake concludes that this first Epistle\n was written shortly after the end of Nero's persecution, and\n before A.D. 70.]\n\nTo Clement's first Epistle to the Corinthians, now regarded by many as\nthe only genuine work of that primitive writer, the date of which is\nconsidered by many to be about A.D. 90, Jerome bears this very\ninteresting testimony in his book on illustrious men:\n\n\"He, Clement, wrote in the person of the Church of Rome, to the Church\nin Corinth, a very useful epistle, which is publicly read in some\nplaces; in its character agreeing with St. Paul's Epistle to the\nHebrews, not only in the sense, but even in the words: and indeed the\nresemblance is very striking in each.\" [Catalogus Scriptorum\nEcclesiasticorum, Jeron., vol. iv, part ii. p. 107, edit. Benedict.\nParis, 1706.] {81}\n\nIt is impossible to read this Epistle of one of the earliest bishops of\nChrist's flock in the proper frame of mind, without spiritual\nedification. A tone of primitive simplicity pervades it, which is quite\ndelightful. His witness to the redemption by the atoning sacrifice of\nChrist's death, and to the life-giving influences of the Spirit of\ngrace, is clear, repeated, and direct. His familiar acquaintance with\nthe ancient Scriptures is very remarkable; though we might not always\nacquiesce in the critical accuracy of his application. His reference to\nthe Epistles written by St. Paul to the same Church at Corinth that he\nwas then addressing, affords one of those unobtrusive and undesigned\ncollateral evidences to the Holy Scriptures, which are as abundant in\nthe primitive writings, as they are invaluable. No one can read this\nEpistle of Clement, without acquiescing in the expression of Jerome,\nthat it is \"very admirable.\"\n\nPerhaps in the present work the Epistle of Clement becomes even more\ninteresting from the circumstance of his having been a bishop of the\nChurch founded by the Apostles themselves in the very place where that\nChurch exists, to whose members this inquiry is more especially\naddressed. In his writings I have searched diligently for every\nexpression which might throw light upon the opinions and practice either\nof the author or of the Church in whose name he wrote; of the Church\nwhich he addressed, or of the Catholic Church at large to which he\nrefers, on the subject of our inquiry. So far, however, from any word\noccurring, which could be brought to bear in favour of the adoration of\nsaints and angels, or of any supplication to them for their succour or\ntheir prayers, the peculiar turn and character of his Epistle in many\nparts seems to supply {82} more than negative evidence against the\nprevalence of any such belief or practice. Clement speaks of angels; he\nspeaks of the holy men of old, who pleased God, and were blessed, and\nwere taken to their reward; he speaks of prayer; he urges to prayer; he\nspecifies the object of our prayers; he particularizes the subjects of\nour prayers; but there is not the most distant allusion to the saints\nand angels as persons to whom supplications could be addressed. Pray for\nyourselves (such are the sentiments of this holy man); pray for your\nbrethren who have fallen from their integrity; pray to God Almighty, for\nthe sake of his Son, and your prayer will be heard and granted. Of any\nother intercessor or advocate, angel, saint, or Virgin Mother; of any\nother being to whom the invocations of the faithful should be offered,\nClement seems to have had no knowledge. Could this have been so, if\nthose who received the Gospel from the very fountain-head had been\naccustomed to pray to those holy men who had finished their course on\nearth, and were gone to their reward in heaven? Clement invites us to\ncontemplate Enoch, and Abraham, and David, and Elijah, and Job, with\nmany of their brethren in faith and holiness; he bids us look to them\nwith reverence and gratitude, but it is only to imitate their good\nexamples. He tells us to think of St. Paul and St. Peter and their\nbrethren in faith and holiness; but it is in order to listen to their\ngodly admonitions, and to follow them in all pious obedience to the will\nof our heavenly Father, as they followed Christ. I must content myself\nwith a very few brief extracts from this Epistle[28]:\n\n [Footnote 28: I am induced to mention here that two Epistles,\n ascribed to St. Clement, written in Arabic, and now appended to\n Wetstein's Greek Testament (Amsterdam, 1751), are believed by\n many to be genuine, whilst others say they are spurious. At all\n events they are productions of the earliest times. The\n manuscript was procured at Constantinople. I have examined the\n Latin translation carefully, and in some points submitted my\n doubts to a very learned Syriac scholar. The general subject is\n the conduct of those who have professed celibacy, whilst of the\n invocation of saints no trace whatever is to be found. The\n passages most closely bearing on the point before us are to the\n following effect:\n\n The writer urges Christians to be careful to maintain good\n works, especially in the cause of charity, visiting the sick and\n afflicted, praying with them, and praying for them, and\n persevering always in prayer; asking and seeking of God in joy\n and watchfulness, without hatred or malice. In the Lord's\n husbandry, he says, it well becomes us to be good workmen, who\n are like the Apostles, imitating the Father, the Son, and the\n Holy Ghost, who are ever anxious for the salvation of men.\n\n \"Therefore (he adds, at the close of the first of these\n Epistles) let us look to and imitate those faithful ones, that\n we may behave ourselves as is meet in the Lord. So shall we\n serve the Lord, and please him, in righteousness and justice\n without a stain. Finally, farewell in the Lord, and rejoice in\n the Lord, all ye holy ones. Peace and joy be with you from God\n the Father, by Jesus Christ our Lord.\"] {83}\n\nCh. 21. \"Take heed, beloved, lest the many loving-kindnesses of the Lord\nprove our condemnation, if we do not live as is worthy of him, nor do\nwith one accord what is good and well-pleasing in his sight.... Let us\nconsider how nigh to us he is, and that nothing of our thoughts or\nreasonings is concealed from him. Justice it is that we should not\nbecome deserters from his will.... Let us venerate the Lord Jesus, whose\nblood was given for us.\"\n\nCh. 29. \"Let us then approach him in holiness of soul, lifting up holy\nand undefiled hands towards him; loving our merciful and tender Father\nwho hath made us a portion of his elect.\" {84}\n\nCh. 36. \"This is the way, beloved, in which we find Jesus Christ our\nsalvation, the chief-priest of our offerings, our protector, and the\nsuccourer of our weakness. By him let us look stedfastly to the heights\nof heaven; by him let us behold his most high and spotless face: by him\nthe eyes of our heart are opened; by him our ignorant and darkened minds\nshoot forth into his marvellous light; by him the Supreme Governor\nwilled that we should taste immortal knowledge: who, being the\nbrightness of his magnificence, is so much greater than the angels, as\nhe hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.\"\n\nCh. 49. \"He who hath love in Christ, let him keep the commandments of\nChrist. Who can tell of the bond of the love of God? The greatness of\nhis goodness who can adequately express?... Love unites us to God.... By\nlove the Lord took us; by the love which he had for us Christ our Lord\ngave his blood for us by the will of God, and his flesh for our flesh,\nand his life for our lives.\"\n\nCh. 56. \"Let us pray for those who are in any transgression, that\nmeekness and humility may be granted to them; that they may submit, not\nto us, but to the will of God; for thus to them will the remembrance\ntowards God and the saints, with mercies, be fruitful and perfect[29].\"\n\n [Footnote 29: The original is obscure, and has been variously\n rendered, [Greek: outos gar estai autois egkarpos kai teleia hae\n pros ton theon kai tous hagious met oiktirmon mneia.] The Editor\n refers his readers to Rom. xii. 13. \"Distributing to the\n necessity of saints.\" The received translation is this, \"Sic\n enim erit ipsis fructuosa et perfecta qu\u00e6 est apud Deum et\n sanctos cum misericordia recordatio.\"]\n\nCh. 58. \"The all-seeing God, the Sovereign Ruler {85} of spirits, and\nthe Lord of all flesh, who hath chosen the Lord Jesus, and us through\nhim, to be a peculiar people; grant to every soul that calleth on his\nglorious and holy name, faith, fear, peace, patience, long-suffering,\nself-control, purity, and temperance, to the good pleasure of his name,\nthrough our high-priest and protector Jesus Christ; through whom to him\nbe glory and majesty, dominion and honour, now and for ever and ever,\nworld without end. Amen.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nSAINT IGNATIUS.\n\nThis martyr to the truth as it is in Jesus sealed that truth with his\nblood about seventy years after the death of our Lord. From Antioch in\nSyria, of which place he was bishop, he was sent to the imperial city,\nRome; and there he ended his mortal career by a death which he had long\nexpected, and which he was prepared to meet not only with resignation to\nthe Divine will, but even with joy and gladness. His Epistles are\nwritten with much of the florid colouring of Asiatic eloquence; but they\nhave all the raciness of originality, and they glow with that Christian\nfervour and charity which compels us to love him as a father and a\nfriend, a father and friend in Christ. The remains of this apostolic\nfather I have carefully studied, with the single view of ascertaining\nwhether any vestige, however faint, might be traced in him of the\ninvocation of saints and angels; but I can find none. Neither here, nor\nin the case of any of the apostolical fathers, whose remains we are\nexamining, have I contented myself with merely ascertaining that they\nbear no direct and palpable evidence; I have always endeavoured to find,\nand then thoroughly to sift, any expressions which might with {86} the\nslightest plea of justification be urged in testimony of primitive\nbelief and practice sanctioning the invocation of saints. I find none.\nBrethren of the Church of Rome, search diligently for yourselves; \"I\nspeak as to wise men: Judge ye what I say.\"\n\nThe remains of Ignatius offer to us many a passage on which a Christian\npastor would delight to dwell: but my province here is not to recommend\nhis works to the notice of Christians; I am only to report the result of\nmy inquiries touching the matter in question; and as bearing on that\nquestion, the following extracts will not be deemed burdensome in this\nplace:--\n\nIn his Epistle to the Ephesians, exhorting Christians to united prayer,\nhe says, \"For if the prayer of one or two possesses such strength, how\nmuch more shall the prayer both of the bishop and of the whole Church?\"\n[Page 13. \u00a7 5-7.] \"For there is one physician of a corporeal and a\nspiritual nature, begotten and not begotten; become God in the flesh,\ntrue life in death, both from Mary and from God; first liable to\nsuffering, and then incapable of suffering.\" [In the majority of the\nmanuscripts the reading is, \"in an immortal true life.\"]\n\nHere we must observe that these Epistles of Ignatius have come down to\nus also in an interpolated form, abounding indeed with substitutions and\nadditions, but generally resembling paraphrases of the original text. Of\nthe general character of that supposititious work, two passages\ncorresponding with our quotations from the genuine productions of\nIgnatius may give a sufficiently accurate idea. The first passage above\nquoted is thus paraphrased: \"For if the prayer of one or two possesses\n{87} such strength that Christ stands among them, how much more shall\nthe prayer both of the bishop and of the whole Church, ascending with\none voice to God, induce him to grant all their requests made in Jesus\nChrist?\" [Page 47. c. 5.] The paraphrase of the second is more full:\n\"Our physician is the only true God, ungenerated and unapproachable; the\nLord of all things, but the Father and Generator of the only-begotten\nSon. We have also as our physician our Lord God, Jesus Christ, who was\nbefore the world, the only-begotten Son and the Word, but also\nafterwards man of the Virgin Mary; 'for the Word was made flesh.' He who\nwas incorporeal, now in a body; he who could not suffer, now in a body\ncapable of suffering; he who was immortal in a mortal body, life in\ncorruption--in order that he might free our immortal souls from death\nand corruption, and heal them, diseased with ungodliness and evil\ndesires as they were.\" [Page 48. c. 7.]\n\nIt must here be observed, that though these are indisputably not the\ngenuine works of Ignatius, but were the productions of a later age, yet\nno trace is to be found in them of the doctrine, or practice, of the\ninvocation of saints. In this point of view their testimony is nothing\nmore nor less than that of an anonymous paraphrast, who certainly had\nmany opportunities of referring to that doctrine and practice; but who\nby his total silence seems to have been as ignorant of them as the\nauthor himself whose works he is paraphrasing.\n\nTo return to his genuine works: In his Epistle to the Magnesians we find\nthese expressions: \"For as the Lord did nothing without the Father,\nbeing one with {88} him, neither by himself, nor by his Apostles; so\nneither do ye any thing without the bishop and priests, nor attempt to\nmake any thing appear reasonable to yourselves individually. But at one\nplace be there one prayer, and one supplication, one mind, one hope in\nlove, in blameless rejoicing: Jesus Christ is one; than which nothing is\nbetter. All, then, throng as to one temple, as to one altar, as to one\nJesus Christ, who proceeded from one Father, and is in one, and returned\nto one.\" [Page 19. \u00a7 7.] Again he says, \"Remember me in your prayers,\nthat I may attain to God. I am in need of your united prayer in God, and\nof your love.\"\n\nIn his Epistle to the Trallians, he expresses himself in words to which\nno Anglican Catholic would hesitate to respond: \"Ye ought to comfort the\nbishop, to the honour of God, and of Jesus Christ, and of the Apostles.\"\n[Page 25. \u00a7 12.] He speaks in this Epistle with humility and reverence\nof the powers and hosts of heaven; but he makes no allusion to any\nreligious worship or invocation of them.\n\nThe following extract is from his Epistle to the Philadelphians: \"My\nbrethren, I am altogether poured forth in love for you; and in exceeding\njoy I make you secure; yet not I, but Jesus Christ, bound in whom I am\nthe more afraid, as being already seized[30]; but your prayer to God\nwill perfect me, that I may obtain the lot mercifully assigned to me.\nBetaking myself to the Gospel as to the flesh of Jesus, and to the\nApostles as the presbytery of the Church; let us also love the prophets,\nbecause they also have proclaimed the Gospel, and hoped in him, and\nwaited for him; in whom also {89} trusting, they were saved in the unity\nof Jesus Christ, being holy ones worthy of love and admiration, who have\nreceived testimony from Jesus Christ, and are numbered together in the\nGospel of our common hope.\" [Page 32. \u00a7 5.]\n\n [Footnote 30: This clause is very obscure, and perhaps\n imperfect.]\n\nI am induced to add the paraphrase on this passage also. \"My brethren, I\nam very much poured out in loving you, and with exceeding joy I make you\nsecure; not I, but by me, Jesus Christ, in whom bound I am the more\nafraid. For I am yet not perfected, but your prayer to God will perfect\nme; so that I may obtain that to which I was called, flying to the\nGospel as the flesh of Jesus Christ, and to the Apostles as the\npresbytery of the Church. And the prophets also I love, as persons who\nannounce Christ, as partaking of the same spirit with the Apostles. For\njust as the false prophets and false apostles have drawn one and the\nsame wicked and deceitful and seducing spirit, so also the prophets and\nthe apostles, one and the same holy spirit, good, leading, true, and\ninstructing. For one is the God of the Old and the New Testament. One is\nMediator between God and man, for the production of the creatures endued\nwith reason and perception, and for the provision of what is useful, and\nadapted to them: and one is the Comforter who wrought in Moses and the\nprophets and the apostles. All the saints therefore were saved in\nChrist, hoping in him, and waiting for him; and through him they\nobtained salvation, being saints worthy of love and of admiration,\nhaving obtained a testimony from Jesus Christ in the Gospel of our\ncommon hope.\" [Page 81. \u00a7 5.]\n\nIn his Epistle to the Romans he speaks to them of his own prayer to God,\nand repeatedly implores them {90} to pray for him. \"Pray to Christ for\nme, that by these instruments [the teeth of the wild beasts] I may\nbecome a sacrifice of God. I do not, as Peter and Paul, command you:\nthey were Apostles, I am a condemned man. They were free; but I am still\na servant. Yet if I suffer, I shall become the freedman of Jesus Christ,\nand shall rise again free: and now in my bonds I learn to covet\nnothing.\" [Page 28. \u00a7 4.] Again he says, \"Remember the Church in Syria\nin your prayers.\" [Page 30. \u00a7 9.] He prays for his fellow-labourers in\nthe Lord: he implores them to approach the throne of grace with\nsupplications for mercy on his own soul. Of prayer to saint or angel he\nsays nothing. Of any invocation offered to them by himself or his\nfellow-believers, Ignatius appears entirely ignorant.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSAINT POLYCARP.\n\nThe only remaining name among those, whom the Church has reverenced as\napostolical fathers, is the venerable Polycarp. He suffered martyrdom by\nfire, at a very advanced age, in Smyrna, about one hundred and thirty\nyears after his Saviour's death. Of Polycarp, the apostolical bishop of\nthe Catholic Church of Smyrna, only one Epistle has survived. It is\naddressed to the Philippians. In it he speaks to his brother Christians\nof prayer, constant, incessant prayer; but the prayer of which he speaks\nis supplication addressed only to God [31]. He marks out for our\nimitation the good example of St. Paul and the other Apostles; assuring\nus that they had not run in vain, {91} but were gone to the place\nprepared for them by the Lord, as the reward of their labours. But not\none word does he utter bearing upon the invocation of saints in prayer;\nhe makes no allusion to the Virgin Mary.\n\n [Footnote 31: [Greek: deaesesin aitoumenoi ton pantepoptaen\n Theon]. Sect. 7.]\n\nBefore we close our examination of the recorded sentiments of the\napostolical fathers on the immediate subject of our inquiry, we must\nrefer, though briefly, to the Epistle generally received as the genuine\nletter from the Church of Smyrna to the neighbouring Churches, narrating\nthe martyrdom of Polycarp. It belongs, perhaps, more strictly to this\nplace than to the remains of Eusebius, because, together with the\nsentiments of his contemporaries who witnessed his death and dictated\nthe letter, it purports to contain the very words of the martyr himself\nin the last prayer which he ever offered upon earth. With some\nvariations from the copy generally circulated, this letter is preserved\nin the works of Eusebius. [Euseb. Paris, 1628, dedicated to the\nArchbishop by Franciscus Vigerus.] On the subject of our present\nresearch the evidence of this letter is not merely negative. So far from\ncountenancing any invocation of saint or martyr, it contains a\nremarkable and very interesting passage, the plain common-sense\nrendering of which bears decidedly against all exaltation of mortals\ninto objects of religious worship. The letter, however, is too well\nknown to need any further preliminary remarks; and we must content\nourselves with such references and extracts as may appear to bear most\ndirectly on our subject.\n\n\"The Church of God, which is in Smyrna, to the Church in Philomela, and\nto all the branches [Greek: paroikais] {92} of the holy Catholic Church\ndwelling in any place, mercy, peace, and love of God the Father, and our\nLord Jesus Christ be multiplied.\" [Book i. Hist. iv. c. xv. p. 163.]\n\n\"The Proconsul, in astonishment, caused it to be proclaimed thrice,\nPolycarp has confessed himself to be a Christian. On this they all\nshouted, that the Proconsul should let a lion loose on Polycarp. But the\ngames were over, and that could not be done: they then with one accord\ninsisted on his being burnt alive.\"\n\nPolycarp, before his death, offered this prayer, or rather perhaps we\nshould call it this thanksgiving, to God for his mercy in thus deeming\nhim worthy to suffer death for the truth, \"Father of thy beloved and\nblessed Son Jesus Christ, by whom we have received our knowledge\nconcerning thee, the God of angels and power, and of the whole creation,\nand of the whole family of the just, who live before thee; I bless thee\nbecause thou hast deemed me worthy of this day and this hour to receive\nmy portion among the number of the martyrs, in the cup of Christ, to the\nresurrection both of soul and body in the incorruption of the Holy\nGhost; among whom may I be received before thee this day in a rich and\nacceptable sacrifice, even as thou, the true God, who canst not lie,\nforeshowing and fulfilling, hast beforehand prepared. For this, and for\nall I praise thee, I bless thee; I glorify thee, through the eternal\nhigh-priest Jesus Christ thy beloved Son, through whom to thee, with him\nin the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and for future ages. Amen.\"\n\n(I cannot help suggesting a comparison between the prayer of this\nprimitive martyr bound to the stake, with the prayer of Thomas Becket,\nof Canterbury, as stated in the ancient services for his day, when he\nwas murdered in his own cathedral, to which we shall hereafter refer at\nlength. The comparison will impress us with the difference between\nreligion and superstition, between the purity of primitive Christian\nworship, and the unhappy corruptions of a degenerate age. \"To God and\nthe Blessed Mary, and Saint Dionysius, and the holy patrons of this\nChurch, I commend myself and the Church.\") {93}\n\nAfter his death, the narrative proceeds, \"But the envious adversary of\nthe just observed the honour put upon the greatness of his testimony,\n[or of his martyrdom [Greek: to megethos autou taes marturias],] and his\nblameless life from the first, and knowing that he was now crowned with\nimmortality, and the prize of undoubted victory, resisted, though many\nof us desired to take his body, and have fellowship with his holy flesh.\nSome then suggested to Nicetes, the father of Herod, and brother of\nDalce, to entreat the governor not to give his body, 'Lest,' said he,\n'leaving the crucified One they should begin to worship this man [Greek:\nsebein];' and this they said at the suggestion and importunity of the\nJews, who also watched us when we would take the body from the fire.\nThis they did, not knowing that we can never either leave Christ, who\nsuffered for the salvation of all who will be saved in all the world, or\nworship any other.\" [The Paris translation adds \"ut Deum.\"] \"For him\nbeing the Son of God we worship [Greek: proskunumen], but the martyrs,\nas disciples and imitators of our Lord, we worthily love[32], because of\ntheir pre-eminent [Greek: anuperblaeton] good-will towards their {94}\nown king and teacher, with whom may we become partakers and\nfellow-disciples.\"\n\n [Footnote 32: [Greek: axios agapomen]. Ruffinus translates it by\n \"diligimus et veneramur,\" and it is so quoted by Bellarmin.]\n\n\"The centurion, seeing the determination of the Jews, placed him in the\nmidst, and burnt him as their manner is. And thus we collecting his\nbones, more valuable than precious stones, and more esteemed than gold,\nwe deposited them where it was meet. There, as we are able, collecting\nourselves together in rejoicing and gladness, the Lord will grant to us\nto observe the birth-day of his martyrdom, for the remembrance of those\nwho have before undergone the conflict, and for exercise and preparation\nof those who are to come.\" [Greek: hos dunaton haemin sunagomenois en\nagalliasei kai chara parexei ho Kurios epitelein taen tou martyriou\nautou haemeran genethlion, eis te ton proaethlaekoton mnaemaen, kai ton\nmellonton askaesin te kai hetoimasian.]\n\nIn this relic of primitive antiquity, we have the prayer of a holy\nmartyr, at his last hour, offered to God alone, through Christ alone.\nHere we find no allusion to any other intercessor; no commending of the\ndying Christian's soul to saint or angel. Here also we find an explicit\ndeclaration, that Christians offered religious worship to no one but\nChrist, whilst they loved the martyrs, and kept their names in grateful\nremembrance, and honoured even their ashes when the spirit had fled.\nPolycarp pleads no other merits; he seeks no intercession; he prays for\nno aid, save only his Redeemer's. Here too we find, that the place of a\nmartyr's burial was the place which the early Christians loved to\nfrequent; but then we are expressly told with what intent they met\nthere,--not, as in later times, to invoke the departed spirit of the\nmartyr, but to call to mind, in grateful remembrance, the sufferings of\nthose who had already endured the awful struggle; and by {95} their\nexample to encourage and prepare other soldiers of the cross thereafter\nto fight the good fight of faith; assured that they would be more than\nconquerors through Him who loved them.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe have now examined those works which are regarded by us all, whether\nof the Roman or Anglican Church, as the remains of apostolical\nfathers,--Christians who, at the very lowest calculation, lived close\nupon the Apostles' time, and who, according to the firm conviction of\nmany, had all of them conversed with the Apostles, and heard the word of\ntruth from their mouths. I do from my heart rejoice with you, that these\nholy men bear direct, clear, and irrefragable testimony to those\nfundamental truths which the Church of Rome and the Church of England\nboth hold inviolate--the doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity, with its\nessential and inseparable concomitants, the atonement by the blood of a\ncrucified Redeemer, and the vivifying and sanctifying influences of the\nHoly Spirit.\n\nSupposing for a moment no trace of such fundamental doctrines could be\ndiscovered in these writings, would not the absence of such vestige have\nbeen urged by those who differ from us, as a strong argument that the\ndoctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity was an innovation of a later date;\nand would not such an argument have been urged with reason? How, in\nplain honesty, can we avoid coming to the same conclusion on the subject\nof the invocation of saints? If the doctrine and the practice of praying\nto saints, or to angels, for their succour, or even their intercession,\nhad been known {96} and recognised, and approved and acted upon by the\nApostles, and those who were the very disciples of the Apostles, not\nonly deriving the truth from their written works, but having heard it\nfrom their own living tongue,--in the nature of things would not some\nplain, palpable, intelligible, and unequivocal indications of it have\nappeared in such writings as these; writings in which much is said of\nprayer, of intercessory prayer, of the one object of prayer, of the\nsubjects of prayer, of the nature of prayer, the time and place of\nprayer, the spirit in which we are to offer prayer, and the persons for\nwhom we ought to pray? Does it accord with common sense, and common\nexperience, with what we should expect in other cases, with the analogy\nof history, and the analogy of faith, that we should find a profound and\ntotal silence on the subject of any prayer or invocation to saints and\nangels, if prayer or invocation of saints and angels had been\nrecognised, approved, and practised by the primitive Church?\n\nAt the risk of repetition, or surplusage, I would beg to call your\nattention to one point in this argument. I am far from saying that no\npractice is apostolical which cannot be proved from the writings of\nthese apostolical fathers: that would be a fallacy of an opposite kind.\nI ground my inference specifically and directly on the fact, that these\nwriters are full, and copious, and explicit, and cogent on the nature\nand duty of prayer and supplications, as well for public as for private\nblessings; and of intercessions by one Christian for another, and for\nthe whole race of mankind no less than for mercy on himself; and yet\nthough openings of every kind palpably offered themselves for a natural\nintroduction of the subject, there is in no one single instance any\nreference or allusion to the {97} invocation of saint or angel, as a\npractice either approved or even known.\n\nWhen indeed I call to mind the general tendency of the natural man to\nmultiply to himself the objects of religious worship, and to create, by\nthe help of superstition, and the delusive workings of the imagination,\na variety of unearthly beings whose wrath he must appease, or whose\nfavour he may conciliate; when I reflect how great is the temptation in\nunenlightened or fraudulent teachers to accommodate the dictates of\ntruth to the prejudices and desires of those whom they instruct, my\nwonder is rather that Christianity was so long preserved pure and\nuncontaminated in this respect, than that corruptions should gradually\nand stealthily have mingled themselves with the simplicity of Gospel\nworship. That tendency is plainly evinced by the history of every nation\nunder heaven: Greek and Barbarian, Egyptian and Scythian, would have\ntheir gods many, and their lords many. From one they would look for one\ngood; on another they would depend for a different benefit, in mind,\nbody, and estate. Some were of the highest grade, and to be worshipped\nwith supreme honours; others were of a lower rank, to whom an inferior\nhomage was addressed; whilst a third class held a sort of middle place,\nand were approached with reverence as much above the least, as it fell\nshort of the greatest. In the heathen world you will find exact types of\nthe dulia, the hyperdulia, and the latria, with which unhappily the\npractical theology of modern Christian Rome is burdened. Indeed, my\nwonder is, that under the Christian dispensation, when the household and\nlocal gods, the heathen's tutelary deities, and the genii, had been\ndislodged by the light of the Gospel, saints and angels had not at a\nmuch {98} earlier period been forced by superstition to occupy their\nroom.\n\nWe shall be led to refer to some passages in the earliest Christian\nwriters, especially in Origen, which bear immediately on this point,\nrepresenting in strong but true colours the futility of deeming a\nmultitude of inferior divinities necessary for the dispensation of\nbenefits throughout the universe, whose good offices we must secure by\nacts of attention and worship. I anticipate the circumstance in this\nplace merely to show that the tendency of the human mind, clinging to a\nvariety of preternatural protectors and benefactors, was among the\nobstacles with which the first preachers of the Gospel had to struggle.\nIn the proper place I shall beg you to observe how hardly possible it\nwould have been for those early Christian writers, to whom I have\nreferred above, to express themselves in so strong, so sweeping, and so\nunqualified a manner, had the practice of applying by invocation to\nsaints and angels then been prevalent among the disciples of the Cross.\n\nWe may, I believe, safely conclude, that in these primitive writings,\nwhich are called the works of the Apostolical Fathers, there is no\nintimation that the present belief and practice of the Church of Rome\nwere received, or even known by Christians. The evidence is all the\nother way. Indeed, Bellarmin, though he appeals to these remains for\nother purposes, and boldly asserts that \"all the fathers, Greek and\nLatin, with unanimous consent, sanction and teach the adoration of\nsaints and angels,\" yet does not refer to a single passage in any one of\nthese remains for establishing this point. He cites a clause from the\nspurious work strangely ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, which was\nthe forged production, as the learned are all {99} agreed, of some\ncenturies later; and he cites a pious sentiment of Ignatius, expressing\nhis hope that by martyrdom he might go to Christ, and thence he infers\nthat Ignatius believed in the immediate transfer of the soul from this\nlife to glory and happiness in heaven, though Ignatius refers there\ndistinctly to the resurrection. [Epist. ad Rom. c. iv. See above, p.\n90.] But Bellarmin cites no passage whatever from these remains to\ncountenance the doctrine and practice of the adoration of saints and\nangels. {100}\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nSECTION I.--THE EVIDENCE OF JUSTIN MARTYR.\n\n\nJustin, who flourished about the year 150, was trained from his early\nyouth in all the learning of Greece and of Egypt. He was born in\nPalestine, of heathen parents; and after a patient examination of the\nevidences of Christianity, and a close comparison of them with the\nsystems of philosophy with which he had long been familiar, he became a\ndisciple of the Cross. In those systems he found nothing solid, or\nsatisfactory; nothing on which his mind could rest. In the Gospel he\ngained all that his soul yearned for, as a being destined for immortal\nlife, conscious of that destiny, and longing for its accomplishment. His\nunderstanding was convinced, and his heart was touched; and regardless\nof every worldly consideration, and devoted to the cause of truth, he\nopenly embraced Christianity; and before kings and people, Jews and\nGentiles, he pleaded the religion of the crucified One with unquenchable\nzeal and astonishing power. The evidence of such a man on any doctrine\n{101} connected with our Christian faith must be looked to with great\ninterest.\n\nIn the volumes which contain Justin's works we find \"Books of\nQuestions,\" in which many inquiries, doubts, and objections, as well of\nJews as of Gentiles, are stated and answered. It is agreed on all sides\nthat these are not the genuine productions of Justin, but the work of a\nlater hand. Bellarmin appeals to them, acknowledging at the same time\ntheir less remote origin. The evidence, indeed, appears very strong,\nwhich would lead us to regard them as the composition of a Syrian\nChristian, and assign to them the date of the fifth century; and as\noffering indications of the opinions of Christians at the time of their\nbeing put together, they are certainly interesting documents. When\nfairly quoted, the passages alleged in defence of the invocation of\nsaints, so far from countenancing the practice, assail irresistibly that\nprinciple, which, with other writers, Bellarmin himself confesses to be\nthe foundation of that doctrine. For these Books of Questions assert\nthat the souls of the faithful are not yet in glory with God, but are\nreserved in a separate state, apart from the wicked, awaiting the great\nday of final and universal doom. In answer to Question 60, the author\ndistinctly says:--\"Before the resurrection the recompense is not made\nfor the things done in this life by each individual.\" [Qu\u00e6stiones et\nResponsiones ad Orthodoxos, p. 464.]\n\nIn reply to the 75th Question, inquiring into the condition of man after\ndeath, this very remarkable answer is returned:--\n\n\"The same relative condition which souls have with the body now, they\nhave not after the departure from the body. For here all the\ncircumstances of the union {102} are in common to the just and the\nunjust, and no difference is in them in this respect,--as to be born and\nto die, to be in health and to be in sickness, to be rich and to be\npoor, and the other points of this nature. But after the departure from\nthe body, forthwith takes place the distinction of the just and the\nunjust: for they are conducted by the angels to places corresponding\nwith their deserts: the souls of the just to paradise, where is the\ncompany and the sight of angels and archangels, and also, by vision, of\nthe Saviour Christ, according to what is said, 'Being absent from the\nbody, and present with the Lord;' and the souls of the unjust to the\nplaces in hades, according to what is said of Nebucodonosor king of\nBabylon, 'Hades from beneath hath been embittered, meeting thee.'--And\nin the places corresponding with their deserts they are kept in ward\nunto the day of the resurrection and of retribution.\" [Page 469.]\n\nI much regret to observe that Bellarmin omits to quote the latter part\nof this passage, stopping short with an \"&c.\" at the words _hades_, or\n_inferorum loca_, although the whole of the writer's testimony in it\nturns upon the very last clause. [Bellarmin, c. iv. p. 851. \"Improborum\nautem ad inferorum loca.\"]\n\nThe next question (76) runs thus: \"If the retribution of our deeds does\nnot take place before the resurrection, what advantage accrued to the\nthief that his soul was introduced into paradise; especially since\nparadise is an object of sense, and the substance of the soul is not an\nobject of sense?\n\n\"Answer. It was an advantage to the thief entering into paradise to\nlearn by fact the benefits of the faith by which he was deemed worthy of\nthe assembly of the {103} saints, in which he is kept till the day of\njudgment and restitution; and he has the perception of paradise by that\nwhich is called intellectual perception, by which souls see both\nthemselves and the things under them, and moreover also the angels and\ndemons. For a soul doth not perceive or see a soul, nor an angel an\nangel, nor a demon a demon; except that according to the said\nintellectual perception they see both themselves and each other, and\nmoreover also all corporeal objects.\" [Page 470.]\n\nOn this same point I must here subjoin a passage from one of Justin's\nown undisputed works. In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, sect. 5, he\nsays, \"Nevertheless I do not say that souls all die; for that were in\ntruth a boon to the wicked. But what? That the souls of the pious remain\nsomewhere in a better place, and the unjust and wicked in a worse,\nwaiting for the time of judgment, when it shall be: thus the one\nappearing worthy of God do not die any more; and the others are punished\nas long as God wills them both to exist and to be punished.\" [Page 107.]\n\nNot only so; Justin classes among renouncers of the faith those who\nmaintain the doctrine which is now acknowledged to be the doctrine of\nthe Church of Rome, and to be indispensable as the groundwork of the\nadoration of saints. In his Trypho, sect. 80, he states his sentiment\nthus strongly: \"If you should meet with any persons called Christians,\nwho confess not this, but dare to blaspheme the God of Abraham, the God\nof Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and say there is no resurrection of the\ndead ([Greek: nekron]), but that their souls, at the very time of their\ndeath, are taken up into heaven; do not regard them as Christians.\"\n[Page 178.] {104}\n\nThis, according to Bellarmin's own principle, is fatal evidence: if the\nredeemed and the saints departed are not in glory with God already, they\ncannot intercede with him for men. On the subject, however, of worship\nand prayer, Justin Martyr has left us some testimonies as to the\nprimitive practice, full of interest in themselves, independently of\ntheir bearing on the points at issue. At the same time I am not aware of\na single expression which can be so construed as to imply the doctrine\nor practice among Christians of invoking the souls of the faithful. He\nspeaks of public and private prayer; he offers prayer, but the prayer of\nwhich he speaks, and the prayer which he offers are to God alone; and he\nalludes to no advocate or intercessor in heaven, except only the eternal\nSon of God himself. In his first Apologia (or Defence addressed to the\nEmperor Antoninus Pius) he thus describes the proceedings at the baptism\nof a convert:--\n\n\"Now, we will explain to you how we dedicate ourselves to God, being\nmade new by Christ.... As many as are persuaded, and believe the things\nwhich by us are taught and declared to be true, and who promise that\nthey can so live, are taught to pray and implore, with fasting,\nforgiveness of God for their former sins, we ourselves joining with them\nin fasting and prayer; and then they are taken by us to a place where\nthere is water, and by the same manner of regeneration as we ourselves\nwere regenerated, they are regenerated; for they undergo this washing in\nthe water in the name of God the Father and Lord of all, and of our\nSaviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost.\" [Apol. i. sect 61, page\n79.]\n\nThe following is his description of the Christian {105} Eucharist,\nsubsequently to the baptism of a convert: \"Afterwards we conduct him to\nthose who are called brethren, where they are assembled together to\noffer earnestly our united prayers for ourselves and for the enlightened\none [the newly baptized convert], and for all others every where, that\nwe, having learned the truth, may be thought worthy to be found in our\ndeeds good livers, and keepers of the commandments, that we may be saved\nwith the everlasting salvation. Having ceased from prayers, we salute\neach other with a kiss; and then bread is brought to him who presides\nover the brethren, and a cup of water and wine; and he taking it, sends\nup prayer and praise to the Father of all, through the name of the Son\nand the Holy Spirit; and offers much thanksgiving for our being thought\nby him worthy of these things. When he has finished the prayers and\nthanksgivings, all the people present respond, saying, 'Amen.' Now, Amen\nin the Hebrew tongue means, 'So be it.' And when the presider has given\nthanks, and all the people have responded, those who are called Deacons\namong us give to every one present to partake of the bread and wine and\nwater that has been blessed, and take some away for those who were not\npresent.\" [Sect. 65. p. 82.]\n\nThe following is Justin's account of their worship on the Lord's day:\n\"In all our oblations we bless the Creator of all things, through his\nSon Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Spirit. And upon the day called\nSunday, there is an assembly of all who dwell in the several cities or\nin the country, in one place where the records of the apostles, or the\nwritings of the prophets are read, as time allows. When the reader has\nceased, {106} the presider makes a discourse for the edification of the\npeople, and to animate them to the practice of such excellent things [or\nthe imitation of such excellent persons]. At the conclusion we all rise\nup together and pray; and, as we have said, when we have ceased from\nprayer, the bread and wine and water are brought forward, and the\npresider sends up prayer and thanksgiving alike, to the utmost of his\npower. And the people respond, saying, Amen. And then is made to each\nthe distribution and participation of the consecrated elements ([Greek:\neucharistauthenton]). And of those who have the means and will, each\naccording to his disposition gives what he will; and the collected sum\nis deposited with the presider, and he aids the orphans and widows, and\nthose who through sickness or other cause are in need, and those in\nbonds, and strangers; and, in a word, he becomes the reliever of all who\nare in want.\" [Sect. 67. p. 83.]\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn Justin Martyr I am unable to find even a single vestige of the\ninvocation of Saints. With regard to Angels, however, there is a very\ncelebrated passage, to which Bellarmin and others appeal, as conclusive\nevidence that the worship of them prevailed among Christians in his\ntime, and was professed by Justin himself.\n\nJustin, in his first Apology, having stated that the Christians could\nnever be induced to worship the demons, whom the heathen worshipped and\ninvoked, proceeds thus[33]: \"Whence also we are called Atheists, {107}\n[men without God]; and we confess that with regard to such supposed gods\nwe are atheists, but not so with regard to the most true God, the Father\nof justice and temperance, and of the other virtues without any mixture\nof evil. But both HIM and the SON, who came from Him, and taught these\nthings to us, and THE HOST OF THE OTHER GOOD ANGELS ACCOMPANYING AND\nMADE LIKE, and THE PROPHETIC SPIRIT, we reverence and worship, honouring\nthem in reason and truth; and without grudging, delivering the doctrine\nto every one who is willing to learn as we were taught.\" [Page 47.]\nGoverning the words \"the host of the other good angels,\" as much as the\nwords \"Him\" and \"His Son,\" and \"the prophetic Spirit,\" by the verbs \"we\nreverence and worship,\" Bellarmin and others[34] maintain, that Justin\nbears testimony in this passage to the worship of angels. That this\ncannot be the true interpretation of Justin's words will be\nacknowledged, I think, by every Catholic, whether Anglican or Roman,\nwhen he contemplates it in all its naked plainness; all will revolt from\nit as impious and contrary to the principles professed by the most\ncelebrated and honoured among Roman Catholic writers. This\ninterpretation of the passage, when analysed, implies the awful thought,\nthat we Christians pay to the host of angels, God's ministers and our\nown fellow-servants, the same reverence, worship, and honour which we\npay to the supreme Father, and his ever-blessed Son, and the Holy\nSpirit, without any difference or inequality. No principles of\ninterpretation can avoid that inference.\n\n [Footnote 33: The genuineness of this passage has been doubted.\n But I see no ground for suspicion that it is spurious. It is\n found in the manuscripts of Justin's works; of which the most\n ancient perhaps are in the King's Library in Paris. I examined\n one there of a remote date.]\n\n [Footnote 34: The Benedictine Editor puts this note in the\n margin, \"Justin teaches that angels following the Son are\n worshipped by Christians.\"--Preface, p. xxi.] {108}\n\n\"Him the most true Father of righteousness we reverence and worship,\nhonouring him in reason and truth.\"\n\n\"The Son who came from him, and taught us these things, we reverence and\nworship, honouring him in reason and truth.\"\n\n\"The army of the other good angels accompanying and assimilated, we\nreverence and worship, honouring them in reason and truth.\"\n\n\"The Prophetic Spirit we reverence and worship, honouring him in reason\nand truth.\"\n\nIs it possible to conceive that any Christian would thus ascribe the\nsame religious worship to a host of God's creatures, which he would\nascribe to God, as GOD? \"We are accused,\" said Justin, \"of being\natheists, of having no God. How can this be? We do not worship your\nfalse gods, but we have our own most true God. We are not without a God.\nWe have the Father, and the Son, and the Good Angels, and the Holy\nSpirit.\" If Justin meant that they honoured the good angels, but not as\nGOD, that would be no answer to those who called the Christians\natheists. The charge was, that \"they had no God.\" The answer is, \"We\nhave a God;\" and then Justin describes the God of Christians. Can the\narmy of angels be included in that description? If they are, then they\nare made to share in the adoration, worship, homage, and reverence of\nthe one only God Most High; if they are not, then Justin does not answer\nthe objectors[35].\n\n [Footnote 35: And surely if Justin had intended to represent the\n holy angels as objects of religious worship, he would not so\n violently have thrust the mention of them among the Persons of\n the ever-blessed Trinity, assigning to them a place between the\n second and third Persons of the eternal hypostatic union.] {109}\n\nTo evade this charge of impiety, some writers (among others, M. Maran,\nthe Benedictine editor of Justin,) have attempted to draw a distinction\nbetween the two verbs in this passage, alleging that the lower degree of\nreverence expressed by the latter applies to the angels; whilst the\nformer verb, implying the higher degree of worship, alone relates to the\nGodhead. But this distinction rests on a false assumption; the two words\nbeing used equally to convey the idea, of the highest religious\nworship[36].\n\n [Footnote 36: For example, the first word ([Greek: sebometha]),\n \"we reverence,\" is used to mean the whole of religious worship,\n as well with regard to the true God, as with reference to Diana\n [Acts xviii. 7. 13; xix. 27.]; whilst the second word ([Greek:\n proskunoumen]), \"we worship,\" is constantly employed in the same\n sense of divine worship, throughout the Septuagint [Exod. xxxiv.\n 14. Ps. xciv. (xcv.) 6. I Sam. (1 Kings) xv. 25. 2 Kings (4\n Kings) xvii. 36. Heb. i. 6.], (with which Justin was most\n familiar,) and is used in the Epistle to the Hebrews to signify\n the worship due from the angels themselves to God, \"Let all the\n angels of God worship him.\" The very same word is also soon\n after employed by Justin himself (sect. xvi. p. 53) to mean the\n whole entire worship of the Most High God: \"That we ought to\n worship ([Greek: proskumein]) God alone, Christ thus proves,\"\n &c. Moreover, the word which Justin uses at the close of the\n sentence, \"honouring them\" ([Greek: timontes]), is the identical\n word four times employed by St. John [John v. 23.], in the same\n verse, to record our Saviour's saying, \"That all men might\n honour the Son, even as they honour the Father; he that\n honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father, who hath sent\n him.\"]\n\nBut in determining the true meaning of an obscure passage, grammatically\nsusceptible of different acceptations, the author himself is often his\nown best interpreter. If he has expressed in another place the same\nleading sentiment, yet without the same obscurity, and free from all\ndoubt, the light borrowed from that passage {110} will frequently fix\nthe sense of the ambiguous expression, and establish the author's\nconsistency. On this acknowledged principle of criticism, I would call\nyour attention to a passage in the very same treatise of Justin, a few\npages further on, in which he again defends the Christians against the\nsame charge of being atheists, and on the self-same ground, \"that they\nworship the Father who is maker of all; secondly, the Son proceeding\nfrom Him; and thirdly, the Holy Spirit.\" In both cases he refers to the\nsame attributes of the Son as the teacher of Christian truth, and of the\nHoly Ghost, as the Prophetic Spirit. His language throughout the two\npassages is remarkably similar, and in the expressions on the true\nmeaning of which we have already dwelt, it is most strikingly identical;\nbut by omitting all allusion to the angels after the Son, his own words\nproving that the introduction of them could have no place there, (for he\nspecifies that the third in order was the Holy Spirit,) Justin has left\nus a comment on the passage under consideration conclusive as to the\nobject of religious worship in his creed. The whole passage is well\nworth the attention of the reader. The following extracts are the only\nparts necessary for our present purpose:--\n\n\"Who of sound mind will not confess that we are not Atheists,\nreverencing as we do the Maker of the Universe.... and Him, who taught\nus these things, and who was born for this purpose, Jesus Christ,\ncrucified under Pontius Pilate.... instructed, as we are, that He is the\nSon of the True God, and holding Him in the second place; and the\nProphetic Spirit in the third order, we with reason honour.\" [Sect.\nxiii. p. 50.] {111}\n\nThe impiety apparently inseparable from Bellarmin's interpretation has\ninduced many, even among Roman Catholic writers, to discard that\nacceptation altogether, and to substitute others, which, though\ninvolving no grammatical inaccuracy, are still not free from\ndifficulty.[37] After weighing the passage with all the means in my\npower, and after testing the various interpretations offered by writers,\nwhether of the Church of Rome or not, by the sentiments of Justin\nhimself, and others of the same early age, I am fully persuaded that the\nfollowing is the only true rendering of Justin's words:\n\n\"Honouring in reason and truth, we reverence and worship HIM, the Father\nof Righteousness, and the Son (who proceeded from Him, and instructed in\nthese things both ourselves and the host of the other good angels\nfollowing Him and being made like unto Him), and the Prophetic Spirit.\"\n\n [Footnote 37: Le Nourry (Apparatus ad Bibliothecam Maximam\n Veterum Patrum. Paris, 1697. vol. ii. p. 305), himself a\n Benedictine, rejects Bellarmin's and his brother Benedictine\n Maran's interpretation, and conceives Justin to mean, that the\n Son of God not only taught us those truths to which he was\n referring, with regard to the being and attributes of God, but\n also taught us that there were hosts of spiritual beings, called\n Angels; good beings, opposed to the demons of paganism. Bishop\n Kaye, in his excellent work on Justin Martyr, which the reader\n will do well to consult (p. 53), tells us he was sometimes\n inclined to think that Justin referred to the host of good\n angels who should surround the Son of God when he should come to\n judge the world. The view adopted by myself here was recommended\n by Grabe and by Langus, called The Interpreter of Justin; whilst\n Petavius, a Jesuit, though he does not adopt it, yet\n acknowledges that the Greek admits of our interpretation. Any\n one who would pursue the subject further may with advantage\n consult the preface to the Benedictine edition referred to in\n this work. Lumper Hist. Part ii. p. 225. August\u00e6 Vindelicorum,\n 1784. Petavius, Theologicorum Dogmatum tom. vi. p. 298. lib. xv.\n c. v. s. 5. Antwerp, 1700.\n\n The whole passage is thus rendered by Langus (as read in\n Lumper), \"Verum hunc ipsum, et qui ab eo venit, atque ista nos\n et aliorum obsequentium ex\u00e6quatorumque ad ejus voluntatem\n bonorum Angelorum exercitura docuit, Filium, et Spiritum ejus\n propheticum, colimus et adoramus.\"]\n\nThis interpretation is strongly confirmed by the professed sentiments\nboth of Justin and of his contemporaries, {112} with regard to the Son\nof God and the holy angels.\n\nIt was a principle generally received among the early Christians, that\nwhatever the Almighty did, either by creation or by the communication of\nhis will, on earth or in heaven, was done by the Eternal Word. It was\nGod the Son, the Logos, who created the angels[38], as well as\nourselves; it was He who spoke to Moses, to Abraham, and to Lot; and it\nwas He who conveyed the Supreme will, and the knowledge of the only true\nGod, to the inhabitants of the world of spirits. Agreeably to this\nprinciple, in the passage under consideration, Justin affirms (not that\nChristians revered and worshipped the angels, but), that God the Son,\nwhom Christians worshipped as the eternal Prophet, Angel, and Apostle,\nof the Most High, instructed not only us men on earth, but also the host\nof heavenly angels[39], in these eternal verities, {113} which embrace\nGod's nature and the duty of his creatures. [Trypho, \u00a7 141. p. 231.]\n\n [Footnote 38: Thus Tatian (p. 249 in the same edition of\n Justin), \"Before men were prepared, the Word was the Maker of\n angels.\"]\n\n [Footnote 39: \"The OTHER good angels.\" Justin (Apol. i. sect.\n lxiii. p. 81.) reminds us that Christ, the first-begotten of the\n Father, Himself God, was also an Angel (or Messenger), and an\n Apostle; and here Christ, as the Angel of the Covenant and the\n chief Apostle, is represented as instructing THE OTHER ANGELS in\n the truths of the economy of grace, just as he instructed his\n Apostles on earth,--\"As my Father hath sent me, even so send I\n you.\"]\n\nIt is evident that Justin himself considered the host of angels to be\nequally with ourselves in a state of probation, requiring divine\ninstruction, and partaking of it. It is also evident that many of his\ncontemporaries entertained the same views; among others, Iren\u00e6us and\nOrigen. [Iren\u00e6us, book ii. c. 30. p. 163. Origen, Hom. xxxii. in Joann.\n\u00a7 10. vol. iv. p. 430.] I will not swell this dissertation by quoting\nthe passages at length; though the passages referred to in the margin\nwill well repay any one's careful examination. But I cannot refrain from\nextracting the words in which each of those writers confirms the view\nhere taken of Justin's sentiments.\n\nIren\u00e6us, for example, says distinctly, \"The Son ever, anciently and from\nthe beginning co-existing with the Father, always reveals the Father\nboth to angels and archangels, and powers, and excellencies, and to all\nto whom God wishes to make a revelation[40].\" And not less distinctly\ndoes Origen assert the same thing,--\"Our Saviour therefore teaches, and\nthe Holy Spirit, {114} who spake in the prophets, teaches not only men,\nbut also angels and invisible excellencies.\"\n\n [Footnote 40: So far did some of the early Christians include\n the hosts of angels within the covenant of the Gospel, that\n Ignatius (Epist. ad Smyrn. \u00a7 6. p. 36.) does not hesitate to\n pronounce that the angels incur the Divine judgment, if they do\n not receive the doctrine of the atonement: \"Let no one be\n deceived. The things in heaven, and the glory of angels, and the\n powers visible and invisible, if they do not believe on the\n blood of Christ--for them is judgment.\" They seem to have\n founded their opinion on the declaration of St. Paul (Eph. iii.\n 10): \"That now to the principalities and powers in heavenly\n places might be made known through the Church the manifold\n wisdom of God.\"]\n\nI will only add one more ancient authority, in confirmation of the view\nhere taken of Justin's words. The passage is from Athenagoras[41] and\nseems to be the exact counterpart of Justin's paragraph.\n\n [Footnote 41: Athenagoras presented his defence, in which these\n words occur, to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, and his son\n Commodus, in the year 177.]\n\n\"Who would not wonder on hearing us called Atheists? we who call the\nFather God, and the Son God, and the Holy Ghost, showing both their\npower in the unity, and their distinction in order. Nor does our\ntheology rest here; but we say, moreover, that there is a multitude of\nangels and ministers whom God, the Maker and Creator of the world, BY\nTHE WORD PROCEEDING FROM HIM, distributed and appointed, both about the\nelements, and the heavens, and the world, and the things therein, and\nthe good order thereof.\" [Sect. 10. p. 287. edit. Just. Mart.]\n\nI have already stated my inability to discover a single word in Justin\nMartyr which could be brought to sanction the invocation of saints; but\nhis testimony is far from being merely negative. He admonishes us\nstrongly against our looking to any other being for help or assistance,\nthan to God only. Even when speaking of those who confide in their own\nstrength, and fortune, and other sources of good, he says, in perfect\nunison with the pervading principles and associations of his whole mind,\nas far as we can read them in his works, without any modification or any\nexception in favour of saint or angel: \"In that Christ {115} said, 'Thou\nart my God, go not far from me,' He at the same time taught, that all\npersons ought to hope in God, who made all things, and seek for safety\nand health from Him alone\" [Trypho, \u00a7 102, p. 197.]\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\nSECTION II.--IREN\u00c6US.\n\n\nJustin sealed his faith by his blood about the year 165; and next to\nhim, in the noble army of martyrs, we must examine the evidence of\nIren\u00e6us, Bishop of Lyons. Of this writer's works a very small proportion\nsurvives in the original Greek; but that little is such as might well\nmake every scholar and divine lament the calamity which theology and\nliterature have sustained by the loss of the author's own language. It\nis not perhaps beyond the range of hope that future researches may yet\nrecover at least some part of the treasure. Meanwhile we must avail\nourselves with thankfulness of the nervous though inelegant copy of that\noriginal, which the Latin translation affords; imperfect and corrupt in\nmany parts, as that copy evidently is. This, however, is not the place\nfor recommending a study of the remains of Iren\u00e6us; and every one at all\nacquainted with the literature of the early Church, knows well how\nvaluable a store of ancient Christian learning is preserved even in the\nwreck of his works.\n\nOn the subject of the invocation of saints, an appeal {116} has been\nmade only to a few passages in Iren\u00e6us. With regard, indeed, to one\nsection, I would gladly have been spared the duty of commenting upon the\nunjustifiable mode of citing his evidence adopted by Bellarmin. It\nforces upon our notice an example either of such inaccuracy of quotation\nas would shake our confidence in him as an author, or of such\nmisrepresentation as must lower him in our estimation as a man of\nintegrity.\n\nBellarmin asserts, building upon it as the very foundation-stone of his\nargument for the invocation of saints, that the souls of the saints are\nremoved immediately on their dissolution by death, without waiting for\nthe day of judgment, into the presence of God, and the enjoyment of HIM\nin heaven. This point, he says, must first be established; for if they\nare not already in the presence of God, they cannot pray for us, and\nprayer to them would be preposterous. [Bell. lib. i. c. 4. vol. ii. p.\n851.] Among the authorities cited by him to establish this point is the\nevidence of Iren\u00e6us (book i. c. 2). [See Benedictine ed, Paris, 1710.\nbook i. c. 10. p. 48.] Bellarmin quotes that passage in these words: \"To\nthe just and righteous, and to those who keep his commandments, and\npersevere in his love, some indeed from the beginning but some from\nrepentance, he giving life CONFERS by way of gift incorruption, and\nCLOTHES them with eternal glory.\" To the quotation he appends this note\n\"Mark '_to some_' that is, to those who presently after baptism die, or\nwho lay down their life for Christ; or finally to the perfect is given\nimmediately life and eternal glory; to others not, except after\nrepentance, that is, satisfaction made in another world[42].\"\n\n [Footnote 42: Agreeably to the principles laid down in my\n preface, I will not here allude to the doctrine of purgatory, on\n which Bellarmin considers this passage to bear; nor will I say\n one word on the intermediate state of the soul between death and\n the resurrection, on which I am now showing that the words of\n Iren\u00e6us cannot at all be made to bear.] {117}\n\nHere I am compelled to confess that I never found a more palpable\nmisquotation of an author than this. I will readily grant that Bellarmin\nmay have quoted from memory, or have borrowed from some corrupt version\nof the passage; and that he has unintentionally changed the moods of two\nverbs from the subjunctive to the indicative, and inadvertently changed\nthe entire construction and the sense of the passage. But then what\nbecomes of his authority as a writer citing testimony?\n\nIren\u00e6us in this passage is speaking not of what our Lord does now, but\nwhat he will do at the last day; he refers only to the second coming of\nChrist to judgment at the final consummation of all things, not using a\nsingle expression which can be made by fair criticism to have any\nreference whatever to the condition of souls on their separation from\nthe body. I have consulted the old editions, some at least published\nbefore the date of Bellarmin's work; the suggestion offering itself to\nmy mind, that perhaps the ancient translation was in error, from which\nhe might have quoted. But I cannot find that to have been the case. The\nold Latin version of this passage agreeing very closely with the Greek\nstill preserved in Epiphanius, and quoted by Roman Catholic writers as\nauthentic, conveys this magnificent though brief summary of the\nChristian faith:\n\n\"The Church spread throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the\nearth, received both from the Apostles and their disciples that faith\nwhich is in one {118} God omnipotent, who made heaven and earth, the\nsea, and all things therein, and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God,\nfor our salvation made flesh, and in the Holy Ghost, who by the prophets\nannounced the dispensations (of God[43]), and the Advent, and the being\nborn of a Virgin, and the suffering, and the resurrection from the dead,\nand the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Jesus Christ our\nLord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father for the\nconsummation of all things, and for raising again all flesh of the human\nrace, THAT, in order that ([Greek: ina]), to Christ Jesus our Lord and\nGod, and Saviour and King, according to the good pleasure of the\ninvisible Father, every knee should bow of things in heaven and in\nearth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess to Him,\nand that he should execute just judgment on all: that he should send the\nspirits of wickedness, and the transgressing and rebel angels, and the\nimpious and unjust, and wicked and blaspheming men into eternal fire;\nbut to the just and righteous, and to those who keep his commandments,\nand persevere in his love,--some indeed from the beginning, and some\nfrom their repentance,--he granting life, by way of gift, SHOULD CONFER\nincorruption, and SHOULD CLOTHE them with eternal glory.\" [H\u00e6res. xxxi.\nc. 30.]\n\n [Footnote 43: The words \"of God\" are in the Latin, but not in\n the Greek.]\n\nThe words, \"some from the beginning,\" \"others from their repentance,\"\ncan refer only to the two conditions of believers; some of whom have\ngrace to keep the commandments, and persevere in the love of God from\nthe beginning of their Christian course, whilst others, for a time,\ntransgress and wax cold in love, but by repentance, through God's grace,\nare renewed and {119} restored to their former state of obedience and\nlove. On both these classes of Christians, according to the faith as\nhere summed up by Iren\u00e6us, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, when He\ncomes in glory for the consummation of all things, and for the\nresurrection of the dead, will confer glory and immortality. No\ningenuity of criticism can extract from this passage any allusion to the\nintercession of saints, or to their being with God before the end of the\nworld[44]. But I am not {120} here condemning Bellarmin's untenable\ncriticism: what I lament is the negligence or the disingenuousness with\nwhich he misquotes the words of Iren\u00e6us, and makes him say what he never\ndid say. To extract from an author's words, correctly reported, a\nmeaning which he did not intend to convey, however reprehensible and\nunworthy a follower of truth, is one act of injustice: to report him,\nwhether wilfully or carelessly, as using words which he never did use,\nis far worse.\n\n [Footnote 44: It will be well to see the words of Bellarmin and\n those of the translation side by side:\n\n (Transcriber's note: They are shown here one after the other.)\n\n _Bellarmin_ lib. i. c. iv. p. 851.\n\n \"Quartus Iren\u00e6us, lib. i. c. 2. 'Justis, inquit, et \u00e6quis, et\n pr\u00e6cepta ejus servantibus et in dilectione perseverantibus,\n quibusdam quidem ab initio, quibusdam autem ex poenitentia,\n vitam donans, incorruptelam loco muneris CONFERT, et claritatem\n \u00e6ternam CIRCUMDAT.' Nota '_quibusdam_,' id est, iis qui mox a\n Baptismo moriuntur, vel qui pro Christo vitam ponunt; vel\n denique perfectis statim donari vitam et claritatem \u00e6ternam;\n aliis non nisi post poenitentiam, id est, satisfactionem in\n futuro s\u00e6culo actam.\"\n\n _Latin Translation_.\n\n \"Et de coelis in gloria Patris adventum ejus ad recapitulanda\n universa et resuscitandam omnem carnem humani generis, UT\n Christo Jesu Domino nostro et Deo, et Salvatori, et Regi,\n secundum placitum Patris invisibilis, 'omne genu curvet\n coelestium, et terrestrium, et infernorum, et omnis lingua\n confiteatur ei,' et judicium justum in omnibus faciat;\n spiritalia quidem nequiti\u00e6, et angelos transgresses, atque\n apostatas factos, et impios et injustos et iniquos, et\n blasphemos homines in \u00e6ternum ignem mittat;--Justis autem et\n \u00e6quis et pr\u00e6cepta ejus servantibus et in dilectione ejus\n perseverantibus, quibusdam quidem ab initio, quibusdam autem ex\n poenitentia, vitam donans, incorruptelam loco muneris CONFERAT,\n et claritatem \u00e6ternam CIRCUMDET.\"--Iren\u00e6i liber i. cap. x. p.\n 48. Interpretatio Vetus.]\n\nAnother expression of Iren\u00e6us is appealed to by Bellarmin, and continues\nto be cited at the present day in defence of the invocation of saints;\nthe precise bearing of which upon the subject I confess myself unable to\nsee, whilst I am very far from understanding the passage from which it\nis an extract. Bellarmin cites the passage not to show that the saints\nin glory pray for us,--that argument he had dismissed before,--but to\nprove that they are to be invoked by us. The insulated passage as quoted\nby him is this: \"And as she (Eve) was induced to fly from God, so she\n(Mary) was persuaded to obey God, that of the Virgin Eve the Virgin Mary\nmight become the advocate.\" After the quotation he says, \"What can be\nclearer?\" [Benedict, lib. v. cap. xix. p. 316.]\n\nIn whatever sense we may suppose Iren\u00e6us to have employed the word here\ntranslated \"advocata,\" it is difficult to see how the circumstance of\nMary becoming the advocate of Eve, who lived so many generations before\nher, can bear upon the question, Is it lawful and right for us, now\ndwelling on the earth, to invoke those saints whom we believe to be in\nheaven? I will not dwell on the argument urged very cogently by some\ncritics on this passage, that the word \"advocata,\" found {121} in the\nLatin version of Iren\u00e6us, is the translation of the original word, now\nlost [[Greek: paraklaetos]--paraclete], which, by the early writers, was\nused for \"comforter and consoler,\" or \"restorer;\" because, as I have\nabove intimated, whatever may have been the word employed by Iren\u00e6us,\nthe passage proves nothing as to the lawfulness of our praying to the\nsaints. If the angels at God's bidding minister unto the heirs of\nsalvation; or further, if they plead our cause with God, that would be\nno reason why we should invoke them and pray to them. This distinction\nbetween what they may do for us, and what we ought to do with regard to\nthem, is an essential distinction, and must not be lost sight of. We\nshall have occasion hereafter to refer to it repeatedly, especially in\nthe instances of Origen and Cyprian. I will now do no more than copy in\na note the entire passage from which the sentence now under\nconsideration has been extracted, that the reader may judge whether on\nsuch a passage, the original of which, in whatever words Iren\u00e6us may\nhave expressed himself, is utterly lost, any reliance can satisfactorily\nbe placed.\n\n(\"Manifeste itaque in sua propria venientem Dominum et sua propria eum\nbajulantem conditione qu\u00e6 bajulatur ab ipso, et recapitulationem ejus\nqu\u00e6 in ligno fuit inobedienti\u00e6 per eam qu\u00e6 in ligno est obedientiam\nfacientem, et seductionem illam solutam qua seducta est male illa, qu\u00e6\njam viro destinata erat virgo Eva, per veritatem evangelizata est bene\nab angelo jam sub viro virgo Maria. Quemadmodum enim illa per angeli\nsermonem seducta est ut effugeret Deum pr\u00e6varicata verbum ejus, ita et\nh\u00e6c per angelicum sermonem evangelizata est ut portaret Deum obediens\nejus verbo. Et si ea inobedierat Deo, sed h\u00e6c suasa est obedire Deo, uti\nvirginis Ev\u00e6 virgo Maria fieret advocata. Et quemadmodum astrictum est\nmorti genus humanum per virginem, salvatur per virginem, \u00e6qua lance\ndisposita virginalis inobedientia per virginalem obedientiam. Adhuc enim\nprotoplasti peccatum per correptionem primogeniti emendationem\naccipiens, et serpentis prudentia devicta in columb\u00e6 simplicitate,\nvinculis autem illis resolutis, per qu\u00e6 alligati eramus morti.\" St.\nAugustin (Paris, 1690. vol. x. p. 500.) refers to the latter part of\nthis passage, as implying the doctrine of original sin; but since his\nquotation does not embrace any portion of the clause at present under\nour consideration, no additional light from him is thrown on the meaning\nof Iren\u00e6us.) {122}\n\nBut passages occur in Iren\u00e6us, which seem to leave doubt, that neither\nin faith nor in practice would he countenance in the very lowest degree\nthe adoration of saints and angels, or any invocation of them.\n\nFor example, in one part of his works we read, \"Nor does it [the Church]\ndo any thing by invocations of angels, nor by incantations, nor other\ndepraved and curious means, but with cleanliness, purity, and openness,\ndirecting prayers to the Lord who made all things, and calling upon the\nname of Jesus Christ our Lord, it exercises its powers for the benefit,\nand not for the seducing, of mankind.\" [Benedictine Ed. lib. ii. c. 32.\n\u00a7 5. p. 166.] It has been said that, by angelic invocations, Iren\u00e6us\nmeans the addresses to evil angels and genii, such as the heathen\nsuperstitiously made. Be it so; though that is a mere assumption, not\nwarranted by the passage or its context. But, surely, had Iren\u00e6us known\nthat Christians prayed to angels, as well as to their Maker and their\nSaviour, he would not have used such an unguarded expression; he would\nhave cautioned his readers against so serious, but so natural, a\nmisapprehension of his meaning.\n\nWith one more reference, we must bring our inquiry into the testimony of\nIren\u00e6us to a close. The passage occurs in the fifth book, chapter 31.\n[Benedict. lib. v. c. 32. \u00a7 2. p, 331.] The principal and most\nimportant, though not the longest, part of {123} the passage is happily\nstill found in the original Greek, preserved in the \"Parallels\" of\nDamascenus. In its plain, natural, and unforced sense, this passage is\nso decidedly conclusive on the question at issue, that various attempts\nhave been made to explain away its meaning, so as not to represent\nIren\u00e6us as believing that the souls of departed saints, between their\ndeath and the day of judgment, exist otherwise than in bliss and glory\nin heaven. But those attempts have been altogether unsuccessful. I\nbelieve the view here presented to us by the plain and obvious sense of\nthe words of Iren\u00e6us, is the view at present acquiesced in by a large\nproportion of our fellow-believers. The Anglican Church has made no\narticle of faith whatever on the subject. The clause within brackets is\nfound both in the Latin and the Greek.\n\n\"Since the Lord[45] in the midst of the shadow of death went where the\nsouls of the dead were, and then afterwards rose bodily, and after his\nresurrection was taken up, it is evident that of his disciples also, for\nwhom the Lord wrought these things, [the souls go into the unseen[46]\nplace assigned to them by God, and there remain till the resurrection,\nwaiting for the resurrection; afterwards receiving again their bodies\nand rising perfectly [[Greek: holoklaeros], perfecte], that is, bodily,\neven as the Lord also rose again, so will they come into the presence of\nGod.] {124} For no disciple is above his master; but every one that is\nperfect shall be as his master. As, therefore, our Master did not\nimmediately flee away and depart, but waited for the time of his\nresurrection appointed by his Father (which is evident, even by the case\nof Jonah); after the third day, rising again, he was taken up; so we too\nmust wait for the time of our resurrection appointed by God, and\nfore-announced by the prophets; and thus rising again, be taken up, as\nmany as the Lord shall have deemed worthy of this.\"\n\n [Footnote 45: Bellarmin, rather than allow the testimony of\n Iren\u00e6us to weigh at all against the doctrine which he is\n defending, seems determined to combat and challenge that father\n himself. \"Non ausus est dicere,\" \"He has not dared to say, that\n the souls go to the regions below,\" &c.]\n\n [Footnote 46: There is no word in the Greek copy corresponding\n with the Latin \"invisibilem.\"]\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\nSECTION III.--CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA--ABOUT THE YEAR 180.\n\n\nContemporary with Iren\u00e6us, and probably less than twenty years his\njunior, was Clement, the celebrated Christian philosopher of Alexandria.\nI am not aware that any Roman Catholic writer has appealed to the\ntestimony of Clement in favour of the invocation of saints, nor have I\nfound a single passage which the defenders of that practice would be\nlikely to quote; and yet there are many passages which no one, anxious\nto trace the Catholic faith, would willingly neglect. The tendency of\nClement's mind to blend with the simplicity of the Gospel of Christ the\nphilosophy in which he so fully abounded, renders him far less valuable\nas a Christian teacher; but his evidence as to the matter of fact, is\neven rendered more cogent and pointed by this tendency of his mind. I\nwould {125} willingly have transferred to these pages whole passages of\nClement, but the very nature of my address forbids it. Some sentences\nbearing on the subject immediately before us, we must not omit.\n\nClement has left on record many of his meditations upon the efficacy,\nthe duty, and the blessed comfort of prayer. When he speaks of God, and\nof the Christian in prayer, (for prayer he defines to be \"communion or\nintercourse with God,\") his language becomes often exquisitely\nbeautiful, and sometimes sublime. It is impossible by a few detached\npassages to convey an adequate estimate of the original; and yet a few\nsentences may show that Clement is a man whose testimony should not be\nslighted.\n\n\"Therefore, keeping the whole of our life as a feast every where, and on\nevery part persuaded that God is present, we praise him as we till our\nlands; we sing hymns as we are sailing. The Christian is persuaded that\nGod hears every thing; not the voice only, but the thoughts.... Suppose\nany one should say, that the voice does not reach God, revolving as it\ndoes in the air below; yet the thoughts of the saints cut not only\nthrough the air, but the whole world. And the divine power like the\nlight is beforehand in seeing through the soul.... He\" (the Christian\nwhom he speaks of throughout as the man of divine knowledge) \"prays for\nthings essentially good.\n\n\"Wherefore it best becomes those to pray who have an adequate knowledge\nof God, and possess virtue in accordance with Him--who know what are\nreal goods, and what we should petition for, and when, and how in each\ncase. But it is the extreme of ignorance to ask {126} from those who are\nnot gods as though they were gods.... Whence since there is one only\ngood God, both we ourselves and the angels supplicate from Him alone,\nthat some good things might be given to us, and others might remain with\nus. In this way he (the Christian) is always in a state of purity fit\nfor prayer. He prays with angels, as being himself equal with angels;\nand as one who is never beyond the holy protecting guard. And if he pray\nalone he has the whole choir of angels with him.\" [Stromata, lib. vii. \u00a7\n7. p. 851, &c.; Section xii. p. 879.]\n\nClement has alluded to instances alleged by the Greeks of the effects of\nprayer, and he adds, \"Our whole Scripture is full of instances of God\nhearing and granting every request according to the prayers of the\njust.\" [Lib. vi. \u00a7 iii. p. 753.]\n\nHaving in the same section referred to the opinion of some Greeks as to\nthe power of demons over the affairs of mortals, he adds, \"But they\nthink it matters nothing whether we speak of these as gods or as angels,\ncalling the spirits of such 'demons,' and teaching that they should be\nworshipped by men, as having, by divine providence, on account of the\npurity of their lives, received authority to be conversant about earthly\nplaces, in order that they may minister to mortals.\" [Lib. vi. \u00a7 iii. p.\n755.]\n\nIs it possible to suppose that this teacher in Christ's school had any\nidea of a Christian praying to saints or angels? In the last passage,\nthe language in which he quotes the errors of heathen superstition to\nrefute them, so nearly approaches the language of the Church of Rome\nwhen speaking of the powers of saints and angels to assist the\nsuppliant, that if Clement had entertained {127} any thought whatever of\na Christian praying for aid and intercession to saint or angel, he must\nhave mentioned it, especially after the previous passage on the\nabsurdity and gross ignorance of praying for any good at the hands of\nany other than the one true God.\n\nIn common with his contemporaries, Clement considered the angels to be,\nas we mortals are, in a state requiring all the protection and help to\nbe obtained by prayer; he believed that the angels pray with us, and\ncarry our prayers to God: but the thought of addressing them by\ninvocation does not appear to have occurred to his mind. At the close of\nhis P\u00e6dagogus he has left on record a form of prayer to God alone very\npeculiar and interesting. He closes it by an ascription of glory to the\nblessed Trinity. But there is no allusion to saint, or angel, or virgin\nmother.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\nSECTION IV.--TERTULLIAN.\n\n\nTertullian, of Carthage, was a contemporary of Clement of Alexandria,\nand so nearly of the same age, that doubts have existed, which of the\ntwo should take priority in point of time. There is a very wide\ndifference in the character and tone of their works, as there was in the\nframe and constitution of their minds. The lenient and liberal views of\nthe erudite and accomplished master of the school of Alexandria, stand\nout in prominent and broad contrast with the harsh and austere doctrines\nof Tertullian.\n\nTertullian fell into errors of a very serious kind by joining himself to\nthe heretic Montanus; still on his {128} mind is discoverable the\nworking of that spirit which animated the early converts of\nChristianity; and his whole soul seems to have been filled with a desire\nto promote the practical influence of the Gospel.\n\nJerome, the oracle on such subjects, from whom the Roman Catholic Church\nis unwilling to allow any appeal, expressly tells us that Cyprian[47],\nwho called Tertullian the Master, never passed a single day without\nstudying his works; and that after Tertullian had remained a presbyter\nof the Church to middle age, he was driven, by the envy and revilings of\nthe members of the Roman Church, to fall from its unity, and espouse\nMontanism. Bellarmin calls him a heretic, and says he is the first\nheretic who denied that the saints went at once and forthwith to glory.\n[Hieron. edit. 1684. tom. i. p. 183.]\n\n [Footnote 47: The words of Jerome, who refers to the\n circumstance more than once, are very striking: \"I saw one\n Paulus, who said that he had seen the secretary (notarium) of\n Cyprian at Rome, who used to tell him that Cyprian never passed\n a single day without reading Tertullian; and that he often said\n to him, 'Give me the Master,' meaning Tertullian.\"--Hieron. vol.\n iv. part ii. p. 115.]\n\nA decided line of distinction is drawn by Roman Catholic writers between\nthe works of Tertullian written before he espoused the errors of\nMontanus, and his works written after that unhappy step. The former they\nhold in great estimation, the latter are by many considered of far less\nauthority. I do not see how such a distinction ought to affect his\ntestimony on the historical point immediately before us. If indeed he\nhad held the doctrine of the invocation of saints whilst he continued in\nthe full communion of the Church, and rejected it afterwards, no honest\nand sensible writer would quote his later opinions against the practice.\nBut we are only seeking in his works for evidence of the {129} matter of\nfact,--Is there any proof in the works of Tertullian that the invocation\nof saints formed a part of the doctrine and practice of the Catholic\nChurch in his time[48]? His works will be found in the note, arranged\nunder those two heads, as nearly as I can ascertain the preponderating\nsentiments of critics[49].\n\n [Footnote 48: The reader, who may be induced to consult the work\n of the present Bishop of Lincoln, entitled, \"The Ecclesiastical\n History of the second and third Centuries, illustrated from the\n writings of Tertullian,\" will there find, in the examination and\n application of Tertullian's remains, the union of sound\n judgment, diligence in research, clearness of perception,\n acuteness in discovery, and great erudition mingled with\n charity.]\n\n [Footnote 49: Works of Tertullian before he became a\n Montanist:--\n\n Adversus Jud\u00e6os.\n The Tract ad Martyres.\n The two Books ad Nationes.\n The Apology, and the Tract de Pr\u00e6scriptione H\u00e6reticorum.\n The Tract de Testimonio Anim\u00e6.\n The Tracts de Patientia, de Oratione, de Baptismo, de\n Poenitentia.\n The two books ad Uxorem.\n\n Works written after he espoused Montanism:--\n\n The Tracts de Spectaculis and de Idololatria, though others say\n these should be ranked among the first class.\n The Tracts de Corona, and de Fuga in persecutione, Scorpiace,\n and ad Scapulam.\n The Tracts de Exhortatione Castitatis, de Monogamia, de\n Pudicitia, de Jejuniis, de Virginibus Velandis, de Pallio, the\n five books against Marcion, the Tracts adversus Valentinianos,\n de Carne Christi, de Resurrectione Carnis, adversus Hermogenem,\n de Anima, adversus Praxeam, de Cultu Foeminarum.]\n\nI will detain you only by a very few quotations from this father.\n\nIn his Apology, sect. 30, we read this very remarkable passage, \"We\ninvoke the eternal God, the true God, the living God, for the safety of\nthe emperor.... {130} Thither (heavenward) looking up, with hands\nextended, because they are innocent; with our head bare, because we are\nnot ashamed; in fine, without a prompter, because it is from the heart;\nwe Christians pray for all rulers a long life, a secure government, a\nsafe home, brave armies, a faithful senate, a good people, a quiet\nworld.... For these things I cannot ask in prayer from any other except\nHim from whom I know that I shall obtain; because both He is the one who\nalone grants, and I am the one whom it behoveth to obtain by\nprayer;--his servant, who looks to him alone, who for the sake of his\nreligion am put to death, who offer to him a rich and a greater victim,\nwhich He has commanded; prayer from a chaste frame, from a harmless\nsoul, from a holy spirit.... So, let hoofs dig into us, thus stretched\nforward to God, let crosses suspend us, let fires embrace us, let swords\nsever our necks from the body, let beasts rush upon us,--the very frame\nof mind of a praying Christian is prepared for every torment. This do,\nye good presidents; tear ye away the soul that is praying for the\nemperor.\" [Page 27.]\n\nIn the opening of his reflections on the Lord's Prayer, he says,--\n\n\"Let us consider therefore, beloved, in the first place, the heavenly\nwisdom in the precept of praying in secret, by which he required, in a\nman, faith to believe that both the sight and the hearing of the\nOmnipotent God is present under our roofs and in our secret places; and\ndesired the lowliness of faith, that to Him alone, whom he believed to\nhear and to see every where, he would offer his worship.\" [Page 129.]\n\nThe only other reference which I will make, is to {131} the solemn\ndeclaration of Tertullian's Creed; the last clause of which, though in\nperfect accordance with the sentiments of his contemporaries, seems to\nhave been regarded with hostile eyes by modern writers of the Church of\nRome, because it decidedly bids us look to the day of judgment for the\nsaints being taken to the enjoyment of heaven; and consequently implies\nthat they cannot be properly invoked now.\n\n\"To profess now what we defend: By the rule of our faith we believe that\nGod is altogether one, and no other than the Creator of the world, who\nproduced all things out of nothing by his Word first of all sent down.\nThat that Word, called his Son, was variously seen by the patriarchs in\nthe name of God; was always heard in the prophets; at length, borne by\nthe spirit and power of God the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made\nflesh in her womb, was born of her, and was Jesus Christ. Afterwards He\npreached a new law and a new promise of the kingdom of heaven; wrought\nmiracles, was crucified, rose again the third day, and, being taken up\ninto heaven, sat on the right hand of the Father; and He sent in his own\nstead the power of the Holy Ghost, to guide believers; that He shall\ncome with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of eternal life and\nthe heavenly promises, and to condemn the impious to eternal fire,\nmaking a reviving of both classes with the restoration of the body.\" [De\nPr\u00e6scriptione H\u00e6reticorum, \u00a7 13. p. 206.]\n\n * * * * *\n\nSome notice must here be taken of METHODIUS, a pious Christian, of the\nthird century. A work (Methodius, Gl. Combes. Paris, 1644) {132}\nformerly attributed to him has been quoted in proof of the early\ninvocation of saints; but the work, among many others, has been long ago\nallowed by the best Roman Catholic critics to be the production of a\nlater age. (Fabricius, vol. vii. p. 268, and vol. x. p. 241.) Many\nhomilies, purporting to have been delivered on the festival of our\nLord's presentation in the temple, at so early a period, must be\nreceived as the works of a later age, because that feast began to be\nobserved in the Church so late as the fifteenth year of Justinian, in\nthe sixth century. Evidently, moreover, the theological language of the\nhomily is of a period long subsequent to the date assigned to Methodius.\nIn speaking of our blessed Saviour, for example, he employs expressions\nto guard against the Arian heresy, and makes extracts apparently from\nthe Nicene creed, \"God of himself, and not by grace,\" \"Very God of very\nGod, very light of very light, who for us men and our salvation, &c.\"\nThe general opinion indeed seems to be that this, and many other\nwritings formerly ascribed to the first Methodius, were written by\npersons of a subsequent age, who either were of the same name or assumed\nhis. Even were the work genuine, it would afford just as strong a\ndemonstration that Methodius believed that the city of Jerusalem could\nhear his salutation, as that the saints could hear his prayer; for he\naddresses the same \"Hail\" to Mary, Symeon, and the Holy City alike,\ncalling it the \"earthly heaven.\" [Greek: Chairois hae polis, ho epigeios\nouranos.] {133}\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\nSECTION V.--THE EVIDENCE OF ORIGEN.\n\n\nJerome informs us that Tertullian, whose remains we have last examined,\nlived to a very advanced age. Long, therefore, before his death\nflourished Origen, one of the most celebrated lights of the primitive\nChurch. He was educated a Christian. Indeed his father is said to have\nsuffered martyrdom about the year 202. Origen was a pupil of Clement of\nAlexandria. His virtues and his labours have called forth the admiration\nof all ages; and though he cannot be implicitly followed as a teacher,\nwhat still remains of his works will be delivered down as a rich\ntreasure to succeeding times. He was a most voluminous writer; and\nJerome asked the members of his church, \"Who is there among us that can\nread as many books as Origen has composed?\" [Vol. iv. epist. xli. p.\n346.] A large proportion of his works are lost; and of those which\nremain, few are preserved in the original Greek. We are often obliged to\nstudy Origen through the medium of a translation, the accuracy of which\nwe have no means of verifying. A difficult and delicate duty also\ndevolves upon the theological student to determine which of the works\nattributed to Origen are genuine and which are spurious; and what parts,\nmoreover, of the works received on the whole as genuine came from his\npen. Of {134} the spurious works, some are so palpably written in a much\nlater age, and by authors of different religious views, that no one,\nafter weighing the evidence, can be at a loss what decision to make\nconcerning them; in the case of others, claims and objections may appear\nto be more evenly balanced. I trust on the one hand to refer to no works\nfor Origen's testimony which are not confessedly his, nor on the other\nto exclude any passage which is not decidedly spurious; whilst in one\nparticular case more immediately connected with our subject, I am\ninduced to enter further in detail into a critical examination of the\ngenuineness and value of a passage than the character of this work\ngenerally requires. The great importance attached to the testimony of\nthat passage by some defenders of the worship paid to angels, may be\nadmitted to justify the fulness of the criticism. Lest, however, its\ninsertion in the body of the work might seem inconveniently to interfere\nwith the reader's progress in our argument, I have thought it best to\ninclude it in a supplementary section at the close of our inquiry into\nthe evidence of Origen.\n\nCoccius, in his elaborate work, quotes the two following passages as\nOrigen's, without expressing any hesitation or doubt respecting their\ngenuineness, in which he is followed by writers of the present day. The\npassages are alleged in proof that Origen held and put in practice the\ndoctrine of the invocation of saints; and they form the first quotations\nmade by Coccius under the section headed by this title: \"That the saints\nare to be invoked, proved by the testimony of the Greek Fathers.\"\n\nThe first passage is couched in these words: \"I will {135} begin to\nthrow myself upon my knees, and pray to all the saints to come to my\naid; for I do not dare, in consequence of my excess of wickedness, to\ncall upon God. O Saints of God, you I pray with weeping full of grief,\nthat ye would propitiate his mercies for me miserable. Alas me! Father\nAbraham, pray for me, that I be not driven from thy bosom, which I\ngreatly long for, and yet not worthily, because of the greatness of my\nsins.\"\n\nCoccius cites this passage as from \"Origen in Lament,\" and it has been\nrecently appealed to under the title of \"Origen on the Lamentations.\"\nHere, however, is a very great mistake. Origen's work on the\nLamentations, called also \"Selecta in Threnos,\" and inserted in the\nBenedictine edition (Vol. iii. p. 321.), is entirely a different\nproduction from the work which contains the above extract. This\napocryphal work, on the other hand, does not profess to be the comment\nof Origen on the Lamentations, but the Lament or Wailing of Origen\nhimself; or, as it used to be called, the Penitence of Origen. (In the\nParis edition of 1519 it is called \"Planctus, seu Lamentum Origenis.\"\nPope Gelasius refers to it as \"Poenitentia Origenis.\") That this work\nhas no pretensions whatever to be regarded as Origen's, has been long\nplaced beyond doubt. Even in the edition of 1545, this treatise is\nprefaced by Erasmus in these words, \"This Lamentation was neither\nwritten by Origen nor translated by Jerome, but is the fiction of some\nunlearned man, who attempted, under colour of this, to throw disgrace\nupon Origen.\" [Basil, 1545. vol. i. p. 498.] In the Benedictine edition\n(Paris, 1733.) no trace of this work is to be found. They do not admit\nit among the doubtful, or even the spurious works; they do not so {136}\nmuch as give room for it in the appendix; on the contrary, they drop it\naltogether as utterly unworthy of being any longer preserved. Instead,\nhowever, of admitting the work itself, these editors have supplied\nabundant reason for its exclusion, by inserting the sentiments of\nHuetius, or Huet, the very learned bishop of Avranches. He tells us,\nthat formerly to Origen's work on Principles used to be appended a\ntreatise called, the Lament of Origen, the Latin translation of which\nGuido referred to Jerome. After quoting the passage of Erasmus (as above\ncited from the edition of 1545) in proof of its having been \"neither\nwritten by Origen nor translated by Jerome, but the fabrication of some\nunlearned man, who attempted, under colour of this, to throw disgrace on\nOrigen, just as they forged a letter in Jerome's name, lamenting that he\nhad ever thought with Origen,\" Huet proceeds thus: \"And Gelasius in the\nRoman Council writes, 'The book which is called The Repentance of\nOrigen, apocryphal.' It is wonderful, therefore, that without any mark\nof its false character, it should be sometimes cited by some theologians\nin evidence. Here we may smile at the supineness of a certain heterodox\nman of the present age, who thought the 'Lament,' ascribed to Origen, to\nbe something different from the Book of Repentance.\" [Vol. iv. part ii.\np. 326.]\n\nThe Decree here referred to of Pope Gelasius, made in the Roman Council,\nA.D. 494, by that pontiff, in conjunction with seventy bishops, contains\nthese strong expressions, before enumerating some few of the books then\ncondemned: \"Other works written by heretics and schismatics, the\nCatholic and Apostolic Church by {137} no means receives; of them we\nthink it right to subjoin a few which have occurred to our memory, and\nare to be avoided by Catholics.\" [Conc. Labb. vol. iv. p. 1265.] Then\nfollows a list of prohibited works, among which we read, \"the book\ncalled The Repentance of Origen, apocryphal,\" the very book which Huet\nidentifies with the \"Lament of Origen,\" still cited as evidence even in\nthe present day. (See Appendix A.)\n\nThe second passage cited by Coccius, and also by writers of the present\ntime, as Origen's, without any allusion to its spurious and apocryphal\ncharacter, is from the second book of the work called Origen on Job. The\nwords cited run thus: \"O blessed Job, who art living for ever with God,\nand remainest conqueror in the sight of the Lord the King, pray for us\nwretched, that the mercy of the terrible God may protect us in all our\nafflictions, and deliver us from all oppressions of the wicked one; and\nnumber us with the just, and enrol us among those who are saved, and\nmake us rest with them in his kingdom, where for ever with the saints we\nmay magnify him.\"\n\nThis work, like the former, has no claim whatever to be regarded as\nOrigen's. It has long been discarded by the learned. Indeed so far back\nas 1545, Erasmus, in his Censura, proved that it was written long after\nthe time of Origen by an Arian. (Basil, 1545. vol. i. p. 408; and\n\"Censura.\") By the Benedictine editors it is transferred to an appendix\nas the Commentary of an anonymous writer on Job; and they thus express\ntheir judgment as to its being a forgery: \"The Commentary of an\nanonymous writer on Job, in previous editions, is ascribed to Origen;\n{138} but that it is not his, Huet proves by unconquerable arguments.\nThis translation is assigned to Hilary, the bishop; but although it is\nclear from various proofs of Jerome, that St. Hilary translated the\ntracts or homilies of Origen on Job, yet there is no reason why that man\nwho wrote with the highest praise against the Arians, should be\nconsidered as the translator of this work, which is infected with the\ncorruption of Arianism, and which is not Origen's.\" [Vol. ii. p. 894.]\nErasmus calls the prologue to this treatise on Job \"the production of a\nsilly talkative man, neither learned nor modest.\"\n\nIt is impossible not to feel, with regard to these two works, the\nsentiments which, as we have already seen, the Bishop of Avranches has\nso strongly expressed on one. \"It is wonderful, that they should be\nsometimes cited in evidence by some theologians, without any mark of\ntheir being forgeries.\"\n\nProceeding with our examination of the sentiments of Origen, I would\nhere premise, that not the smallest doubt can be entertained that Origen\nbelieved the angels to be ministering spirits, real, active, zealous\nworkmen and fellow-labourers with us in the momentous and awful business\nof our eternal salvation. He represents the angels as members of the\nsame family with ourselves, as worshippers of the same God, as servants\nof the same master, as children of the same father, as disciples of the\nsame heavenly teacher, as learners of one and the same heavenly\ndoctrine. He contemplates them as members of our Christian\ncongregations, as joining with us in prayer to our heavenly Benefactor,\nas taking pleasure when they hear in our {139} assemblies what is\nagreeable to the will of God, and as being present too not only\ngenerally in the Christian Church, but also with individual members of\nit[50]. But does Origen, therefore, countenance any invocation of them?\nLet us appeal to himself.\n\n [Footnote 50: One or two references will supply abundant proof\n of this: \"I do not doubt that in our congregation angels are\n present, not only in general to the whole Church, but also\n individually with those of whom it is said, 'Their angels do\n always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.' A twofold\n Church is here: one of men, the other of angels. If we say any\n thing agreeably to reason and the mind of Scripture, the angels\n rejoice to pray with us.\" And a little above, \"Our Saviour,\n therefore, as well as the Holy Spirit, who spoke by the\n prophets, instructs not only men, but angels and invisible\n powers.\"--Hom, xxiii. in Luc. vol. iii. p. 961.\n\n \"Whoever, therefore, confessing his sins, repents, or confesses\n Christ before men in persecutions, is applauded by his brethren.\n For there is joy and gladness to the angels in heaven over one\n sinner that repenteth. By them, therefore, as by brethren (for\n both men and angels are sons of the same Creator and Father)\n they are praised.\"--In Genes. Hom. xvii. p. 110.]\n\nCelsus accused the Christians of being atheists, godless, men without\nGod, because they would not worship those gods many and lords many, and\nthose secondary, subordinate, auxiliary, and ministering divinities with\nwhich the heathen mythology abounded: Origen answers, we are not\ngodless, we are not without an object of our prayer; we pray to God\nAlmighty alone through the mediation only of his Son.\n\n\"We must pray to God alone ([Greek: Mono gar proseukteon to epi pasi\nTheo]), who is over all things; and we must pray also to the\nonly-begotten and first-born of every creature, the Word of God; and we\nmust implore him as our High Priest to carry our prayer, first coming to\nhim, to his God and our {140} God, to his Father and the Father of those\nwho live agreeably to the word of God.\" [Cont. Cels. \u00a7 8. c. xxvi. vol.\ni. p. 761.]\n\nBut Celsus, in this well representing the weakness and failings of human\nnature, still urged on the Christian the necessity, or at all events the\nexpediency, of conciliating those intermediate beings who executed the\nwill of the Supreme Being, and might haply have much left at their own\nwill and discretion to give or to withhold; and therefore the\ndesirableness of securing their good offices by prayer. To this Origen\nanswers:\n\n\"The one God ([Greek: Hena oun ton epi pasi theon haemin\nexenmenisteon])--the God who is over all, is to be propitiated by us,\nand to be appeased by prayer; the God who is rendered favourable by\npiety and all virtue. But if he (Celsus) is desirous, after the supreme\nGod, to propitiate some others also, let him bear in mind, that just as\na body in motion is accompanied by the motion of its shadow, so also by\nrendering the supreme God favourable, it follows that the person has all\nhis (God's) friends, angels, souls, spirits, favourable also; for they\nsympathize with those who are worthy of God's favour; and not only do\nthey become kindly affected towards the worthy, but they also join in\ntheir work with those who desire to worship the supreme God; and they\npropitiate him, and they pray with us, and supplicate with us; so that\nwe boldly say, that together with men who on principle prefer the better\npart, and pray to God, ten thousands of holy powers join in prayer\nUNASKED ([Greek: aklaetoi]),\" [UNBIDDEN, UNCALLED upon.] [Cont. Cels.\nlib. viii. \u00a7 64. vol. i. p. 789.]\n\nWhat an opportunity was here for Origen to have stated, that though\nChristians do not call upon demons and the subordinate divinities of\nheathenism to aid {141} them, yet that they do call upon the ministering\nspirits, the true holy angels, messengers and servants of the most High\nGod! But whilst speaking of them, and magnifying the blessings derived\nto man through their ministry, so far from encouraging us to ask them\nfor their good offices, his testimony on the contrary is not merely\nnegative; he positively asserts that when they assist mankind, it is\nwithout any request or prayer from man. Could this come from one who\ninvoked angels?\n\nAnother passage, although it adds little to the evidence of the above\nextract, I am unwilling to pass by, because it beautifully illustrates\nby the doctrine and practice of Origen the prayer, the only one adopted\nby the Anglican Church, offered by the Church to God for the succour and\ndefence of the holy angels. Speaking of the unsatisfactory slippery road\nwhich they tread, who either depend upon the agency of demons for good,\nor are distressed by the fear of evil from them, Origen adds, \"How far\nbetter ([Greek: poso Beltion]) were it to commit oneself to God who is\nover all, through Him who instructed us in this doctrine, Jesus Christ,\nand OF HIM to ask for every aid from the holy angels and the just, that\nthey may rescue us from the earthly demons.\" [Cont. Cels. lib. viii. \u00a7\n60. vol. i. p. 786.]\n\nIn the following passage Origen answers the question of Celsus: \"If you\nChristians admit the existence of angels, tell us what you consider\ntheir nature to be?\" [Cont. Cels. lib. v. \u00a7 4. p. 579.]\n\n\"Come,\" replies Origen, \"let us consider these points. Now we\nconfessedly say, that the angels are ministering spirits, and sent to\nminister on account of those who are to be heirs of salvation; that they\nascend, bearing with them the supplications of men into the most pure\n{142} heavenly places of the world; and that they again descend from\nthence, bearing to each in proportion to what is appointed by God for\nthem to minister to the well-doers. And learning that these are, from\ntheir work, called angels ([Greek: aggeloi], messengers, ministers sent\nto execute some commission), we find them, because they are divine,\nsometimes called even gods in the Holy Scriptures; but not so, as for\nany injunction to be given to us to worship and adore, instead of God,\nthose who minister, and bring to us the things of God. For every request\nand prayer, and supplication and thanksgiving, must be sent up to Him\nwho is God above all, through the High Priest, who is above all angels,\neven the living Word of God. And we also make our requests to the Word,\nand supplicate Him, and moreover offer our prayer to Him; if we can\nunderstand the difference between the right use and the abuse of prayer.\nFor it is not reasonable for us to call upon angels, without receiving a\nknowledge concerning them which is above man. But supposing the\nknowledge concerning them, wonderful and unutterable as it is, had been\nreceived; that very knowledge describing their nature, and those to whom\nthey are respectively assigned, would not give confidence in praying to\nany other than to Him who is sufficient for every thing, God who is\nabove all, through our Saviour, the Son of God, who is the word, and\nwisdom, and the truth, and whatsoever else the writings of the prophets\nof God, and the Apostles of Jesus say concerning Him. But for the angels\nof God to be favourable to us, and to do all things for us, our\ndisposition towards God is sufficient; we copy them to the utmost of\nhuman strength, {143} as they copy God. And our conception concerning\nhis Son, the Word, according to what is come to us, is not opposed to\nthe more clear conception of the holy angels concerning Him, but is\ndaily approximating towards it in clearness and perspicuity.\"\n\nAgain, he thus writes: \"But Celsus wishes us to dedicate the\nfirst-fruits unto the demons; but we to Him who said, Let the earth\nbring forth grass, &c. But to whom we give the first-fruits, to him we\nsend up also our prayers; having a great High Priest who is entered into\nthe heavens, Jesus the Son of God; and this confession we hold fast as\nlong as we live, having God favourable unto us, and his only-begotten\nSon being manifested among us, Jesus Christ. But if we wish to have a\nmultitude favourable unto us, we learn that thousand thousands stand by\nHim, and ten thousand thousands minister unto Him; who, regarding those\nas kinsfolks and friends who imitate their piety to God, work together\nfor the salvation of them who call upon God and pray sincerely;\nappearing also, and thinking that they ought to listen to them, and as\nif upon one watchword to go forth for the benefit and salvation of those\nwho pray to God, to whom they also pray.\" [Cont. Cels. lib. viii. \u00a7 34.\n(Benedict, p. 766.)]\n\nAfter these multiplied declarations of Origen, not only confessing that\nChristians did not pray to the angels, but vindicating them from the\ncharge of impiety brought against them by their enemies for their\nneglect of the worship of angels, is it possible to regard him as a\nwitness in favour of prayer to angels?\n\nBut it has been said that Origen in another passage (Cont. Cels. lib.\nviii. \u00a7 13. p. 751.) {144} plainly implies, that he would not be\nunwilling to discuss the question of some worship being due to angels\nand archangels, provided the idea of that worship, and the acts of the\nworshippers, were first cleared of all misapprehension. And I would not\nthat any Catholic, whether in communion with the Church of England or of\nRome, should make any other answer than Origen here gave to Celsus. Let\nme speak freely on this point. I should not respect the memory of Origen\nas I do, had he taught differently. The word which he uses is the Greek\nword \"therapeusis,\" precisely the same word with that which the learned\nin medicine now use to describe the means of healing diseases. It is a\nword of very wide import. It signifies the care which a physician takes\nof his patient; the service paid to a master; the attention given to a\nsuperior; the affectionate attendance of a friend; the allegiance of a\nsubject; the worship of the Supreme Being. Origen says, Provided Celsus\nwill specify what kind of \"therapeusis\" he would wish to be paid to\nthose angels and archangels whose existence we acknowledge, I am ready\nto enter upon the subject with him. This is all he says. And we of the\nAnglican Church are ready from our hearts to join him. Call it by what\nname we may, we are never backward in acknowledging ourselves bound to\nrender it. We pay to the angels and archangels, and all the company of\nheaven, the homage of respect, and veneration, and love. They are indeed\nour fellow-servants; they are, like ourselves, creatures of God's hand;\nbut they are exalted far above us in nature and in office. By the grace\nof God, we would daily endeavour to become less distant from {145} them\nin purity, in zeal, in obedience. Origen here speaks not one word of\nadoration, of invocation, of prayer. He speaks of a feeling and a\nbehaviour, which the Greeks called \"therapeusis,\" and which we best\nrender by \"respect, veneration, and love.\" Far from us be the thought of\nlowering the holy angels in the eyes of our fellow-creatures; equally\nfar from us be the thought of invoking them, of asking them even for\ntheir prayers. They are holy creatures and holy messengers: we will\nthink and speak of them with reverence, and gratitude, and affection;\nbut they are creatures and messengers still, and when we think or speak\nof the object of prayer, we think and speak solely and exclusively of\nGod.\n\nWith regard to Origen's opinion, as to the invocation of the souls of\nsaints departed, a very few words will suffice. He clearly records his\nopinion that the faithful are still waiting for us, and that till we all\nrejoice together, their joy will not be full: he leaves among the\nmysteries not to be solved now the question whether the departed can\nbenefit the human race at all; and he has added reflections, full of\nedifying and solemn admonition, which would dissuade his\nfellow-believers from placing their confidence in any virtues, or\nintercessions, or merits of saints, and in any thing except the mere\nmercy of God, through Jesus Christ, and our own individual labour in the\nwork of the Lord.\n\nIn his seventh homily on Leviticus, in a passage partly quoted by\nBellarmin, we read[51]--\"Not even the Apostles have yet received their\njoy, but even they are waiting, in order that I also may become a\npartaker of {146} their joy. For the saints departing hence do not\nimmediately receive all the rewards of their deserts; but they wait even\nfor us, though we be delaying and dilatory[52]. For they have not\nperfect joy as long as they grieve for our errors, and mourn for our\nsins.\" Then, having quoted the Epistle to the Hebrews, he\nproceeds,--\"You see, therefore, that Abraham is yet waiting to obtain\nthose things that are perfect; so is Isaac and Jacob; and so all the\nprophets are waiting for us, that they might obtain eternal blessedness\nwith us. Wherefore, even this mystery is kept, to the last day of\ndelayed judgment.\"\n\n [Footnote 51: Vol. ii. p. 222. Nondum enim receperunt l\u00e6titiam\n suam, ne apostoli quidem, &c. But see Huetius on Origen, lib.\n ii. q. 11. No. 10.]\n\n [Footnote 52: He thinks it probable, that the saints departed\n feel an interest in the welfare of men on earth. See vol. iv. p.\n 273.]\n\nModern Roman Catholic writers tell us, that we must consider Origen here\nas only referring to the reunion of the soul with the body; but his\nwords cannot be so interpreted. The cause of the saints still waiting\nfor their consummation of bliss, is stated to be the will of God, that\nall the faithful should enter upon their full enjoyment of blessedness\ntogether.\n\nAgain: it may be asked, whether the following passage could have come\nfrom the pen of one who prayed to the saints, as already reigning with\nChrist in heaven.\n\n\"But now whether the saints who are removed from the body and are with\nChrist, act at all, and labour for us, like the angels who minister to\nour salvation; or whether, again, the wicked removed from the body act\nat all according to the purpose of their own mind, like the bad angels,\nwith whom, it is said by Christ, that they will be sent into eternal\nfires;--let this too be {147} considered among the secret things of God,\nmysteries not to be committed to writing.\" [Epist. ad Rom. lib. ii.\n(Benedict. vol. iv. p. 479.) \"Jam vero si etiam,\" &c.]\n\nIn a passage found in Origen's Comment on Ezekiel's text, \"Though Noah,\nDaniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver neither son nor\ndaughter, they should deliver only their own souls by their\nrighteousness,\" [Hom. iii. vol. iii. p. 372.] independently of the\ntestimony borne to the point before us, we read a very interesting and\nawakening lesson of general application:--\n\n\"First, let us expound the passage agreeably to its plain sense, in\nconsequence of the ignorance of some who maintain the ideas of their own\nmind to be the truth of God, and often say, 'Every one of us will be\nable by his prayers to snatch whomsoever he will from hell,' and\nintroduce iniquity to the Lord; not seeing that the righteousness of the\nrighteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be\nupon him; so that each shall die in his own sin, and each live in his\nown person. My father being a martyr profits me nothing, if I shall not\nlive well, and adorn the nobleness of my race,--that is, his testimony\nand confession, by which he was glorified in Christ. It profiteth not\nthe Jews to say, 'We were not born of fornication, we have one father,\nthe Lord;' and, a little after, 'Abraham is our father.' Whatever they\nmay say, whatever they will assume, if they have not the faith of\nAbraham they make their boast in vain; for they will not be saved on\naccount of their being children of Abraham. Since, therefore, some have\nformed incorrect notions, we have necessarily brought in the plain sense\nof the passage as to the letter, saying, Noah, Daniel, and Job will not\nrescue sons or daughters; they only will be saved. Let no {149} one of\nus put his trust in a just father, a holy mother, chaste brethren.\nBlessed is the man who hath his hope in himself, and in the right way.\nBut to those who place confident trust in the saints, we bring forward\nno improper example,--'Cursed is the man whose hope is in man;' and\nagain, 'Trust ye not in man.' And this also, 'It is good to trust in the\nLord rather than in princes[53].' If we must hope in some object,\nleaving all others, let us hope in the Lord, saying, 'Though a host of\nmen were set against me, yet shall not my heart be afraid.'\"\n\n [Footnote 53: These observations may perhaps refer more\n especially to the saints still on earth; but they apply to all\n helpers, save God alone.]\n\nHe finishes the homily thus: \"The righteous see three periods; the\npresent, the period of change when the Lord will judge, and that which\nwill be after the resurrection,--that is, the eternity of life in heaven\nin Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.\"\n\nCan this confessor of the Christian faith have ever taught his\nfellow-believers to plead the merits of the saints, or to pray for their\nintercessions? How strongly are the above sentiments contrasted with a\npassage in the third of the spurious homilies called In Diversos; the\nfirst clause of which is referred to by Bellarmin, as containing\nOrigen's approbation of giving honour to the saints[54].\n\n [Footnote 54: I hardly need detain the reader by any proof of\n the spuriousness of this passage; the whole work from which it\n is taken is rejected altogether by the Benedictine editors:\n \"Reliqua ejusmodi spuria omittenda censuimus, qualia sunt ...\n Homili\u00e6 in diversos;\" and they have not allowed a single line of\n it to appear in their volumes, not even in the small\n character.--Vol. iv. p. 1.]\n\n\"The memory of these (the Innocents) is always {149} celebrated, as is\nright, in the Churches. These, therefore, since they were unjustly or\nimpiously put to death in peace and rest, having suffered much for the\nname of the Lord, were taken from this world, to remain in the eternal\nChurch for ever in Christ. But their parents for the merits of their\nsuffering will receive a worthy recompense of reward from the just and\neternal Lord God.\" Here we have strongly marked indeed the difference\nbetween Origen himself, and the errors fastened upon him by the design\nor ignorance of subsequent times.\n\nWere not his testimony a subject of great moment, I should plead guilty\nto having detained my readers too long on Origen; and yet I cannot\ndismiss him without first refreshing our minds with the remembrance of\nsome of his beautiful reflections on a Christian's prayer. We need not\nread them with a controversial eye, and they may be profitable to us\nall.\n\n\"I think, then, (says this early teacher in Christ's school) that when\nproceeding to prayer, a Christian will be more readily disposed, and be\nin a better tone for the general work of prayer, if he will first tarry\na little, and put himself into the right frame, casting off every\ndistracting and disturbing thought, and with his best endeavour\nrecalling to mind the vastness of HIM to whom he is drawing near, and\nhow unholy a thing it is to approach him with a carelessness and\nindifference, and, as it were, contempt; laying aside also every thing\nforeign to the subject;--so to come to prayer as one who stretcheth\nforth his soul first, before his hands; and lifts up his mind first,\nbefore his eyes, to God; and before he stands up, raising from the\nground the leading [150} principle of his nature, and lifting that up to\nthe Lord of all. So far casting away all remembrance of evil towards any\nof those who may seem to have injured him, as he wishes God not to\nremember evil against him, who has himself been guilty, and has\ntrespassed against many of his neighbours, or in whatever he is\nconscious to have done contrary to right reason.\" [De Oratione, vol. i.\n\u00a7 31. p. 267.]\n\n\"Having divided prayer into its several parts\" (he continues), \"I may\nbring my work to a close. There are then four parts of prayer requiring\ndescription, which I have found scattered in the Scriptures, all of\nwhich every one should embody in his prayer:--\n\n\"First, we must offer glory (doxologies) to the best of our ability in\nthe opening and commencement of our prayer, to God through Christ who is\nglorified with Him in the Holy Spirit, who is praised together. After\nthis each person should offer general thanksgivings both for the\nblessings granted to all, and for those which he has individually\nobtained from God. After the thanksgiving, it appears to me right, that\nbecoming, as it were, a bitter accuser of his own sins to God, he should\npetition first of all for a remedy to release him from the habit which\nimpels him to transgress, and then for remission of the past. And after\nthe confession, I think he ought in the fourth place, to add a\nsupplication for great and heavenly things, both individual and\nuniversal, and for his relations and friends. After all, he should close\nhis prayer with an ascription of glory to God through Christ in the Holy\nGhost.\" [Sect. 33. p. 271.] {151}\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\nSECTION VI.--SUPPLEMENTARY SECTION ON ORIGEN.\n\n\nI have above intimated my intention of reserving for a separate section\nour examination of a passage ascribed to Origen, in which he is\nrepresented as having invoked an angel to come down from heaven, to\nsuccour him and his fellow-creatures on earth. The passage purports to\nbe part of Origen's comment on the opening verse of the prophecy of\nEzekiel, \"The heavens were opened.\" After the fullest investigation, and\npatient weighing of the whole section, I am fully persuaded, first, that\nthe passage is an interpolation, never having come from the pen of\nOrigen; and secondly, that, whoever were its author, it can be regarded\nonly as an instance of those impassioned apostrophes, which are found in\ngreat variety in the addresses of ancient Christian orators. But since\nsome of the most respected writers of the Church of Rome have regarded\nit as genuine, and deemed it worthy of being cited in evidence, I feel\nit incumbent to state at length, for those readers who may desire to\nenter at once fully into the question, the reasons on which my judgment\nis founded; whilst others, who may perhaps consider the discussion of\nthe several points here as too great an interruption to the general\nargument, may for the present pass this section, and reserve it for\nsubsequent inquiry.\n\nIt will be, in the first place, necessary to quote the whole passage\nentire, however long; for the mere extract of that portion which is\ncited as Origen's prayer to an {152} angel, might leave a false\nimpression as to the real merits of the case.\n\n\"The heavens are opened. The heavens were closed, and at the coming of\nChrist they were opened, IN ORDER THAT THEY BEING LAID OPEN THE HOLY\nGHOST MIGHT COME UPON HIM in the appearance of a dove. For he could not\ncome to us unless he had first descended on one who partook of his own\nnature. Jesus ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, he received\ngifts for men. He who descended is the same who ascended above all\nheavens, that he might fill all things; and he gave some as apostles,\nsome as prophets, some as evangelists, some as pastors and masters, for\nthe perfecting of the saints.\" [Vol. iii. p. 358. Hom. i. in Ezek.]\n\n\"[The heavens were opened. It is not enough for one heaven to be opened:\nvery many are opened, that not from one, but from all, angels may\ndescend to those who are to be saved; angels who ascended and descended\nupon the Son of man, and came to him, and ministered to him. Now the\nangels descended because Christ first descended, fearing to descend\nbefore the Lord of all powers and things commanded. But when they saw\nthe chieftain of the army of heaven dwelling in earthly places, then\nthey entered through the opened road, following their Lord, and obeying\nhis will, who distributes them as guardians of those that believe on his\nname. Thou yesterday wast under a devil, to-day thou art under an angel.\nDo not ye, saith the Lord, despise one of the least of those who are in\nthe Church? Verily, I say unto you, that their angels through all things\nsee the face of the Father who is in heaven. The angels attend on thy\nsalvation; they were granted for the ministry of the Son of God, and\n{153} they say among themselves, If he descended, and descended into a\nbody, if he is clothed in mortal flesh, and endured the cross, and died\nfor man, why are we resting idle? Why do we spare ourselves? Haste away!\nLet all of us angels descend from heaven! Thus also was there a\nmultitude of the heavenly host praising and blessing God when Christ was\nborn. All things are full of angels. COME, ANGEL, take up one who by the\nword is converted from former error, from the doctrine of demons, from\niniquity speaking on high, and taking him up like a good physician,\ncherish him, and instruct him. He is a little child, to-day he is born,\nan old man again growing young; and undertake him, granting him the\nbaptism of the second regeneration; and summon to thyself other\ncompanions of thy ministry, that you all may together train for the\nfaith those who have been sometime deceived. For there is greater joy in\nheaven over one sinner repenting, than over ninety and nine just persons\nwho need no repentance. Every creature exults, rejoices with, and with\napplause addresses those who are to be saved; for the expectation of the\ncreature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. And although\nthose who have interpolated the apostolical writings are unwilling that\nsuch passages should be in their books as may prove Christ to be the\nCreator, yet every creature waiteth for the sons of God when they shall\nbe freed from sin, when they shall be taken away from the hand of\nZabulon[55], when they shall be regenerated by Christ. But now it is\ntime that we touch somewhat on the present place. The Prophet sees not a\nvision, but visions of God. {154} Why did he see not one, but many\nvisions? Hear the Lord promising and saying, I have multiplied visions.\n8. 'The fifth month.' This was the fifth year of the captivity of king\nJoachim. In the thirtieth year of Ezekiel's age, and the fifth of the\ncaptivity of Joachim, the prophet is sent to the Jews. The most merciful\nFather did not despise the people, nor leave them a long time\nunadmonished. It is the fifth year. How much time intervened? Five years\nelapsed since they were captives in bondage.]\n\n(The portion between brackets is what I regard as an interpolation.)\n\n [Footnote 55: This word is frequently used for \"Diabolum.\" Thus\n in a hymn used in the Roman ritual on Michaelmas-day we read,\n \"Michaelem in virtute conterentem Zabulum.\"]\n\n\"Immediately the Holy Spirit descends. He opened the heavens, that they\nwho were oppressed by the yoke of bondage might see those things which\nwere seen by the prophet. For when he says, The heavens were opened, in\nsome measure they see with the eyes of their heart what he had seen even\nwith the eyes of his flesh.\"\n\nNow the question is, Can this apostrophe to an angel be admitted as\nevidence that Origen held, and in his own person acted upon the doctrine\nof the Invocation of Angels?\n\nThe nature of the present work precludes us from entering at length on\nthe broad question, how far we can with safety regard the several\nwritings which now purport to be translations of Origen's compositions,\nas on the whole the works of that early Christian writer. A multitude of\nthose works which, until almost the middle of the sixteenth century,\nwere circulated as Origen's, have long been by common consent excluded\nfrom the catalogue of his works[56]. On this subject I {155} would refer\nany one, who desires to enter upon the inquiry, to the several prefaces\nof the Benedictine editors, who point out many sources of information,\nas well from among their friends as from those with whom they differ.\nOur inquiry must be limited within far narrower bounds, though I trust\nour arguments may assist somewhat in establishing the principles on\nwhich the student may at first guide himself in the wider range of\ninvestigation.\n\n [Footnote 56: See preface to vol. iv. of the Benedictine\n edition.]\n\nWe will first look to the external evidence bearing on the passage in\nquestion, and then to the internal character of the passage itself.\n\nOrigen's Commentaries on Ezekiel were divided into no fewer than\ntwenty-five volumes, which he is said to have begun in C\u00e6sarea of\nPalestine, and to have finished in Athens. Of these only one single\nfragment remains, namely, part of the twenty-first volume[57]. Jerome\nsays that he translated fourteen of Origen's homilies on Ezekiel. Of\nthese not one passage in the original language of Origen is known to be\nin existence. We must now, therefore, either receive the existing\ntranslations generally as Origen's, (whether they are Jerome's\ntranslations or not,) or we must consider Origen's homilies on Ezekiel\nas altogether lost to us. But supposing that we receive these works as\ncontaining, on the whole, traditionary translations of Origen, the\ngenuineness of any one passage may yet become the subject of fair\ncriticism. And whilst some persons reject whole masses of them\naltogether, the history of his works cannot but suggest some very\nperplexing points of suspicion and doubt.\n\n [Footnote 57: See Benedictine edition, vol. iii. p. 351. and\n Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. lib. vi. c. 6. there referred to.] {156}\n\nThe great body of his homilies, Origen probably delivered extempore in\nthe early part of his ministry to the Christians of C\u00e6sarea. Eusebius\ntells us, that not before Origen had reached his sixtieth year did he\nsanction the notaries (persons well known to history and corresponding\nto the short-hand writers[58] of the present day) in publishing any of\nhis homilies. [Eccles. Hist. lib. vi. c. 36.] But the Benedictine\neditor, De la Rue, conceives that those men might surreptitiously and\nagainst the preacher's wishes have published some of Origen's homilies.\nBe this as it may. Suppose that the homilies on Ezekiel were published\nby Origen himself, and were translated by Jerome himself, our doubts are\nnot removed even by that supposition. The same editor in the same\npreface tells us, \"It is known to the learned that it was Jerome's\nhabit, in translating Greek, sometimes to insert some things of his\nown[59].\" Not that I for a moment conceive the passage under\nconsideration to have come in its Latin dress from the pen of Jerome;\nfor my conviction being that it is an interpolation of a much later\ndate, I mention the circumstance to show, that even when Jerome, with\nhis professed accuracy, is the translator, we can in no case feel sure\nthat we are reading the exact and precise sentiments of Origen.\n\n [Footnote 58: The Latin word \"notarius\" (notary) does not come\n so near as our own English expression, \"short-hand writer,\" to\n the Greek word used by Eusebius,--\"tachygraphus,\"\n \"quick-writer.\" The report of Eusebius as to the homilies of\n Origen having been delivered extempore, and taken down by these\n \"quick-writers,\" is confirmed by Pamphilus the martyr, as quoted\n by Valesius, in the annotations on this passage of\n Eusebius.--Apol. Orig. lib. i.]\n\n [Footnote 59: Cui in vertendis Gr\u00e6cis sciunt eruditi solemne\n esse nonnulla interdum de suo inserere.] {157}\n\nRuffinus, his celebrated contemporary, accused Jerome of many\ninaccuracies in his translations; and yet what were the principles of\ntranslation adopted by Ruffinus himself, as his own, we are not left to\ninfer; for we learn it from his own pen. His voluntary acknowledgment in\nthe peroration which he added to Origen's Comment on the Epistle of St.\nPaul to the Romans, strongly and painfully exhibits to us how little\ndependence can safely be placed on such translations whenever the\noriginal is lost; how utterly insufficient and unsatisfactory is any\nevidence drawn from them, as to the real genuine sentiments and\nexpressions of the author. Ruffinus informs us, that with regard to many\nof the various works of Origen, he changed the preacher's extemporary\naddresses, as delivered in the Church, into a more explanatory form,\n\"adding, supplying, filling up what he thought wanting[60].\"\n\n [Footnote 60: Dum supplere cupimus ea qu\u00e6 ab Origene in\n auditorio Ecclesi\u00e6 extempore (non tam explanationis quam\n \u00e6dificationis intentione) perorata sunt.... Si addere quod\n videar, et explere qu\u00e6 desunt.--Orig. vol. iv. p. 688.]\n\nMoreover, he proceeds so far as to tell us[61] that his false {158}\nfriends had remonstrated with him for not publishing the works under his\nown name, instead of retaining Origen's, his changes having been so\ngreat; a point, which he was far from unwilling to acknowledge. This\nmust appear to every one unsatisfactory in the extreme, and to shake\none's confidence in any evidence drawn from such a source. Indeed, the\nBenedictine editor, with great cause and candour, laments this course of\nproceeding on the part of Ruffinus, as throwing a doubt and uncertainty,\nand suspicion, over all the works so tampered with. \"This one thing\n(observes that honest editor) would the learned desire, that Ruffinus\nhad spared himself the labour of filling up what he thought deficient.\nFor since the Greek text has perished, it can scarcely with certainty be\ndistinguished, where Origen himself speaks, or where Ruffinus obtrudes\nhis own merchandise upon us.\" This is more than enough to justify our\nremarks. I must, however, refer to the conduct of another editor and\ntranslator of Origen, of a similar tendency. It unhappily shows the\ndisposition to sacrifice every thing to the received opinions of the\nChurch of Rome, rather than place the whole evidence of antiquity before\nthe world, and abide by the result. How many works this principle, in\nworse hands, may have mutilated, or utterly buried in oblivion, and left\nto perish, it is impossible to conjecture; that the principle is\nunworthy the spirit of Christianity will not now be questioned. That\neditor and translator, in his advertisement on the Commentary upon St.\nJohn, thus professes the principles which he had adopted: \"Know,\nmoreover, that I have found nothing in this book which {159} seemed to\nbe inconsistent with the decrees of holy Mother Church: for had I found\nany, I would not have translated the book, or would have marked the\nsuspected place.\" [Quoted by the Benedictine, vol. iv. p. viii.] The\nBenedictine proceeds to say, that the writer had not kept his word, but\nhad allowed many heterodox passages to escape, whilst he had\ndeliberately withdrawn others.\n\n [Footnote 61: His words, as indicative of his principles of\n translation, and bearing immediately on the question, as to the\n degree of authority which should be assigned to the remains of\n Origen, when the original is lost, deserve a place here: \"I am\n exposed to a new sort of charge at their hands; for thus they\n address me,--In your writings, since very many parts in them\n (plurima in eis) are considered to be of your own production,\n give the title of your own name, and write, for example, The\n Books of Explanations of Ruffinus on the Epistle to the\n Romans,--but the whole of this they offer me, not from any love\n of me, but from hatred to the author. But I, who consult my\n conscience more than my fame, even if I am seen to add some\n things, and to fill up what are wanting, or to shorten what are\n too long, yet I do not think it right to steal the title of him,\n who laid the foundations of the works, and supplied the\n materials for the buildings. Yet, in truth, it may be at the\n option of the reader, when he shall have approved of the work,\n to ascribe the merits to whom he will.\"]\n\nMany works probably, of the earliest ages, have been wholly or in part\nlost to us from the working of the same principle in its excess. Rather\nthan perpetuate any sentiments at variance with the received doctrines\nof the Church, it was considered the duty of the faithful to let works,\nin themselves valuable, but containing such sentiments, altogether\nperish, or to exclude the objectionable passages.\n\nI would now invite you to examine the passage itself, and determine\nwhether it does not bear within it internal evidence of its having been\naltogether interpolated.\n\nIn the first place, on the words upon which it professes to be a\ncomment, the author had already given his comment, and assigned to them\nanother meaning. \"The heavens were opened,\" he says: \"Before the time of\nChrist the heavens were shut; but at his advent they were opened, THAT\nTHE HOLY SPIRIT MIGHT DESCEND FIRST ON HIM;\" quoting also among others\nthe passage which speaks of Christ taking captivity captive. And then\nafter the passage in question, in which he assigns a totally different\nreason for the opening of the heavens; without any allusion to the\nintervening ideas, he carries on, and concludes the comment which he had\nbegun,--in words which fit on well with the close of that comment, but\nwhich, as they stand now at the close of the intervening passage about\nthe angels, are abrupt and incoherent--\"Forthwith the Holy Spirit {160}\ndescended;\" recurring also again to the idea which he had before\nintroduced of Christ benefiting those who were in captivity. A passage\nwhich affixes to the words commented upon, a different interpretation\nfrom one already given in the same paragraph; and which forces itself\nabruptly and incoherently in the middle of a brief comment, must offer\nitself to our examination under strong grounds of suspicion, that it has\nbeen interpolated. But when we examine the substance of the passage, its\nsentiments, the ideas conveyed, and the associations suggested, and then\nthink of the author to whom it is ascribed, few probably will be\ndisposed to regard it as a faithful mirror in which to contemplate the\nreal sentiments of Origen.\n\nHow utterly unworthy of the sublime burst of Christian eloquence which\nnow delights us in undoubted works of Origen, is this strange and\ndegrading fiction! The true Origen THERE represents the tens of\nthousands of angelic spirits ten thousand times told, as ever\nsurrounding the throne of God, and ministering for the blessing of those\nin whose behalf God himself wills them to serve. [Vol. i. p. 767. Contr.\nCels. viii. 34.] Here he represents the revelation of the holiest of\nholies as a throwing open of the various divisions or compartments of\nthe celestial kingdom for all the angels to hasten forth together, from\ntheir several places of indolence and carelessness and self-indulgence,\n(for such he represents their state to have been,) to visit this earth.\nSurely such a comment would better suit the mythology of the cave and\ndens of \u00c6olus and his imprisoned winds (velut agmine facto qua data\nporta ruunt) than the awfully sublime revelation vouchsafed to the\nprophet Ezekiel. And how unworthy and degrading is that representation\nof the {161} heavenly host, resting inactive, and sparing themselves\nfrom toil, until they witnessed Christ's descent and humiliation; and\nthen when chid and put to shame and rebuke, and mutually roused to\naction by their fellows, coming down to visit this earth, and rushing\nthrough the opened portals of heaven.\n\nAgain, we see how incoherent is the whole section which contains the\nalleged prayer to angels: \"Thou wast yesterday under a demon, to-day\nthou art under an angel: the angels minister to thy salvation; they are\ngranted for the ministry of the Son of God, &c. All things are full of\nangels. Come, Angel, take up one who is converted from his ancient\nerror, &c. And call to thee other companions of thy ministry, that all\nof you alike may train up to the faith those who were once deceived.\"\nIndeed the passage seems to carry within itself its own condemnation so\nentirely, that what we have before alleged, both of internal and\nexternal evidence, may appear superfluous. Surely the conceit of a\npreacher of God's word addressing an angel, (which of them he thus\nindividually addresses does not appear; for he says not \"My Angel,\" as\nthough he were appealing to one whom he regarded as his guardian, the\nview gratuitously suggested in the marginal note of the Benedictine\neditor, \"the invocation of a guardian angel,\") and bidding some one\nangel, as a sort of summoner, to go and call to himself all the angels\nof heaven to come in one body, and instruct those who are in error, is,\neven as a rhetorical apostrophe, as unworthy the mind of a Christian\nphilosopher, as it is in the light of a prayer totally inconsistent with\nthe plain sentiments of Origen on the very subject of angelic\ninvocation. Even had Origen not left us his deliberate opinions in works\nof undoubted genuineness, such a {162} strange, incoherent, and childish\nrhapsody could never be relied upon by sober and upright men as a\nprecedent sanctioning a Christian's prayer to angels; no one would rely\nupon such evidence in points of far less moment, even were it\nuncontradicted by the same witness.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\nSECTION VII.--ST. CYPRIAN.\n\n\nIn the middle of the third century, Cyprian [Jerom, vol. iv. p. 342.], a\nman of substance and a rhetorician of Carthage, was converted to\nChristianity. He was then fifty years of age; and his learning, virtues,\nand devotedness to the cause which he had espoused, very soon raised him\nto the dignity, the responsibility, and, in those days, the great\ndanger, of the Episcopate. (Cyprian is said to have been converted about\nA.D. 246, to have been consecrated A.D. 248, and to have suffered\nmartyrdom A.D. 258.) Many of his writings of undoubted genuineness are\npreserved, and they have been appealed to in every age as the works of a\nfaithful son of the Catholic Church. On the subject of prayer he has\nwritten very powerfully and affectingly; but I find no expression which\ncan by possibility imply that he practised or countenanced the\ninvocation of saints and angels. I have carefully examined every\nsentence alleged by its most strenuous defenders, and I cannot extract\nfrom them one single grain of evidence which can bear the test of\ninquiry. Even did the passages quoted require to be taken in the sense\naffixed to them {163} by those advocates, they prove nothing; they do\nnot bear even remotely upon the subject, whilst I am persuaded that to\nevery unprejudiced mind a meaning will appear to have been attached to\nthem which the author did not intend to convey.\n\nThe first quotation to which our attention is called is from the close\nof his treatise De Habitu Virginum, which contains some very edifying\nreflections. In the last clause of that treatise the advocates for the\ninvocation of saints represent Cyprian as requesting the virgins to\nremember him in their prayers at the throne of grace when they shall\nhave been taken to heaven. \"As we have borne the image of Him who is of\nthe earth, let us also bear the image of him who is from heaven. This\nimage the virgin-state bears,--integrity bears it, holiness and truth\nbear it; rules of discipline mindful of God bear it, retaining justice\nwith religion, firm in the faith, humble in fear, strong to endure all\nthings, gentle to receive an injury, readily disposed to pity, with one\nmind and with one heart in brotherly peace. All which ye ought, O good\nvirgins, to observe, to love and fulfil; ye who, retired for the service\nof God and Christ, with your greater and better part are going before\ntowards the Lord to whom you have devoted yourselves. Let those who are\nadvanced in age exercise rule over the younger; ye younger, offer to\nyour equals a stimulus; encourage yourselves by mutual exhortations; by\nexamples emulous of virtue invite each other to glory; remain firm;\nconduct yourselves spiritually; gain the end happily. Only remember us\nthen, when your virgin-state shall begin to be honoured.\" [Tantum\nmementote tunc nostri, cum incipiet in vobis virginitas honorari.--Page\n180.] {164}\n\nThe second instance, from the close of his letter to Cornelius, puts\nbefore us a beautiful act of friendship and brotherly affection worthy\nof every Christian brother's and friend's imitation. But how it can be\napplied in supporting the cause of the invocation of saints, I cannot\nsee. The supporters of that doctrine say that Cyprian suggests to his\nfriend, still living on earth, that whichever of the two should be first\ncalled away, he should continue when in heaven to pray for the survivor\non earth. Suppose it to be so. That has not any approximation to our\npraying to one who is already dead and gone to his reward. But Cyprian\nsurely intended to convey a very different meaning, namely this, that\nthe two friends should continue to pray, each in his place, mutually for\neach other and for their friends, and relieve each other's wants and\nnecessities whilst both survived; and whenever death should remove the\none from earth to happiness, the survivor should not forget their bond\nof friendship, but should still continue to pray to God for their\nbrothers and sisters. The passage translated to the letter, runs thus:\n\"Let us be mutually mindful of each other, with one mind and one heart.\nOn both sides, let us always pray for each other; let us by mutual love\nrelieve each other's pressures and distresses; and if either of us from\nhence, by the speed of the Divine favour, go on before the {165} other,\nlet our love persevere before the Lord; for our brothers and sisters\nwith the Father's mercy let not prayer cease. My desire, most dear\nbrother, is that you may always prosper.\" [Epist. 57. Benedict, p.\n96.--Memores nostri invicem simus concordes atque unanimes: utrobique\npro nobis semper oremus, pressuras et angustias mutua caritate\nrelevemus, et si quis istinc nostrum prior divin\u00e6 dignationis celeritate\npr\u00e6cesserit, perseveret apud Dominum nostra dilectio; pro fratribus et\nsororibus nostris apud misericordiam Patris non cesset oratio. Opto te,\nfrater carissime, semper bene valere.--This epistle is by some editors\nnumbered as the 60th, by others as the 61st, the 7th, and the 69th, &c.]\n\nWhether the above view of this passage be founded in reason or not, it\nmatters little to the point at issue. Let both these passages be\naccepted in the sense assigned to them by some Roman Catholic writers,\nyet there is not a shadow of analogy between the language and conduct of\nCyprian, and the language and conduct of those who now invoke saints\ndeparted. In each case Cyprian, still in the body, was addressing\nfellow-creatures still sojourning on earth. The very utmost which these\npassages could be forced to countenance would be, that the righteous,\nwhen in heaven, may be mindful in their prayers of their friends, who\nare still exposed to the dangers from which they have themselves finally\nescaped, and who, when both were on earth, requested them to remember\nthe survivors in their prayers. But this is a question totally different\nfrom our addressing them in supplication and prayer; a difference which\nI am most anxious that both myself and my readers should keep in mind\nthroughout.\n\nIn the extract from Cyprian's letter, a modern author having rendered\nthe single word \"utrobique,\" by the words \"in this world and the next\" I\nam induced to add a few further observations on the passage. (The Latin\noriginal and the version here referred to, will be placed side by side\nin the Appendix.) It will, I think, appear to most readers on a careful\nexamination of the passage, that the expression \"utrobique[62]\" \"on both\nsides,\" or \"on both parts,\" whatever be its precise {166} meaning, so\nfar from referring to \"this world and the next,\" must evidently be\nconfined to the condition of both parties now in this life, because it\nstands in direct contradistinction to what follows, the supposed case of\nthe death of either of the two; and because it applies no less to the\nmutual relief of each other's sufferings and afflictions during their\njoint lives, than to their mutual prayers: it cannot mean that all the\nmutual benefits to be derived from their mutual remembrance of each\nother, were to come solely through the means of their prayers. They were\ndoubtless mutually to pray for each other; but, in addition to their\nprayers, they were also to relieve each other's pressures and\ndifficulties with mutual love, and that too before the event afterwards\ncontemplated, namely, the removal of one of them by death.\n\n [Footnote 62: Utrobique is rendered by Facciolati [Greek:\n hekaterothi]--\"in utraque parte, utrimque.\"]\n\nBishop Fell thus comments on the passage: \"The sense seems to be, When\neither of us shall die; whether I, who preside at Carthage, or you, who\nare presiding at Rome, shall be the survivor, let the prayer to God of\nhim whose lot shall be to remain the longest among the living,\npersevere, and continue.\" \"Meanwhile,\" continues the Bishop[63], \"we by\nno means doubt that souls admitted into heaven apply to God, the best\nand greatest of Beings, that he would have compassion on those who are\ndwelling on the earth. But it does not thence follow, that prayers\nshould be offered to the saints. THE MAN WHO PETITIONS THEM MAKES THEM\nGODS (Deos qui rogat ille facit).\" [Oxford, 1682, p. 143.] Rigaltius,\nhimself {167} a Roman Catholic, doubts whether, when Cyprian wrote this\nletter, he had any idea before his mind of saints departed praying for\nthe living. He translates \"utrobique\" very much as I have done, \"with\nreciprocal love, with mutual charity.\" His last observations on this\npassage are very remarkable. After having confessed the sentiments to be\nworthy of a Christian, that the saints pray for us, and having argued\nthat Cyprian could not have thought it necessary to ask a saint to\nretain his brotherly kindness in heaven, for he could not be a saint if\nhe did not continue to love his brethren, he thus concludes: \"In truth\nit is a pious and faithful saying, That of those who having already put\noff mortality are made joint-heirs with Christ, and of those who\nsurviving on earth will hereafter be joint-heirs with Christ, the Church\nis one, and is by the Holy Spirit so well joined together as not to be\ntorn asunder by the dissolution of the body. They pray to God for us,\nand we praise God for them, and thus with mutual affection (utrobique)\nwe always pray for each other.\" [Paris, 1666. p. 92.]\n\n [Footnote 63: See the note of the Benedictine editors on this\n passage (p. 467), in which they refer to the sentiments of\n Rigaltius, Pamelius, and Bishop Fell, whom they call \"the most\n illustrious Bishop of Oxford.\"]\n\nI will detain you only by one or two more extracts from Cyprian; one\nforming part of the introduction to his Comment on the Lord's Prayer,\nwhich is fitted for the edification of Christians in every age; the\nother closing his treatise on Mortality, one of those beautiful\nproductions by which, during the plague which raged at Carthage in the\nyear 252, he comforted and exhorted the Christians, that they might meet\ndeath without fear or amazement, in sure and certain hope of eternal\nblessedness in heaven. The sentiments in the latter passage will be\nresponded to by every good Catholic, whether in communion with the\nChurch of Rome or {168} with the Church of England; whilst in the former\nwe are reminded, that to pray as Cyprian prayed, we must address\nourselves to God alone in the name and trusting to the merits only of\nhis blessed Son.\n\n\"He who caused us to live, taught us also to pray, with that kindness\nevidently by which He deigns to give and confer on us every other\nblessing; that when we speak to the Father in the prayer and\nsupplication which his Son taught, we might the more readily be heard.\nHe had already foretold, that the hour was coming when the true\nworshippers should worship the Father in spirit and in truth; and He\nfulfilled what He before promised, that we, who have received the spirit\nand truth from his sanctification, may from his instruction offer\nadoration truly and spiritually. For what prayer can be more spiritual\nthan that which is given to us by Christ, by whom even the Holy Spirit\nis sent to us? What can be a more true prayer with the Father than that\nwhich came from the lips of the Son, who is Truth? So that to pray\notherwise than He taught, is not only ignorance, but a fault; since He\nhas himself laid it down and said, Ye reject the Commandment of God to\nestablish your own traditions. Let us pray then, most beloved brethren,\nas our teacher, God, has instructed us. It is a welcome and friendly\nprayer to petition God from his own, to mount up to his ears by the\nprayer of Christ. Let the Father recognize the words of his Son. When we\noffer a prayer let Him who dwelleth inwardly in our breast, Himself be\nin our voice; and since we have Him as our advocate with the Father for\nour sins, when as sinners we are petitioning for our sins let us put\nforth the words of our Advocate.\" [De Orat. Dom. p. 204.]\n\n\"We must consider, (he says at the close of his {169} treatise on the\nMortality [Page 236.],) most beloved brethren, and frequently reflect\nthat we have renounced the world, and are meanwhile living here as\nstrangers and pilgrims. Let us embrace the day which assigns each to his\nown home ... which restores us to paradise and the kingdom of heaven,\nsnatched from hence and liberated from the entanglements of the world.\nWhat man, when he is in a foreign country, would not hasten to return to\nhis native land?... We regard paradise as our country.... We have begun\nalready to have the patriarchs for our parents. Why do we not hasten and\nrun that we may see our country, and salute our parents? There a large\nnumber of dear ones are waiting for us, of parents, brothers, children;\na numerous and full crowd are longing for us; already secure of their\nown immortality, and still anxious for our safety. To come to the sight\nand the embrace of these, how great will be the mutual joy to them and\nto us! What a pleasure of the kingdom of heaven is there without the\nfear of dying, and with an eternity of living! How consummate and\nnever-ending a happiness! There is the glorious company of the apostles;\nthere is the assembly of exulting prophets; there is the unnumbered\nfamily of martyrs crowned for the victory of their struggles and\nsuffering; there are virgins triumphing, who, by the power of chastity,\nhave subdued the lusts of the flesh and the body; there are the merciful\nrecompensed, who with food and bounty to the poor have done the works of\nrighteousness, who keeping the Lord's commands have transferred their\nearthly inheritance into heavenly treasures. To these, O most dearly\nbeloved brethren, let us hasten with most eager longing; {170} let us\ndesire that our lot may be to be with these speedily; to come speedily\nto Christ. Let God see this to be our thought; let our Lord Christ\nbehold this to be the purpose of our mind and faith, who will give more\nabundant rewards of his glory to them, whose desires for himself have\nbeen the greater.\"\n\nSuch is the evidence of St. Cyprian.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\nSECTION VIII.--LACTANTIUS.\n\n\nCyprian suffered martyrdom about the year 260. Towards the close of this\ncentury, and at the beginning of the fourth, flourished Lactantius. He\nwas deeply imbued with classical learning and philosophy. Before he\nbecame a writer (as Jerome informs us [Jerom, vol. iv. part ii. p. 119.\nParis, 1706]) he taught rhetoric at Nicomedia; and afterwards in extreme\nold age he was the tutor of C\u00e6sar Crispus, son of Constantine, in Gaul.\nAmong many other writings which Jerome enumerates, he specifies the\nbook, \"On the Anger of God,\" as a most beautiful work. Bellarmin,\nhowever, speaks of him disparagingly, as one who had fallen into many\nerrors, and was better versed in Cicero than in the Holy Scriptures. His\ntestimony is allowed by the supporters of the adoration of spirits and\nangels to be decidedly against them; they do not refer to a single\npassage likely to aid their cause; and they are chiefly anxious to\ndepreciate his evidence. I will call your attention only to two passages\nin his works. The {171} one is in his first book on False Religion: \"God\nhath created ministers, whom we call messengers (angels);... but neither\nare these gods, nor do they wish to be called gods, nor to be\nworshipped, as being those who do nothing beyond the command and will of\nGod.\" [Vol. i. p. 31.]\n\nThe other passage is from his work on a Happy Life: \"Nor let any one\nthink that souls are judged immediately after death. For all are kept in\none common place of guard, until the time come when the great Judge will\ninstitute an inquiry into their deserts. Then those whose righteousness\nshall be approved, will receive the reward of immortality; and those\nwhose sins and crimes are laid open shall not rise again, but shall be\nhidden in the same darkness with the wicked--appointed to fixed\npunishments.\" [Chap. xxi. p. 574.]\n\nThis composition is generally believed to have been written about the\nyear 317.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\nSECTION IX.--EUSEBIUS.\n\n\nThe evidence of Eusebius, on any subject connected with primitive faith\nand practice, cannot be looked to without feelings of deep interest. He\nflourished about the beginning of the fourth century, and was Bishop of\nCaesarea, in Palestine. His testimony has always been appealed to in the\nCatholic Church, as an authority not likely to be gainsaid. He was a\nvoluminous writer, and his writings were very diversified in their\ncharacter. {172} Whatever be our previous sentiments we cannot too\ncarefully examine the remains of this learned man. But in his writings,\nhistorical, biographical, controversial, or by whatever name they may be\ncalled, overflowing as they are with learning, philosophical and\nscriptural, I can find no one single passage which countenances the\ndecrees of the Council of Trent; not one passage which would encourage\nme to hope that I prayed as the primitive Church was wont to pray, if by\ninvocation I requested an angel or a saint to procure me any favour, or\nto pray for me. The testimony of Eusebius has a directly contrary\ntendency.\n\nAmong the authorities quoted by the champions of the invocation of\nsaints, I can find only three from Eusebius; and I sincerely lament the\nobservations which truth and justice require me to make here, in\nconsequence of the manner in which his evidence has been cited. The\nfirst passage to which I refer is quoted by Bellarmin from the history\nof Eusebius, to prove that the spirit of a holy one goes direct from\nearth to heaven. This passage is not from the pen of Eusebius; and if it\nwere, it would not bear on our inquiry. The second is quoted by the same\nauthor, from the Evangelica Pr\u00e6paratio, to prove that the primitive\nChristians offered prayers to the saints. Neither is this from the pen\nof Eusebius. The third Extract, from the account of the martyrdom of\nPolycarp, is intended to prove that the martyrs were worshipped. Even\nthis, one of the most beautiful passages in ancient history, as it is\nrepresented by Bellarmin and others, is interpolated.\n\nThe first passage, which follows a description of the {173} martyr\nPotami\u00e6na's sufferings, is thus quoted by Bellarmin: \"In this manner the\nblessed virgin, Potamni\u00e6na, emigrated from earth to heaven.\" [Hoc modo\nbeata Virgo emigravit e terris ad coelum. Vol. ii. p. 854.] And such,\ndoubtless, is the passage in the translation of Eusebius, ascribed to\nRuffinus [Basil, 1535. p. 134]; but the original is, \"And such a\nstruggle was thus accomplished by this celebrated virgin;\" ([Greek: kai\nho men taes aoidimou koraes toioutos kataegoisisto athlos]; Tale\ncertamen ab hac percelebri et gloriosa virgine confectum fait.); and\nsuch is the Parisian translation of 1581.\n\nThe second misquotation is far more serious. Bellarmin thus quotes\nEusebius: \"These things we do daily, who honouring the soldiers of true\nreligion as the friends of God, approach to their respective monuments,\nand make OUR PRAYERS TO THEM, as holy men, by whose intercession to God,\nwe profess to be not a little aided.\" [H\u00e6c nos, inquit, quotidie\nfactitamus qui veras pietatis milites ut Dei amicos honorantes, ad\nmonumenta quoque eorum accedimus, votaque ipsis facimus tanquam viris\nsanctis quorum intercessione ad Deum non parum juvari profitemur.--p.\n902. He quotes it as c. 7.]\n\nBy one who has not by experience become familiar with these things it\nwould scarcely be believed, that whilst the readers of Bellarmin have\nbeen taught to regard these as the words of Eusebius, in the original\nthere is no mention whatever made of the intercession of the saints;\nthat there is no allusion to prayer to them; that there is no admission\neven of any benefit derived from them at all. This quotation Bellarmin\nmakes from the Latin version, published in Paris in 1581, or from some\ncommon source: it is word for word the same. We must either allow him to\nbe ignorant of the truth, or to have designedly preferred error. {174}\nThe copy which I have before me of the \"Evangelica Pr\u00e6paratio,\" in Greek\nand Latin, was printed in 1628, and dedicated by Viger Franciscus, a\npriest of the order of Jesuits, to the Archbishop of Paris.\n\nEusebius, marking the resemblance in many points between Plato's\ndoctrine and the tenets of Christianity, on the reverence which,\naccording to Plato, ought to be paid to the good departed, makes this\nobservation: \"And this corresponds with what takes place on the death of\nthose lovers of God, whom you would not be wrong in calling the soldiers\nof the true religion. Whence also it is our custom to proceed to their\ntombs, and AT THEM [the tombs] to make our prayers, and to honour their\nblessed souls, inasmuch as these things are with reason done by us.\"\n[Greek: kai tauta de armozei epi tae ton theophilon teleutae ous\nstratiotas taes alaethous eusebeius ouk an hamartois eipon\nparalambanesthai othen kai epi tas thaekas auton ethos haemin parienai\nkai tas euchas para tautais poieisthai, timan te tas makarias auton\npsychas, os eulogos kai touton uph haemon giguomenon.] This translation\nagrees to a certain extent with the Latin of Viger's edition (\"Qu\u00e6\nquidem in hominum Deo carissimorum obitus egregie conveniunt, quos ver\u00e6\npietatis milites jure appellaris. Nam et eorum sepulchra celebrare et\npreces ibi votaque nuncupare et beatas illorum animas venerari\nconsuevimus, idque a nobis merito fieri statuimus\"); though the\ntranslator there has employed words more favourable to the doctrine of\nthe saints' adoration, than he could in strictness justify.\n\nThe celebrated letter from the Church of Smyrna (Euseb. Cantab. 1720.\nvol. i. p. 163), relating the martyrdom of Polycarp, one of the most\nprecious relics of Christian antiquity, has already been examined by us,\nwhen we were inquiring into the recorded {175} sentiments of Polycarp;\nand to our reflections in that place we have little to add. The\ninterpolations to which we have now referred, are intended to take off\nthe edge of the evidence borne by this passage of Eusebius against the\ninvocation of saints. First, whereas the Christians of Smyrna are\nrecorded by Eusebius to have declared, without any limitation or\nqualification whatever, that they could never worship any fellow-mortal\nhowever honoured and beloved, the Parisian edition limits and qualifies\ntheir declaration by interpolating the word \"as God,\" implying that they\nwould offer a secondary worship to a saint. Again, whereas Eusebius in\ncontrasting the worship paid to Christ, with the feelings of the\nChristians towards a martyr, employs only the word \"love,\" Bellarmin,\nfollowing Ruffinus, interpolates the word \"veneramur\" after \"diligimus,\"\na word which may be innocently used with reference to the holy saints\nand servants of God, though it is often in ancient writers employed to\nmean the religious worship of man to God. Still how lamentable is it to\nattempt by such tampering with ancient documents to maintain a cause,\nwhatever be our feelings with regard to it!\n\nWith two more brief quotations we will close our report of Eusebius.\nThey occur in the third chapter of the third book of his Demonstratio\nEvangelica, and give the same view of the feelings and sentiments of the\nprimitive Christians towards the holy angels, which we have found Origen\nand all the other fathers to have acknowledged.\n\n\"In the doctrine of his word we have learned that there exists, after\nthe most high God, certain powers, {176} in their nature incorporeal and\nintellectual, rational and purely virtuous, who ([Greek: choreuousas])\nkeep their station around the sovereign King,--the greater part of whom,\nby certain dispensations of salvation, are sent at the will of the\nFather even as far as to men; whom, indeed, we have been taught to know\nand to honour, according to the measure of their dignity, rendering to\nGod alone, the sovereign King, the honour of worship.\" ([Greek:\ngnorizein kai timain kata to metron taes axias edidachthaemen, mono toi\npambasilei Theoi taen sebasmion timaen aponemontes]) Again: \"Knowing the\ndivine, the serving and ministering powers of the sovereign God, and\nhonouring them to the extent of propriety; but confessing God alone, and\nHim alone worshipping.\" ([Greek: theias men dynameis hypaeretikas tou\npambasileos Theou kai leitourgikas eidotes, kai kata to prosaekon\ntimontes monon de Theon homologountes, kai monon ekeinon sebontes])\n[Demonst. Evang. Paris, 1628. p. 106.; Pr\u00e6par. Evang. lib. vii. c. 15.\np. 237.]\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\nSECTION X.--APOSTOLICAL CANONS AND CONSTITUTIONS.\n\n\nThe works known by the name of the Apostolical Constitutions and\nApostolical Canons, though confessedly not the genuine productions of\nthe Apostles, or of their age, have been always held in much veneration\nby the Church of Rome. The most learned writers fix their date at a\nperiod not more remote than the beginning of the fourth century. (See\nCotelerius; vol. i. p. 194 and 424. Beveridge, in the same vol. p. 427.\nConc. Gen. Florence, 1759, tom. i. p. 29 and 254.) I invite the reader\n{177} to examine both these documents, but especially the Constitutions,\nand to decide whether they do not contain strong and convincing\nevidence, that the invocation of saints was not practised or known in\nthe Church when they were written. Minute rules are given for the\nconducting of public worship; forms of prayer are prescribed to be used\nin the Church, by the bishops and clergy, and by the people; forms of\nprayer and of thanksgiving are recommended for the use of the faithful\nin private, in the morning, at night, and at their meals; forms, too,\nthere are of creeds and confessions;--but not one single allusion to any\nreligious address to angel or saint; whilst occasions most opportune for\nthe introduction of such doctrine and practice repeatedly occur, and are\nuniformly passed by. Again and again prayer is directed to be made to\nthe one only living and true God, exclusively through the mediation and\nintercession of the one only Saviour Jesus Christ. Honourable mention is\nmade of the saints of the Old Testament, and the apostles and martyrs of\nthe New; directions are also given for the observance of their festivals\n[Book viii. p. 415]; but not the shadow of a thought appears that their\ngood offices could benefit us; much less the most distant intimation\nthat Christians might invoke them for their prayers and intercessions.\nThere is indeed very much in these early productions of the Christian\nworld to interest every Catholic Christian; and although a general\nadmiration of the principles for the most part pervading them does not\ninvolve an entire approbation of them all, yet perhaps few would think\nthe time misapplied which they should devote to the examination of these\ndocuments. {178}\n\nIn book v. c. 6. of the Constitutions, the martyr is represented as\n\"trusting in the one only true God and Father, through Jesus Christ, the\ngreat High Priest, the Redeemer of souls, the Dispenser of rewards; to\nwhom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.\" [Cotel. vol. i. p. 304.]\n\nIn the same book and in the following chapter we find an exceedingly\ninteresting dissertation on the general resurrection, but not one word\nof saint or martyr being beforehand admitted to glory; on the contrary,\nthe declaration is distinct, that not the martyrs only, but all men will\nrise. Surely such an opportunity would not have been lost of stating the\ndoctrine of martyrs being now reigning with Christ, had such been the\ndoctrine of the Church at that early period.\n\nIn the eighth chapter is contained an injunction to honour the martyrs\nin these words: \"We say that they should be in all honour with you, as\nthe blessed James the bishop and our holy fellow-minister Stephen were\nhonoured with us. For they are blessed by God and honoured by holy men,\npure from all blame, never bent towards sins, never turned away from\ngood,--undoubtedly to be praised. Of whom David spake, 'Honourable\nbefore God is the death of his saints;' and Solomon, 'The memory of the\njust is with praise.' Of whom the prophet also said, 'Just men are taken\naway.'\" [p. 309.]\n\nAnd in book viii. c. 13. we read this exhortation,--\"Let us remember the\nholy martyrs, that we may be counted worthy to be partakers of their\nconflict.\" [p. 404.]\n\nDoes this sound any thing at all like adoration or invocation? The word\nwhich is used in the above {179} passage, _honour_ [[Greek: tim\u00ea] p.\n241], is employed when (book ii. c. 28.) the respect is prescribed which\nthe laity ought to show to the clergy.\n\nTo the very marked silence as to any invocation or honour, to be shown\nto the Virgin Mary, I shall call your attention in our separate\ndissertation on the worship now offered to her.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\nSECTION XI.--SAINT ATHANASIUS.\n\n\nThe renowned and undaunted defender of the Catholic faith against the\nerrors which in his day threatened to overwhelm Gospel-truth, Athanasius\n(the last of those ante-Nicene writers into whose testimony we have\ninstituted this inquiry), was born about the year 296, and, after having\npresided in the Church as Bishop for more than forty-six years, died in\n373, on the verge of his eightieth year. It is impossible for any one\ninterested in the question of primitive truth to look upon the belief\nand practice of this Christian champion with indifference. When I first\nread Bellarmin's quotations from Athanasius, in justification of the\nRoman Catholic worship in the adoration of saints, I was made not a\nlittle anxious to ascertain the accuracy of his allegations. The inquiry\namply repaid me for my anxiety and the labour of research; not merely by\nproving the unsoundness of Bellarmin's representation, but also by\ndirecting my thoughts more especially, as my acquaintance with his {180}\nworks increased, to the true and scriptural views taken by Athanasius of\nthe Christian's hope and confidence in God alone; the glowing fervour of\nhis piety centering only in the Lord; his sure and certain hope in life\nand in death anchored only in the mercies of God, through the merits and\nmediation of Jesus Christ alone.\n\nBellarmin, in his appeal to Athanasius as a witness in behalf of the\ninvocation of saints, cites two passages; the one of which, though\nappearing in the edition of the Benedictines, amongst the works called\ndoubtful, has been adjudged by those editors [Vol. ii. p. 110 and 122]\nto be not genuine; the other is placed by them among the confessedly\nspurious works, and is treated as a forgery.\n\nThe first passage is from a treatise called De Virginitate, and even\nwere that work the genuine production of Athanasius, would make against\nthe religious worship of the saints rather than in its favour, for it\nwould show, that the respect which the author intended to be paid to\nthem, was precisely the same with what he would have us pay to holy men\nin this life, who might come to visit us. \"If a just man enter into\nthine house, thou shalt meet him with fear and trembling, and shalt\nworship before his feet to the ground: for thou wilt not worship him,\nbut God who sent him.\"\n\nThe other passage would have been decisive as to the belief of\nAthanasius, had it come from his pen. \"Incline thine ear, O Mary, to our\nprayers, and forget not thy people. We cry to thee. Remember us, O Holy\nVirgin. Intercede for us, O mistress, lady, queen, and mother of God.\"\n[Vol. ii. p. 390-401.]\n\nHad Bellarmin been the only writer, or the last who cited this passage\nas the testimony of St. Athanasius, {181} it would have been enough for\nus to refer to the judgment of the Benedictine editors, who have classed\nthe homily containing these words among the spurious works ascribed to\nAthanasius; or rather we might have appealed to Bellarmin himself. For\nit is very remarkable, that though in his anxiety to enlist every able\nwriter to defend the cause of the invocation of saints, he has cited\nthis passage in his Church Triumphant as containing the words of\nAthanasius, without any allusion to its decided spuriousness, or even to\nits suspicious character; yet when he is pronouncing his judgment on the\ndifferent works assigned to Athanasius, declaring the evidence against\nthis treatise to be irresistible, he condemns it as a forgery. [Bellarm.\nde Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, Cologne, 1617, vol. vii. p. 50.]\n\nSince, however, this passage has been cited in different Roman Catholic\nwriters of our own time as containing the words of Athanasius, and in\nevidence of his genuine belief and practice, and that without an\nallusion even to any thing doubtful and questionable in its character,\nit becomes necessary to enter more in detail into the circumstances\nunder which the passage is offered to our notice.\n\nThe passage is found in a homily called The Annunciation of the Mother\nof God. How long this homily has been discarded as spurious, or how long\nits genuineness had been suspected before the time of Baronius, I have\nnot discovered; but certainly two centuries and a half ago, and\nrepeatedly since, it has been condemned as totally and indisputably\nspurious, and has been excluded from the works of Athanasius as a\nforgery, not by members of the Reformed Church, but {182} by most\nzealous and steady adherents to the Church of Rome, and the most\nstrenuous defenders of her doctrines and practice.\n\nThe Benedictine editors[64], who published the remains of St. Athanasius\nin 1698, class the works contained in the second volume under two heads,\nthe doubtful and the spurious; and the homily under consideration is\nranked, without hesitation, among the spurious. In the middle of that\nvolume they not only declare the work to be unquestionably a forgery,\nassigning the reasons for their decision, but they fortify their\njudgment by quoting at length the letter written by the celebrated\nBaronius, more than a century before, to our countryman, Stapleton. Both\nthese documents are very interesting.\n\n [Footnote 64: Here I would observe, that though the Benedictine\n editors differ widely from each other in talent, and learning,\n and candour, yet, as a body, they have conferred on Christendom,\n and on literature, benefits for which every impartial and\n right-minded man will feel gratitude. In the works of some of\n these editors, far more than in others, we perceive the same\n reigning principle--a principle which some will regard as an\n uncompromising adherence to the faith of the Church; but which\n others can regard only in the light of a prejudice, and a rooted\n habit of viewing all things through the eyes of Rome.]\n\nThe Benedictine editors begin their preface thus: \"That this discourse\nis spurious, there is NO LEARNED MAN WHO DOES NOT NOW ADJUDGE ... The\nstyle proves itself more clear than the sun, to be different from that\nof Athanasius. Besides this, very many trifles show themselves here\nunworthy of any sensible man whatever, not to say Athanasius ... and a\ngreat number of expressions unknown to Athanasius ... so that it savours\nof inferior Greek. And truly his subtle disputation {183} on the\nhypostasis of Christ, and on the two natures in Christ, persuades us,\nthat he lived after the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon; of which\ncouncils moreover he uses the identical words, whereas his dissertation\non the two wills in Christ seems to argue, that he lived after the\nspreading of the error of the Monothelites. But (continue these\nBenedictine editors) we would add here the dissertation of Baronius on\nthis subject, sent to us by our brethren from Rome. That illustrious\nannotator, indeed, having read only the Latin version of Nannius, which\nis clearer than the Greek, did not observe the astonishing perplexity of\nthe style[65].\"\n\n [Footnote 65: Even in the Bibliotheca Patrum Concionatoria the\n homily is declared to be not the work of Athanasius, but to have\n been written after the sixth general council. \"It is evident,\"\n say the editors, \"that it is the monument of a very learned man,\n though he has his own blemishes, on which, for the most part, we\n have remarked in the margin.\" Paris, 1662. p. 336.]\n\nThe dissertation which the Benedictine editors append, was contained in\na letter written by Baronius to Stapleton, in consequence of some\nanimadversions which Stapleton had communicated to Cardinal Allen on the\njudgment of Baronius. The letter is dated Rome, November, 1592. The\njudgment of Baronius on the spurious character of this homily had been\npublished to the world some time previously; for after some preliminary\nwords of kindness and respect to his correspondent, Baronius proceeds to\nsay, that when he previously published his sentiments on this homily, it\nwas only cursorily and by the way, his work then being on another\nsubject. Nevertheless he conceived, {184} that the little he had then\nstated would be sufficient to show, that the homily was not the\nproduction of Athanasius, and that all persons of learning, WHO WERE\nDESIROUS OF THE TRUTH, would freely agree with him; nor was he in this\nexpectation disappointed; for very many persons expressed their\nagreement with him, congratulating him on separating legitimate from\nspurious children. He then states the arguments which the Benedictine\neditors adopted after him, and which we need not repeat. But he also\nurges this fact, that though Cyril had the works of Athanasius in his\ncustody, and though both the disputing parties ransacked every place for\nsentiments of Athanasius countenancing their tenets, yet neither at\nEphesus nor at Chalcedon was this homily quoted, though it must have\naltogether driven Eutyches and Nestorius from the field, so exact are\nits definitions and statements on the points then at issue. Baronius\nthen adds, that so far from reversing the judgment which he had before\npassed against the genuineness of this homily, he was compelled in\njustice to declare his conviction, that it could not have been written\ntill after the heresy of the Monothelites had been spread abroad. This\nwe know would fix its date, at the very earliest, subsequently to the\ncommencement of the SEVENTH century, three hundred years after\nAthanasius attended the Council of Nice. Among the last sentiments of\nBaronius in this letter, is one which implies a principle worthy of\nChristian wisdom, and which can never be neglected without injury to the\ncause of truth. \"These sentiments concerning Athanasius I do not think\nare affirmed with any detriment to the Church; for the Church does not\nsuffer a loss on this account; who being the pillar {185} and ground of\nthe truth, very far shrinks from seeking, like \u00c6sop's Jackdaw, helps and\nornaments which are not her own: the bare truth shines more beautiful in\nher own naked simplicity.\" Were this principle acted upon uniformly in\nour discussions on religious points of faith or practice, controversy\nwould soon be drawn within far narrower limits; and would gradually be\nsoftened into a friendly interchange of sentiments, and would well-nigh\nbe banished from the world. No person does the cause of truth so much\ninjury, as one who attempts to support it by arguments which will not\nbear the test of full and enlightened investigation. And however an\nunsound principle may be for a while maintained by unsound arguments,\nthe momentary triumph must ultimately end in disappointment.\n\nCoccius also cites two passages as conveying the evidence of Athanasius\non this same point; one from the spurious letter addressed to Felix, the\npope; the other from the treatise to Marcellus, on the interpretation of\nthe Psalms. On the former, I need not detain you by any observation; it\nwould be fighting with a shadow. The latter, which only recognises what\nI have never affirmed or denied here,--the interest in our welfare taken\nby holy souls departed, and their co-operation with us when we are\nworking out our own salvation,--contains a valuable suggestion on the\nprinciples of devotion.\n\n\"Let no one, however, set about to adorn these Psalms for the sake of\neffect with words from without, [artificial and secular phrases,] nor\ntranspose, nor alter the expressions. But let every one inartificially\nread and repeat what is written, that those holy persons who employed\nthemselves in their production, recognising their own works, may join\nwith us in prayer; or {186} rather that the Holy Spirit, who spake in\nthose holy men, observing the words with which his voice inspired them,\nmay assist us. For just as much as the life of those holy men is more\npure than ours, so far are their words preferable to any production of\nour own.\"\n\nBut whilst there is not found a single passage in Athanasius to give the\nfaintest countenance to the invocation of saints, there are various\narguments and expressions which go far to demonstrate that such a belief\nand such practices as are now acknowledged and insisted upon by the\nChurch of Rome, were neither adopted nor sanctioned by him. Had he\nadopted that belief and practice for his own, he would scarcely have\nspoken, as he repeatedly has, of the exclusion of angels and men from\nany share in the work of man's restoration, without any expressions to\nqualify it, and to protect his assertions from being misunderstood.\nAgain, he bids us look to the holy men and holy fathers as our examples,\nin whose footsteps we should tread, if we would be safe; but not a hint\nescapes him that they are to be invoked.\n\nI must detain you by rather a long quotation from this father, and will,\ntherefore, now do nothing more than refer you to two passages expressive\nof those sentiments to which I have above alluded. In the thirteenth\nsection of his Treatise on the Incarnation of the Word of God, he\nargues, that neither could men restore us to the image of God, nor could\nangels, but the word of God, Jesus Christ, &c. [Vol. i. part i. p. 58.]\nIn his Epistle to Dracontius, he says, \"We ought to conduct ourselves\nagreeably to the principles of the saints and fathers, and to imitate\nthem,--assured that if we {187} swerve from them, we become alienated\nalso from their communion.\" [Vol. i. part i, p. 265.]\n\nThe passage, however, to which I would invite the reader's patient and\nimpartial thoughts, occurs in the third oration against the Arians, when\nhe is proving the unity of the Father and the Son, from the expression\nof St. Paul in the eleventh verse of the third chapter of his first\nEpistle to the Thessalonians.\n\n\"Thus then again ([Greek: outo g' oun palin]), when he is praying for\nthe Thessalonians, and saying, 'Now our God and Father himself and the\nLord Jesus Christ direct our way to you,' he preserves the unity of the\nFather and the Son. For he says not 'may THEY direct ([Greek:\nkateuthunoien]),' as though a twofold grace were given from Him AND Him,\nbut 'may HE direct ([Greek: katenthunai]),' to show that the Father\ngiveth this through the Son. For if there was not an unity, and the Word\nwas not the proper offspring of the Father's substance, as the\neradiation of the light, but the Son was distinct in nature from the\nFather,--it had sufficed for the Father alone to have made the gift, no\ngenerated being partaking with the Maker in the gifts. But now such a\ngiving proves the unity of the Father and the Son. Consequently, no one\nwould pray to receive any thing from God AND the angels, or from any\nother created being; nor would any one say 'May God AND the angels give\nit thee;' but from the Father and the Son, because of their unity and\nthe oneness of the gift. For whatever is given, is given through the\nSon,--nor is there any thing which the Father works except through the\nSon; for thus the receiver has the gracious favour without fail. But if\nthe patriarch Jacob, blessing his descendants Ephraim and Manasseh,\nsaid, 'The God who nourished {188} me from my youth unto this day, the\nAngel who delivered me from all the evils, bless these lads;' he does\nnot join one of created beings, and by nature angels, with God who\ncreated them; nor dismissing Him who nourished him, God, does he ask the\nblessing for his descendants from an angel, but by saying 'He who\ndelivered me from all the evils,' he showed that it was not one of\ncreated angels, but the WORD OF GOD; and joining him with the Father, he\nsupplicated him through whom also God delivers whom he will. For he used\nthe expression, knowing him who is called the Messenger of the great\ncounsel of the Father to be no other than the very one who blessed and\ndelivered from evil. For surely he did not aspire to be blessed himself\nby God, and was willing for his descendants to be blessed by an angel.\nBut the same whom he addressed, saying, I will not let Thee go, except\nthou bless me (and this was God, as he says, 'I saw God face to face'),\nHim he prayed to bless the sons of Joseph. The peculiar office of an\nangel is to minister at the appointment of God; and often he went\nonwards to cast out the Amorite, and is sent to guard the people in the\nway; but these are not the doings of him, but of God, who appointed him\nand sent him,--whose also it is to deliver whom he will.\" [Vol i. p.\n561.]\n\n\"For this cause David addressed no other on the subject of deliverance\nbut God Himself. But if it belongs to no other than God to bless and\ndeliver, and it was no other who delivered Jacob than the Lord Himself,\nand the patriarch invoked for his descendants Him who delivered him, it\nis evident that he connected no one in his prayer except His Word, whom\nfor this reason he called an angel, because he alone reveals the\nFather.\" {189}\n\n\"But this no one would say of beings produced and created; for neither\nwhen the Father worketh does any one of the angels, or any other of\ncreated beings, work the things; for no one of such beings is an\neffective cause, but they themselves belong to things produced. The\nangels then, as it is written, are ministering spirits sent to minister;\nand the gifts given by Him through the Word they announce to those who\nreceive them.\"\n\nNow if the invocation of angels had been practised by the Church at that\ntime, can it be for a moment believed, that a man of such a mind as was\nthe mind of Athanasius, a mind strong, clear, logical, cultivated with\nardent zeal for the doctrines of the Church, and fervent piety, would\nhave suffered such passages as these to fall from him, without one\nsaving clause in favour of the invocation of angels? He tells us in the\nmost unqualified manner, that they act merely as ministers; ready\nindeed, and rejoicing to be employed on errands of mercy, but not going\none step without the commands of the Lord, or doing one thing beyond his\nword. Had the idea been familiar to the mind of Athanasius, of the\nlawfulness, the duty, the privilege, the benefit of invoking them, would\nhe have avoided the introduction of some words to prevent his\nexpressions from being misunderstood and misapplied, as subsequent\nwriters did long before the time when the denial of the doctrine might\nseem to have made such precaution more necessary?\n\nI close then the catalogue of our witnesses before the Council of Nic\u00e6a\nwith the testimony of St. Athanasius; whose genuine and acknowledged\nworks afford not one jot or tittle in support of the doctrine and\npractice of the invocation of angels and saints, as now insisted upon by\nthe Church of Rome; and the direct {190} tendency of whose evidence is\ndecidedly hostile both to that doctrine and that practice.\n\nI have seen it observed by some who are satisfied, that the records of\nprimitive antiquity do not contain such references to the invocation of\nsaints and angels, as we might have expected to find had the custom then\nprevailed, that the earliest Christians kept back the doctrine and\nconcealed it, though they held it; fearing lest their heathen neighbours\nshould upbraid them with being as much polytheists as themselves[66].\nThis is altogether a gratuitous assumption, directly contrary to\nevidence, and totally inconsistent with their conduct. Had those first\nChristians acted upon such a debasing principle, they would have kept\nback and concealed their worship of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, as\nexposing them to a similar charge. They were constantly upbraided with\nworshipping a crucified {191} mortal; but instead of either meeting that\ncharge by denying that they worshipped Jesus as their God, or of\nconcealing the worship of Him, lest they should expose themselves again\nto such upbraidings, they publicly professed, that He whom the Jews had\nmurdered, they believed in as the Son of God, Himself their God. They\ngloried in the doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity, and did not fear\nwhat men might do to them, or say of them in consequence. Had they\nbelieved in the duty of invoking saints and angels, the high principle\nof Christian integrity would not have suffered them to be ashamed to\nconfess it, or to practise openly what they believed.\n\n [Footnote 66: Bishop Morley, (London, 1683,) in a letter written\n whilst he was in exile at Breda, to J. Ulitius, refers to\n Cardinal Perron, \"R\u00e9plique \u00e0 la Resp. du Roy de la Grande Bret.\"\n p. 1402 and 4, for this sentiment: \"The Fathers do not always\n speak what they think, but conceal their real sentiments, and\n say that which best serves the cause which they sustain, so as\n to protect it against the objections of the gentiles. The\n Fathers, as much as in them lies, and as far as they can, avoid\n and decline all occasions of speaking about the invocation of\n saints then practised in the Church, fearing lest to the\n gentiles there might appear a sort of similarity, although\n untrue and equivocal, between the worship paid to the saints by\n the Church, and by the Pagans to their false divinities; and\n lest the Pagans might thence seize a handle, however unfair, of\n retorting upon them that custom of the Church.\" Had a member of\n the Anglican Church thus spoken of the Fathers, and thus pleaded\n in their name guilty of subterfuge and duplicity, he would have\n been immediately charged with irreverence and wanton insult, and\n that with good reason. These sentiments of the Cardinal are in\n p. 982 of the Paris edition of 1620.] {192}\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nPART II.\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nSTATE OF WORSHIP AT THE TIME OF THE REFORMATION.\n\n\nOne of the points proposed for our inquiry was the state of religious\nworship, with reference to the invocation of saints, at the time\nimmediately preceding the reformation. Very far from entertaining a wish\nto fasten upon the Church of Rome now, what then deformed religion among\nus, in any department where that Church has practically reformed her\nservices, I would most thankfully have found her ritual in a more\npurified state than it is. My more especial object in referring to this\nperiod is twofold: first, to show, that consistently with Catholic and\nprimitive principles, the Catholic Christians of England ought not to\nhave continued to participate in the worship which at that time\nprevailed in our country; and, secondly, by that example both to\nillustrate the great danger of allowing ourselves to countenance the\nvery first stages of superstition, and also to impress upon our minds\nthe duty of checking in its germ any the least deviation from the\nprimitive principles of faith and worship; convinced that by the general\ntendency of human nature, one wrong step will, though imperceptibly, yet\nalmost inevitably lead to another; and that only whilst we adhere with\nuncompromising steadiness {193} to the Scripture as our foundation, and\nto the primitive Church, under God, as a guide, can we be saved from the\ndanger of making shipwreck of our faith.\n\nOn this branch of our subject I propose to do no more than to lay before\nmy readers the witness borne to the state of religion in England at that\ntime, by two works, which have been in an especial manner forced upon my\nnotice. Many other testimonies of a similar tendency might readily be\nadduced; but these will probably appear sufficient for the purposes\nabove mentioned; and to dwell longer than is necessary on this point\nwould be neither pleasant nor profitable.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\n\nThe first book to which I shall refer is called The Hours of the most\nblessed Virgin Mary, according to the legitimate use of the Church of\nSalisbury. This book was printed in Paris in the year 1526. The prayers\nin this volume relate chiefly to the Virgin: and I should, under other\ncircumstances, have reserved all allusion to it for our separate inquiry\ninto the faith and practice of the Church of Rome with regard to her.\nBut its historical position and general character seemed to recommend\nour reference to it here. Without anticipating, therefore, the facts or\nthe arguments, which will hereafter be submitted to the reader's\nconsideration on the worship of the Virgin, I refer to this work now\nsolely as illustrative of the lamentable state of superstition which\nthree centuries ago overran our country.\n\nThe volume abounds with forms of prayer to the Virgin, many of them\nprefaced by extraordinary notifications of indulgences promised to those\nwho duly utter {194} the prayers. These indulgences are granted by Popes\nand by Bishops; some on their own mere motion, others at the request of\ninfluential persons. They guarantee remission of punishment for\ndifferent spaces of time, varying from forty days to ninety thousand\nyears; they undertake to secure freedom from hell; they promise pardon\nfor deadly sins, and for venial sins to the same person for the same\nact; they assure to those who comply with their directions a change of\nthe pain of eternal damnation into the pain of purgatory, and the pain\nof purgatory into a free and full pardon.\n\nIt may be said that the Church of Rome is not responsible for all these\nthings. But we need not tarry here to discuss the question how far it\nwas then competent for a church or nation to have any service-book or\nmanual of devotion for the faithful, without first obtaining the papal\nsanction. For clear it is beyond all question, that such frightful\ncorruptions as these, of which we are now to give instances, were spread\nthroughout the land; that such was the religion then imposed on the\npeople of England; and it was from such dreadful enormities, that our\nReformation, to whatever secondary cause that reformation is to be\nattributed--by the providence of Almighty God rescued us. No one laments\nmore than I do, the extremes into which many opponents of papal Rome\nhave allowed themselves to run; but no one can feel a more anxious\ndesire than myself to preserve our Church and people from a return of\nsuch spiritual degradation and wretchedness; and to keep far from us the\nmost distant approaches of such lamentable and ensnaring superstitions.\nIn this feeling moreover I am assured that I am joined by many of the\nmost respected and influential members of the Roman Catholic Church\namong us. {195} Still what has been may be; and it is the bounden duty\nof all members of Christ's Catholic Church, to whatever branch of it\nthey belong, to join in guarding his sanctuary against such enemies to\nthe truth as it is in HIM.\n\nAt the same time it would not be honest and candid in me, were I to\nabstain from urging those, who, with ourselves, deprecate these\nexcesses, to carry their reflections further; and determine whether the\nspirit of the Gospel does not require a total rejection, even in its\nless startling forms, of every departure from the principle of invoking\nGod alone; and of looking for acceptance with Him solely to the\nmediation of his Son, without the intervention of any other merits. As\nwe regard it, it is not a question of degree; it is a question of\nprinciple: one degree may be less revolting to our sense of right than\nanother, but it is not on that account justifiable.\n\nThe following specimens, a few selected from an overabundant supply,\nwill justify the several particulars in the summary which I have above\ngiven:\n\n1. \"The Right Reverend Father in God, Laurence[67], Bishop of Assaven,\nhath granted forty days of pardon to all them that devoutly say this\nprayer in the worship of our blessed Lady, being penitent, and truly\nconfessed of all their sins. Oratio, 'Gaude Virgo, Mater Christi,' &c.\nRejoice, Virgin, Mother of Christ. [Fol. 35.]\n\n [Footnote 67: This was Laurence Child, who, by papal provision,\n was made Bishop of St. Asaph, June 18, 1382. He is called also\n Penitentiary to the Pope. Le Neve, p. 21. Beatson, vol. i. p.\n 115.]\n\n2. \"To all them that be in the state of grace, that daily say devoutly\nthis prayer before our blessed Lady of Pity, she will show them her\nblessed visage, and warn them the day and the hour of death; and in\ntheir last {196} end the angels of God shall yield their souls to\nheaven; and[68] he shall obtain five hundred years, and so many Lents of\npardon, granted by five holy fathers, Popes of Rome. [Fol. 38.]\n\n [Footnote 68: The language in many of these passages is very\n imperfect; but I have thought it right to copy them verbatim.]\n\n3. \"This prayer showed our Lady to a devout person, saying, that this\ngolden prayer is the most sweetest and acceptablest to me: and in her\nappearing she had this salutation and prayer written with letters of\ngold in her breast, 'Ave Rosa sine spinis'--Hail Rose without thorns.\n[Fol. 41.]\n\n4. \"Our holy Father, Sixtus the fourth, pope, hath granted to all them\nthat devoutly say this prayer before the image of our Lady the sum of\nXI.M. [eleven thousand] years of pardon. 'Ave Sanctissima Maria, Mater\nDei, Regina Coeli,' &c. Hail most holy Mary, Mother of God, Queen of\nHeaven. [Fol. 42.]\n\n5. \"Our holy Father, Pope Sixtus, hath granted at the instance of the\nhighmost and excellent Princess Elizabeth, late Queen of England, and\nwife to our sovereign liege Lord, King Henry the Seventh, (God have\nmercy on her sweet soul, and on all Christian souls,) that every day in\nthe morning, after three tollings of the Ave bell, say three times the\nwhole salutation of our Lady Ave Maria gratia; that is to say, at 6 the\nclock in the morning 3 Ave Maria, at 12 the clock at noon 3 Ave M., and\nat 6 the clock at even, for every time so doing is granted of the\nSPIRITUAL TREASURE OF HOLY CHURCH 300 days of pardon totiens quotiens;\nand also our holy father, the Archbishop of Canterbury and York, with\nother nine Bishops of this realm, have {197} granted 3 times in the day\n40 days of pardon to all them that be in the state of grace able to\nreceive pardon: the which begun the 26th day of March, Anno MCCCCXCII.\nAnno Henrici VII.[69] And the sum of the indulgence and pardon for every\nAve Maria VIII hondred days an LX totiens quotiens, this prayer shall be\nsaid at the tolling of the Ave Bell, 'Suscipe,' &c. Receive the word, O\nVirgin Mary, which was sent to thee from the Lord by an angel. Hail,\nMary, full of grace: the Lord with thee, &c. Say this 3 times, &c. [Fol.\n42.]\n\n [Footnote 69: Henry VII. began to reign in 1485.]\n\n6. \"This prayer was showed to St. Bernard by the messenger of God,\nsaying, that as gold is the most precious of all other metals, so\nexceedeth this prayer all other prayers, and who that devoutly sayeth it\nshall have a singular reward of our blessed Lady, and her sweet Son\nJesus. 'Ave,' &c. Hail, Mary, most humble handmaid of the Trinity, &c.\nHail, Mary, most prompt Comforter of the living and the dead. Be thou\nwith me in all my tribulations and distresses with maternal pity, and at\nthe hour of my death take my soul, and offer it to thy most beloved Son\nJesus, with all them who have commended themselves to our prayers. [Fol.\n46.]\n\n7. \"Our holy father, the Pope Bonifacius, hath granted to all them that\ndevoutly say this lamentable contemplation of our blessed Lady, standing\nunder the Cross weeping, and having compassion with her sweet Son Jesus,\n7 years of pardon and forty Lents, and also Pope John the 22 hath\ngranted three hondred days of pardon. 'Stabat Mater dolorosa.' [Fol.\n47.]\n\n8. \"To all them that before this image of Pity devoutly say 5 Pat. Nos.,\nand 5 Aves, and a Credo, piteously beholding these arms of Christ's\npassion, are {198} granted XXXII.M.VII hondred, and LV (32755) years of\npardon; and Sixtus the 4th, Pope of Rome hath made the 4 and the 5\nprayer, and hath doubled his aforesaid pardon. [Fol. 54.]\n\n9. \"Our holy Father the Pope John 22 hath granted to all them that\ndevoutly say this prayer, after the elevation of our Lord Jesu Christ,\n3000 days of pardon for deadly sins. [Fol. 58.]\n\n10. \"This prayer was showed to Saint Augustine by revelation of the Holy\nGhost, and who that devoutly say this prayer, or hear read, or beareth\nabout them, shall not perish in fire or water, nother in battle or\njudgment, and he shall not die of sudden death, and no venom shall\npoison him that day, and what he asketh of God he shall obtain if it be\nto the salvation of his soul; and when thy soul shall depart from thy\nbody it shall not enter hell.\" This prayer ends with three invocations\nof the Cross, thus: \"O Cross of Christ [cross] save us, O Cross of\nChrist [cross] protect us, O Cross of Christ [cross] defend us. In the\nname of the [cross] Father, [cross] Son, and Holy [cross] Ghost. Amen.\"\n[Fol. 62.]\n\n11. \"Our holy Father Pope Innocent III. hath granted to all them that\nsay these III prayers following devoutly, remission of all their sins\nconfessed and contrite. [Fol. 63.]\n\n12. \"These 3 prayers be written in the Chapel of the Holy Cross, in\nRome, otherwise called Sacellum Sanct\u00e6 Crucis septem Romanorum; who that\ndevoutly say them shall obtain X.C.M. [ninety thousand] years of pardon\nfor deadly sins granted of our holy Father, John 22, Pope of Rome. [Fol.\n66.]\n\n13. \"Who that devoutly beholdeth these arms of {199} our Lord Jesus\nChrist, shall obtain six thousand years of pardon of our holy Father\nSaint Peter, the first pope of Rome, and of XXX [thirty] other popes of\nthe Church of Rome, successors after him; and our holy Father, Pope John\n22, hath granted unto all them very contrite and truly confessed, that\nsay these devout prayers following in the commemoration of the bitter\npassion of our Lord Jesus Christ, 3000 years of pardon for DEADLY SINS,\nand other 3000 for venial sins.\" [Fol. 68.]\n\nI will only add one more instance. The following announcement\naccompanies a prayer of St. Bernard: \"Who that devoutly with a contrite\nheart daily say this orison, if he be that day in a state of eternal\ndamnation, then this eternal pain shall be changed him in temporal pain\nof purgatory; then if he hath deserved the pain of purgatory it shall be\nforgotten and forgiven through the infinite mercy of God.\"\n\nIt is indeed very melancholy to reflect that our country has witnessed\nthe time, when the bread of life had been taken from the children, and\nsuch husks as these substituted in its stead. Accredited ministers of\nthe Roman Catholic Church have lately assured us that the pardons and\nindulgences granted now, relate only to the remission of the penances\nimposed by the Church in this life, and presume not to interfere with\nthe province of the Most High in the rewards and punishments of the\nnext. But, I repeat it, what has been in former days may be again; and\nwhenever Christians depart from the doctrine and practice of prayer to\nGod alone, through Christ alone, a door is opened to superstitions and\nabuses of every kind; and we cannot too anxiously and too jealously\nguard and fence about, with all our power and skill, the fundamental\nprinciple, one God and one Mediator. {200}\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\nSECTION II.--SERVICE OF THOMAS BECKET, ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF HIS\nMARTYRDOM, DEC. 29.\n\n\nThe other instance by which I propose to illustrate the state of\nreligion in England before the reformation, is the service of Thomas\nBecket, Archbishop of Canterbury, a canonized saint and martyr of the\nChurch of Rome. The interest attaching to so remarkable a period in\necclesiastical history, and to an event so intimately interwoven with\nthe former state of our native land, appears to justify the introduction\nof the entire service, rather than extracts from it, in this place.\nWhilst it bears throughout immediately on the subject of our present\ninquiry, it supplies us at the same time with the strong views\nentertained by the authors of the service, on points which gave rise to\ngreat and repeated discussion, not only in England, but in various parts\nalso of continental Europe, with regard to the moral and spiritual\nmerits or demerits of Becket, as a subject of the realm and a Christian\nminister. It is, moreover, only by becoming familiar in all their\ndetails with some such remains of past times, that we can form any\nadequate idea of the great and deplorable extent to which the legends\nhad banished the reading and expounding of Holy Scriptures from our\nchurches; and also how much the praises of mortal man had encroached\nupon those hours of public worship, which should be devoted to\nmeditations on our Maker, Redeemer, and Sanctifier; to the exclusive\npraises of his holy name; and to supplications {201} to Him alone for\nblessings at his hand, and for his mercy through Christ.\n\nThere is much obscurity in the few first paragraphs. The historical or\nbiographical part begins at Lesson the First, and continues throughout,\nonly interspersed with canticles in general referring to the incidents\nin the narrative preceding each.\n\n * * * * *\n\nTHE SERVICE OF THOMAS BECKET[70].\n\n [Footnote 70: The copies which I have chiefly consulted for the\n purposes of the present inquiry, are two large folio\n manuscripts, in good preservation, No. 1512 and No. 2785 of the\n Harleian MSS. in the British Museum. The service commences about\n the 49th page, B. of No. 2785. This MS. is considered to be of a\n date somewhere about 1430. The first parts of the service are\n preserved also in a Breviary printed in Paris in 1556, with some\n variations and omissions. There are various other copies in the\n British Museum, as well printed as in manuscript.]\n\nLet them without change of vestments and without tapers in their hands,\nproceed to the altar of St. Thomas the Martyr, chanting the requiem, the\nchanter beginning,\n\n _Req._ The grain lies buried beneath the straw;\n The just man is slain by the spear of the wicked;\n The guardian of the vine falls in the vineyard,\n The chieftain in the camp, the husbandman in the threshing-floor.\n\nThen the prose is said by all who choose, in surplices before the altar.\n\n \"Let the Shepherd sound his trumpet of horn.\"\n\nLet the choir respond to the chant of the prose after every verse, upon\nthe letter [super litteram]. {202}\n\n That the vineyard of Christ might be free,\n Which he assumed under a robe of flesh,\n He liberated it by the purple cross.\n The adversary, the erring sheep,\n Becomes bloodstained by the slaughter of the shepherd.\n The marble pavements of Christ\n Are wetted, ruddy with sacred gore;\n The martyr presented with the laurel of life.\n Like a grain cleansed from the straw,\n Is translated to the divine garners.\n\nBut whilst the prose is being sung, let the priest incense the altar,\nand then the image of the blessed Thomas the Martyr; and afterwards\nshall be said with an humble voice: Pray for us, Blessed Thomas.\n\n_The Prayer[71]._ O God for whose Church the glorious {203} high-priest\nand martyr Thomas fell beneath the swords of the wicked, grant, we\nbeseech thee, that all who implore his aid may obtain the salutary\neffect of their petition, through Christ.\n\n [Footnote 71: This Collect is still preserved in the Roman\n ritual, and is offered on the anniversary of Becket's death. In\n a very ancient pontifical, preserved in the chapter-house of\n Bangor, and which belonged to Anianus, who was Bishop of that\n see (1268), among the \"Proper Benedictions for the circuit of\n the year,\" are two relating to Thomas Becket; one on the\n anniversary of his death, the other on the day of his\n translation. The former is couched in these words: \"O God, who\n hast not without reason mingled the birthday of the glorious\n high-priest, Thomas, with the joys of thy nativity, by the\n intervention of his merits\" (ipsius mentis intervenientibus),\n \"make these thy servants venerate thy majesty with the reverence\n of due honour. Amen. And as he, according to the rule of a good\n shepherd, gave his life for his sheep, so grant thou to thy\n faithful ones, to fear no tyrannical madness to the prejudice of\n Catholic truth. Amen. We ask that they, by his example, for\n obedience to the holy laws, may learn to despise persons, and by\n suffering manfully to triumph over tyrannical madness. Amen.\"\n The latter runs thus: \"May God, by whose pity the bodies of\n saints rest in the sabbath of peace, turn your hearts to the\n desire of the resurrection to come. Amen. And may he who orders\n us to bury with honour due the members of the saints whose death\n is precious, by the merits of the glorious martyr, Thomas,\n vouchsafe to raise you from the dust of vanity. Amen. Where at\n length by the power of his benediction ye may be clothed with\n doubled festive robes of body and soul. Amen.\"]\n\n The shepherd slain in the midst of the flock,\n Purchased peace at the price of his blood.\n O joyous grief, in mournful gladness!\n The flock breathes when the shepherd is dead;\n The mother wailing, sings for joy in her son,\n Because he lives under the sword a conqueror.\n The solemnities of Thomas the Martyr are come.\n Let the Virgin Mother, the Church, rejoice;\n Thomas being raised to the highest priesthood,\n Is suddenly changed into another man.\n A monk, under [the garb of?] a clerk, secretly clothed with haircloth,\n More strong than the flesh subdues the attempts of the flesh;\n Whilst the tiller of the Lord's field pulls up the thistles,\n And drives away and banishes the foxes from the vineyard.\n\n_The First Lesson._\n\nDearest Brethren, celebrating now the birth-day of the martyr Thomas,\nbecause we have not power to recount his whole life and conversation,\nlet our brief discourse run through the manner and cause of his passion.\nThe blessed Thomas, therefore, as in the office of Chancellor, or\nArchdeacon, he proved incomparably strenuous {204} in the conduct of\naffairs, so after he had undertaken the office of pastor, he became\ndevoted to God beyond man's estimation. For, when consecrated, he\nsuddenly is changed into another man: he secretly put on the hair shirt,\nand wore also hair drawers down to the knee. And under the respectable\nappearance of the clerical garb, concealing the monk's dress, he\nentirely compelled the flesh to obey the spirit; studying by the\nexercise of every virtue without intermission to please God. Knowing,\ntherefore, that he was placed a husbandman in the field of the Lord, a\nshepherd in the fold, he carefully discharged the ministry entrusted to\nhim. The rights and dignities of the Church, which the public authority\nhad usurped, he deemed it right to restore, and to recall to their proper\nstate. Whence a grave question on the ecclesiastical law and the customs\nof the realm, having arisen between him and the king of the English, a\ncouncil being convened, those customs were proposed which the king\npertinaciously required to be confirmed by the signatures as well of the\narchbishop as of his suffragans. The archbishop with constancy refused,\nasserting that in them was manifest the subversion of the freedom of the\nChurch. He was in consequence treated with immense insults, oppressed\nwith severe losses, and provoked with innumerable injuries. At length,\nbeing threatened with death, (because the case of the Church had not yet\nbecome fully known, and the persecution seemed to be personal,) he\ndetermined that he ought to give place to malice. Being driven,\ntherefore, into exile, he was honourably received by our lord the pope\nAlexander[72] at Senon, and recommended {205} with especial care to the\nMonastery of Pontinea (Pontigny).\n\n [Footnote 72: Pope Alexander III. was at this time residing as a\n refugee at Sens, having been driven from Italy a few years\n before by Frederick Barbarossa.]\n\n Malice, bent on the punishment of Thomas,\n Condemns to banishment the race of Thomas.\n The whole family goes forth together.\n No order, sex, age, or condition\n Here enjoys any privilege.\n\n_Lesson the Second._\n\nMeanwhile in England all the revenues of the archbishop are confiscated,\nhis estates are laid waste, his possessions are plundered, and by the\ninvention of a new kind of punishment, the whole kin of Thomas is\nproscribed together. For all his friends or acquaintance, or whoever was\nconnected with him, by whatever title, without distinction of state or\nfortune, dignity or rank, age or sex, were alike exiled. For as well the\nold and decrepit, as infants in the cradle and women lying in\nchildbirth, were driven into banishment; whilst as many as had reached\nthe years of discretion were compelled to swear upon the holy\n[Gospels][73] that immediately on crossing the sea they would present\nthemselves to the Archbishop of Canterbury; in order that being so\noftentimes pierced even by the sword of sympathy, he would bend his\nstrength of mind to the king's pleasure. But the man of God, putting his\nhand to deeds of fortitude, with constancy bore exile, reproaches,\ninsults, the proscription of parents and friends, for the name of\nChrist; he was never, by any injury, at all broken or changed. For so\ngreat was the firmness of this confessor of Christ, that he seemed to\nteach all his fellow exiles, that every soil is the brave man's country.\n\n [Footnote 73: Tactis sacrosanctis. It may mean reliques, or\n other sacred things.] {206}\n\n Thomas put his hands to deeds of fortitude,\n He despised losses, he despised reproaches,\n No injury breaks down Thomas:\n The firmness of Thomas exclaimed to all,\n \"Every soil is the brave man's country.\"\n\n_Third Lesson._\n\nThe king therefore hearing of his immoveable constancy, having directed\ncommendatory letters by some abbots of the Cistertian order to the\nGeneral Chapter, caused him to be driven from Pontinea. But the blessed\nThomas fearing that, by occasion of his right, injury would befal the\nsaints, retired of his own accord. Yet before he set out from thence he\nwas comforted by a divine revelation: a declaration being made to him\nfrom heaven, that he should return to his Church with glory, and by the\npalm of martyrdom depart to the Lord. When he was disturbed and sent\nfrom his retreat at Pontinea, Louis, the most Christian king of the\nFrench, received him with the greatest honour, and supported him most\ncourteously till peace was restored. But even he too was often, though\nin vain, urged not to show any grace of kindness towards a traitor to\nthe king of England. The hand of fury proceeded further, and a cruelty\ndreadful for pious ears to hear. For whereas the Catholic Church prays\neven for heretics, and schismatics, and faithless Jews, it was forbidden\nthat any one should assist him by the supplications of prayer. Exiled,\nthen, for six continuous years, afflicted with varied and unnumbered\ninjuries, and like a living stone squared by various cuttings and\npressures for the building of the heavenly edifice, the more he was\nthrust at that he might fall, the more firm and immoveable was he\nenabled to stand. {207} For neither could gold so carefully tried be\nburned away, nor a house, founded on a firm rock, be torn down. Neither\ndoes he suffer the wolves to rage against the lambs, nor the vineyard to\npass into a garden of herbs.\n\n The best of men, holy, and renowned is banished,\n Lest the dignity of the Church should yield to the unworthy.\n The estates of the exiled man are the spoil of the malignant,\n But when placed in the fire, the fire burns him not.\n\n_Fourth Lesson._\n\nAt length by the exertions, as well of the aforesaid pontiff as of the\nking of the French, many days were appointed for re-establishing peace:\nand because the servant of God would not accept of peace, unless with\nsafety to the honour of God, and the character of the Church, they\ndeparted in discord from each other. At length the supreme Pontiff,\npitying the desolation of the Anglican Church, with difficulty at the\nlast extorted by threatening measures, that peace should be restored to\nthe Church. The realms indeed rejoiced, that the King had been\nreconciled to the Archbishop, whilst some believed that the affair was\ncarried on in good faith, and others formed different conjectures.\nConsequently in the seventh year of his exile the noble pastor returned\ninto England, that he might either rescue the sheep of Christ from the\njaws of the wolves, or sacrifice himself for the flock intrusted to his\ncare. He is received by the clergy and the people with incalculable joy;\nall shedding tears, and saying, Blessed is he who cometh in the name of\nthe Lord. But after a few days he was again afflicted by losses and\nmiseries beyond measure and number. Whoever offered to him, {208} or to\nany one connected with him, a cheerful countenance was reckoned a public\nenemy. In all these things his mind was unbroken; but his hand was still\nstretched out for the liberation of the Church. For this he incessantly\nsighed; for this he persevered in watchings, fastings, and prayers; to\nobtain this he ardently desired to sacrifice himself.\n\n From the greatest joy of affairs,\n The greatest wailing is in the Church,\n For the absence of so great a patron.\n But when the miracles return,\n Joy to the people returns.\n The crowd of sick flock together,\n And obtain the grace of benefits.\n\n_Fifth Lesson._\n\nNow on the fifth day after the birth-day of our Lord, four persons of\nthe palace came to Canterbury, men indeed of high birth, but famous for\ntheir wicked deeds; and having entered, they attack the archbishop with\nreproachful words, provoke him with insults, and at length assail him\nwith threats. The man of God modestly answered, to every thing, whatever\nreason required, adding that many injuries had been inflicted upon him\nand the Church of God, since the re-establishment of peace, and there\nwas no one to correct what was wrong; that he neither could nor would\ndissemble thereafter, so as not to exercise the duties of his function.\nThe men, foolish in heart, were disturbed by this, and having loudly\ngiven utterance to their iniquity they forthwith went out. On their\nretiring, the prelate proceeded to the Church, to offer the evening\npraises to Christ. The mail-clad satellites of Satan followed him from\nbehind with drawn swords, a {209} large band of armed men accompanying\nthem. On the monks barring the entrance to the Church, the priest of\nGod, destined soon to become a victim of Christ, running up re-opened\nthe door to the enemy; \"For,\" said he, \"a Church must not be barricaded\nlike a castle.\" As they burst in, and some shouted with a voice of\nphrenzy, \"Where is the traitor?\" others, \"Where is the Archbishop?\" the\nfearless confessor of Christ went to meet them. When they pressed on to\nmurder him, he said, \"For myself I cheerfully meet death for the Church\nof God; but on the part of God I charge you to do no hurt to any of\nmine\"--imitating Christ in his passion, when he said, \"If ye seek me,\nlet these go their way.\" Then rush the ravening wolves on the pious\nshepherd, degenerate sons on their own father, cruel lictors on the\nvictim of Christ, and with fatal swords cut off the consecrated crown of\nhis head; and hurling down to the ground the Christ [the anointed] of\nthe Lord, in savage manner, horrible to be said, scattered the brains\nwith the blood over the pavement.\n\n Thus does the straw press down the grain of corn;\n Thus is slain the guard of the vineyard in the vineyard;\n Thus the general in the camp, the shepherd in the fold, the\n husbandman in the threshing-floor.\n Thus the just, slain by the unjust, has changed his house of\n clay for a heavenly palace.\n Rachel, weeping, now cease thou to mourn\n That the flower of the world is bruised by the world.\n When the slain Thomas is borne to his funeral,\n A new Abel succeeds to the old.\n The voice of blood, the voice of his scattered brains,\n Fills heaven with a marvellous cry. {210}\n\n_Sixth Lesson._\n\nBut the last words of the martyr, which from the confused clamour could\nscarcely be distinguished, according to the testimony of those who stood\nnear, were these,--\"To God, and the blessed Mary, and Saint Dionysius,\nand the holy patrons of this Church, I commend myself and the cause of\nthe Church[74].\" Moreover, in all the torments which this unvanquished\nchampion of God endured, he sent forth no cry, he uttered no groan, he\nopposed neither his arm nor his garment to the man who struck him, but\nheld his head, which he had bent towards the swords, unmoved till the\nconsummation came; prostrated as if for prayer, he fell asleep in the\nLord. The perpetrators of the crime, returning into the palace of the\nholy prelate, that they might make the passion of the servant more fully\nresemble the passion of his Lord, divided among them his garments, the\ngold and silver and precious vessels, choice horses, and whatever of\nvalue they could find, allotting what each should take. These things\ntherefore the soldiers did. Who, without weeping, can relate the rest?\nSo great was the sorrow of all, so great the laments of each, that you\nwould think the prophecy were a second time fulfilled, \"A voice is heard\nin Rama, lamentation and great mourning.\" Nevertheless the divine mercy,\nwhen temptation was multiplied, made a way to escape; and by certain\nvisions, giving as it were a prelude to the future miracles, [declared\nthat] the martyr was thereafter to be glorified by wonders, that joy\nwould return after sorrow, {211} and a crowd of sick would obtain the\ngrace of benefits.\n\n [Footnote 74: I have already suggested a comparison between this\n prayer and the commendatory prayer of the Martyr Polycarp, page\n 92.]\n\n O Christ Jesus[75], BY THE WOUNDS OF THOMAS,\n Loosen the sins which bind us;\n Lest the enemy, the world, or the works of the flesh.\n Bear us captive to hell.\n By[76] THEE, O Thomas ...\n Let the right hand of God embrace us.\n\n The satellites of Satan rushing into the temple\n Perpetrate an unexampled, unheard-of, crime.\n Thomas proceeds to meet their drawn swords:\n He yields not to threats, to swords, nor even to death.\n\n Happy place! Happy Church,\n In which the memory of Thomas lives!\n Happy the land which gave the prelate!\n Happy the land which supported him in exile!\n Happy Father! succour us miserable,\n That we may be happy, and joined with those above!\n\n [Footnote 75:\n\n Christe Jesu per Thom\u00e6 vulnera,\n Qu\u00e6 nos ligant relaxa scelera\n Ne captivos ferant ad infera\n Hostis, mundus, vel carnis opera.\n ]\n\n [Footnote 76:\n\n Per te, Thoma, post l\u00e6v\u00e6 munera\n Amplexetur nos Dei dextera.\n ]\n\n_Seventh Lesson._\n\nJesus said unto his disciples, I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd\nlayeth down his life for the sheep.\n\nTHE HOMILY OF S. GREGORY, POPE.\n\nYe have heard, most dear brethren, from the reading of the Gospel, your\ninstruction; ye have heard also {212} your danger. For behold! he who is\nnot from any gift happening to him, but who is essentially good, says, I\nam the good shepherd; and he adds the character of the same goodness,\nwhich we may imitate, saying, The good shepherd layeth down his life for\nhis sheep. He did what he taught; he showed what he commanded. The good\nshepherd laid down his life for his sheep; that in our sacrament he\nmight change his body and blood, and satisfy, by the nourishment of his\nflesh, the sheep which he had redeemed. Here is shown to us the way,\nconcerning the contempt of death, which we should follow; the character\nis placed before us to which we should conform. [In the first place, we\nshould of our pity sacrifice our external good for his sheep; and at\nlast, if it be necessary, give up our own life for the same sheep. From\nthat smallest point we proceed to this last and greater. But since the\nsoul by which we live is incomparably better than the earthly substance\nwhich we outwardly possess, who would not give for the sheep his\nsubstance, when he would give his life for them? And there are some who,\nwhilst they love their earthly substance more than the sheep, deservedly\nlose the name of shepherd: of whom it is immediately added, But the\nhireling who is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the\nwolf coming, and leaveth the sheep and fleeth. He is called not a\nshepherd, but a hireling, who feeds the Lord's sheep not for inward\nlove, but with a view to temporal wages. He is a mercenary who seeks\nindeed the place of shepherd, but seeks not the gain of souls.]\n\n(The sentences between brackets are not in MS. No. 1512.)\n\n To Thomas all things yield and are obedient:\n Plagues, diseases, death, and devils, {213}\n Fire, air, land, and seas.\n Thomas filled the world with glory.\n The world offers obeisance to Thomas[77].\n\n [Footnote 77:\n\n Thom\u00e6 cedunt et parent omnia:\n Pestes, morbi, mors, et d\u00e6monia,\n Ignis, aer, tellus, et maria.\n Thomas mundum replevit gloria.\n Thom\u00e6 mundus pr\u00e6stat obsequia.\n ]\n\n_Eighth Lesson._\n\nIn good truth, the holy Thomas, the precious champion of God, was to be\nworthily glorified. For if the cause, yea, forasmuch as the cause makes\nthe martyr, did ever a title of holy martyrs exist more glorious?\nContending for the Church, in the Church he suffered; in a holy place,\nat the holy time of the Lord's nativity, in the midst of his\nfellow-priests and the companies of the religious: since in the agony of\nthe prelate all the circumstances seemed so to concur, as perpetually to\nillustrate the title of the sufferer, and reveal the wickedness of his\npersecutors, and stain their name with never-ending infamy. But so did\nthe divine vengeance rage against the persecutors of the martyr, that in\na short time, being carried away from the midst, they nowhere appeared.\nAnd some, without confession, or the viaticum, were suddenly snatched\naway; others tearing piecemeal their own fingers or tongues; others\npining with hunger, and corrupting in their whole body, and racked with\nunheard-of tortures before their death, and broken up by paralysis;\nothers bereft of their intellects; others expiring with madness;--left\nmanifest proofs that they were suffering the penalty of unjust\npersecution and premeditated murder. Let, therefore, the Virgin Mother,\nthe Church, rejoice that the new martyr has borne away the triumph over\nthe {214} enemies. Let her rejoice that a new Zacharias has been for her\nfreedom sacrificed in the temple. Let her rejoice that a new Abel's\nblood hath cried unto God for her against the men of blood. For the\nvoice of his blood shed, the-voice of his brain scattered by the swords\nof those deadly satellites, hath filled heaven at once and the world\nwith its far-famed cry.\n\n Thomas shines with new miracles;\n He adorns with sight those who had lost their eyes;\n He cleanses those who were stained with the spots of leprosy;\n\n He looses those that were bound with the bonds of death.\n\n_Ninth Lesson._\n\nFor at the cry of this blood the earth was moved and trembled. Nay,\nmoreover, the powers of the heavens were moved; so that, as if for the\navenging of innocent blood, nation rose against nation, and kingdom\nagainst kingdom; nay, a kingdom was divided against itself, and terrors\nfrom heaven and great signs took place. Yet, from the first period of\nhis martyrdom, the martyr began to shine forth with miracles, restoring\nsight to the blind, walking to the lame, hearing to the deaf, language\nto the dumb. Afterwards, cleansing the lepers, making the paralytic\nsound, healing the dropsy, and all kinds of incurable diseases;\nrestoring the dead to life; in a wonderful manner commanding the devils\nand all the elements: he also put forth his hand to unwonted and\nunheard-of signs of his own power; for persons deprived of their eyes\nmerited by his merits to obtain new members. But some {215} who presumed\nto disparage his miracles, struck on a sudden, were compelled to publish\nthem even unwillingly. At length, against all his enemies the martyr so\nfar prevailed, that almost every day you might see that to be repeated\nin the servant which is read of the Only-begotten: \"They who spoke evil\nof thee shall come unto thee, and adore the traces of thy feet.\" Now the\ncelebrated champion and martyr of God, Thomas, suffered in the year from\nthe incarnation of the Lord, according to Dionysius, 1171, on the fourth\nof the kalends of January, on the third day of the week, about the\neleventh hour, that the birth-day of the Lord might be for labour, and\nhis for rest; to which rest the same our God and Lord Jesus Christ\nvouchsafe to bring us; who with the Father and the Holy Spirit liveth\nand reigneth God, for ever and ever. Amen.\n\n O good Jesus, BY THE MERITS OF THOMAS,\n Forgive us our debts;\n Visit the house, the gate, the grave;\n And raise us from the threefold death.\n What has been lost by act, in mind, or use,\n Restore with thy wonted pity.\n Pray for us, O blessed Thomas.\n\nN.B. This appears to be the end of the first service in honour of Thomas\nBecket[78]; and at this point {216} another service seems to commence,\nwith a kind of new heading, \"In the commemoration of St. Thomas[79].\"\n\n [Footnote 78: All the Lessons between this passage and \"In\n Lauds,\" are wanting in MS. 1512.]\n\n [Footnote 79: Another Feast was kept in honour of his\n translation, on the 7th of July.]\n\n_The First Lesson._\n\nWhen Archbishop Theobald, of happy memory, in a good old age, slept with\nhis fathers, Thomas, archdeacon of the Church of Canterbury, is solemnly\nchosen, in the name of the Holy Trinity, to be archbishop and primate of\nall England, and afterwards is consecrated. Then pious minds entertained\nfirm hope and confidence in the Lord[80].\n\n [Footnote 80: There is much of obscurity in the next paragraph.\n Reference seems to be made to his twofold character of a regular\n and a secular clergyman, and to his improved state morally. The\n Latin is this: \"Erat autem piis mentibus spes firma et fiducia\n in Domino, quod idem consecratus utriusque hominis, habitu\n mutato moribus melioratus pr\u00e6sideret. Probatissimum siquidem\n tenebatur sedem illam sedem sanctorum esse sanctam recipere aut\n facere, vel citius et facile indignum abicere, quod et in beato\n Thoma Martyre misericorditer impletum est.\"]\n\n_Second Lesson._\n\nTherefore the chosen prelate of God being elected, and anointed with the\nsanctifying of the sacred oil, immediately obtained a most hallowed\nthing, and was filled with manifold grace of the Holy Spirit. For\nwalking in newness of life, a new man, he was changed into another man,\nall things belonging to whom were changed for the better; and with so\ngreat grace did he consecrate the commencement of his bishopric, that\nclothing himself with a monk's form secretly, he fulfilled the work and\nmerit of a monk. {217}\n\n_Third Lesson._\n\nBut he, who after the example of the Baptist, with constancy had\nconceived in a perfect heart that the zeal of righteousness should be\npurified, studied also to imitate him in the garb of penitence. For\ncasting off the fine linen which hitherto he had been accustomed to use,\nwhilst the soft delicacies of kings pleased him, he was clothed on his\nnaked body with a most rough hair shirt. He added, moreover, hair\ndrawers, that he might the more effectually mortify the flesh, and make\nthe spirit live. But these, as also the other exercises of his spiritual\nlife, very few indeed being aware of it, he removed from the eyes and\nknowledge of men by superadding other garments, because he sought glory\nnot from man, but from God. Even then the man of virtue entering upon\nthe justifications of God, began to be more complete in abstinence, more\nfrequent in watching, longer in prayer, more anxious in preaching. The\npastoral office intrusted to him by God, he executed with so great\ndiligence, as to suffer the rights neither of the clergy nor of the\nChurch to be in any degree curtailed.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThere seems here also to be another commencement, for the next lesson is\ncalled the First.\n\n_Lesson First._\n\nSo large a grace of compunction was he wont to possess, between the\nsecrets of prayer or the solemnities of masses, that with eyes trained\nto weeping he would be wholly dissolved in tears; and in the office\n{218} of the altar his appearance was as though he was witnessing the\nLord's passion in the flesh. Knowing also that mercy softens justice,\nand that pity hath the promise of the life that now is, and of that\nwhich is to come, therefore towards the poor and the afflicted did he\nbear the bowels of mercy piteously, and was anxious to reach the poor by\nthe blessings of his alms.\n\n_Lesson Second._\n\nThe more humble of those whom a character for religion raised high, he\nmade his acquaintance and intimates; and that he might learn from them\nto hunger and thirst after righteousness, he enjoyed more frequently\ntheir secret conversation. Towards such servants and soldiers of Christ\nthis merciful man preferred to be liberal and abundant in food and\nraiment, he who determined in himself to be moderate and sparing. For\nwhat would he deny to Christ, who for Christ was about to shed his\nblood? He who owed his coat or cloak to one who asked it, desired to\nadd, moreover, his own flesh. For he knew that the man would never\nfreely give his own flesh, who showed himself greedy of any temporal\nthing.\n\n_Lesson Third._\n\nHitherto the merciful Lord, who maketh poor and enricheth, bringeth low\nand lifteth up, wished to load his servant with riches, and exalt him\nwith honours; and afterwards he was pleased to try him with adversity.\nBy trying whether he loved Him, He proved it the more certainly; but He\nsupplied grace more abundantly. For with the temptation He made a way to\nescape, that he might be able to bear it. Therefore, the envious enemy,\nconsidering that the new prelate {219} and the new man was flourishing\nwith so manifold a grace of virtues, devised to send a burning blight of\ntemptation, which might suffocate the germ of his merits already put\nforth. Nor was there any delay. He who severs a man from his God, and\none friend from his neighbour, sowed irreconcileable quarrels between\nthe king and the archbishop.\n\nPray for us, O blessed Thomas.\n\n_In Lauds._\n\n A grain falls and gives birth to an abundance of corn.\n The alabaster-box is broken, and the odour of the\n ointment is powerful.\n The whole world vies in love to the martyr,\n Whose wonderful signs strike all with astonishment.\n The water for Thomas five times changing colour,\n Once was turned into milk, four times into blood.\n At the shrine[81] of Thomas four times the light\n came down,\n And to the glory of the saint kindled the wax-tapers.\n DO THOU BY THE BLOOD OF THOMAS, WHICH HE[82]\n SHED FOR THEE;\n MAKE US, O CHRIST, ASCEND,\n Whither Thomas has ascended.\n\n Extend[83] succour to us, O Thomas,\n Guide those who stand, {220}\n Raise up those who fall,\n\n Correct our morals, actions, and life;\n\n And guide us into the way of peace.\n\n [Footnote 81: Ad Thom\u00e6 memoriam.]\n\n [Footnote 82: Tu per Thom\u00e6 sanguinem quem pro te impendit, Fac\n nos, Christe, scandere, quo Thomas ascendit.]\n\n [Footnote 83:\n\n Opem nobis, O Thoma, porrige,\n Rege stantes, jacentes erige,\n Mores, actus, et vitam corrige,\n Et in pacis nos viam dirige.\n ]\n\n_Final Anthem._\n\n Hail, O Thomas, the Rod of Justice;[84]\n The Brightness of the World;\n The Strength of the Church;\n The Love of the People;\n The Delight of the Clergy.\n Hail, glorious Guardian of the Flock;\n Save those who rejoice in thy glory.\n\n [Footnote 84: Salve, Thomas, Virga Justiti\u00e6, Mundi Jubar, Robur\n Ecclesi\u00e6, Plebis Amor, Cleri Delicia. Salve Gregis Tutor\n egregie, Salva tu\u00e6 gaudentes glori\u00e6.]\n\nThe end of the service of Thomas of Canterbury.\n\n * * * * *\n\nNow for a few moments only let us meditate on this service. I have\nalready referred to the lamentable practice of substituting biographical\nlegends for the word of God. And what is the tendency of this service?\nWhat impression was it likely to make, and to leave on minds of ordinary\npowers and instruction? Must it not, of necessity, tend to withdraw them\nfrom contemplating Christ, and to fix their thoughts on the powers, the\nglory, the exaltation, the merits of a fellow-sinner? It will be said,\nthat they will look beyond the martyr, and trace the blessings, here\nenumerated, to Christ, as their primary cause, and will think of the\nmerits of Thomas as efficacious only through the merits of their\nSaviour; that in their invocation of Thomas they will implore him only\nto pray for them. But can this be so? Does not the ascription of\nmiracles to him {221} and to his power; does not the very form of\nenumerating those miracles tend much to exalt the servant to an equality\nwith the Master?\n\nWhilst Thomas by being thus, in words at least, presented to the people\nas working those miracles by his own power, (for there is throughout a\nlamentable absence of immediate ascription of glory to God,) is raised\nto an equality with Christ our Lord; many passages in this service have\nthe tendency also of withdrawing the minds of the worshippers from an\nimplicit and exclusive dependence on the merits of Christ alone, and of\ntempting them to admit the merits of Thomas to share at least with\nChrist in the work of grace and salvation. Let us place some texts of\nScripture and some passages of this service side by side.\n\n[Transcriber's note: They are shown here one after the other.]\n\n_Scripture._\n\nBut after that the kindness and love of God towards man appeared, not by\nworks of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he\nsaved us.--Titus iii. 4, 5.\n\nHe who spared not his own Son, but gave him up for us all, how shall he\nnot with him also freely give us all things?--Rom. viii. 32.\n\nThe blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin.--1 John i. 7.\n\nOne Mediator.--1 Tim. ii. 5.\n\nWho also maketh intercession for us.--Rom. viii. 34.\n\nHe ever liveth to make intercession for them.--Heb. vii. 25.\n\n_Service of Thomas Becket._\n\nO Christ Jesus, by the wounds of Thomas loosen the sins which bind us.\n\nO blessed Jesus, BY THE MERITS OF THOMAS, forgive us our debts, raise us\nfrom the threefold death, and restore what has been lost with thy\naccustomed pity.\n\nDo thou, O Christ, by the blood of Thomas, which he shed for thee, make\nus ascend whither Thomas has ascended.\n\nHoly Thomas, pray for us.\n\nAnd if this service thus seems to mingle the merits of Christ, the\nmerits of his blood and of his death, with {222} the merits of a mortal\nman, the immediate address to that mortal as the giver of good things\ntemporal and spiritual, very awfully trespasses on that high, exclusive,\nand incommunicable prerogative of the one Lord God Omnipotent, which his\nSpirit hath proclaimed solemnly and repeatedly, and which he has fenced\naround against all invasion with so many warnings and denunciations.\n\n_Scripture._ _Service of Becket_\n\n1. O thou that hearest prayer, 1. For they sake, O Thomas,\nunto thee shall all flesh come.-- let the right hand of God embrace\nPs. lxv. [vulg. lxiv.] 2. us.\n\nBy prayer and supplication,\nwith thanksgiving, let your requests\nbe made known unto God.--Phil.\niv. 6.\n\n2. Lord, be thou my helper.-- 2. Send help to us, O Thomas;\nPs. xxx. [xxix.] 10.\n\n3. Thou shalt guide me by thy 3. Guide thou those who stand;\ncounsel.--Ps. lxxiii. [lxxii.] 24.\n\nHe, The Holy Spirit, shall guide\nyou into all truth.--John xvi. 13.\n\n4. The Lord upholdeth all that 4. Raise up those who fall;\nfall, and raiseth up all those that\nbe bowed down.--Psalm cxlv.\n[cxliv.] 14.\n\n5. Create in me a clean heart, 5. Correct our morals, actions\nO God.--Ps. li. [l.] 10. and life;\n\n6. The steps of a good man are 6. And guide us into the way\nordered by the Lord. Though of peace.\nhe fall, he shall not be utterly\ncast down, for the Lord upholdeth\nhim.--Ps. xxxvii. [xxxvi.]\n23.\n\nThe day-spring from on high\nhath visited us, to guide our feet\ninto the way of peace.--Luke i.\n78, 79.\n\nAnd then again, in celebrating the praises of a mortal {223} man,\nrecourse is had to language which can fitly be used only in our hymns\nand praises to the supreme Lord of our destinies, the eternal Creator,\nRedeemer, and Comforter, the only wise God our Saviour.\n\n_Address to Thomas._ _Language of Scripture._\n\n1. Hail, Thomas, Rod of Justice! 1. There shall come a rod out\n of the stem of Jesse. Ye denied\n the Holy One, and the Just--Isaiah\n xi. 1. Acts iii. 14.\n\n2. The brightness of the world. 2. The brightness of his glory.\n I am the light of the world--Heb.\n i. 3. John viii. 12.\n\n3. The strength of the Church. 3. I can do all things through\n Christ, that strengthened me.\n Christ loved the Church, and\n gave himself for it.--Phil. iv. 13.\n Eph. v. 25.\n\n4. The love of the people: the 4. Grace be with all them that\ndelight of the Clergy. love our Lord Jesus Christ in\n sincerity. Delight thyself in the\n Lord.--Eph. vi. 24. Ps. xxxvii. 4.\n\n5. Hail, glorious Guardian of 5. Our Lord Jesus, that great\nthe Flock. Save those who rejoice Shepherd of the sheep. Give ear,\nin thy glory. O Shepherd of Israel; come and\n save us. He that glorieth, let him\n glory in the Lord.--Heb. xiii. 20.\n Psalm lxxx. [lxxix.] 1. 1 Cor.\n i. 31.\n\nCan that worship become the disciples of the Gospel and the Cross, which\naddresses such prayers and such praises to the spirit of a mortal man?\nEvery prayer, and every form of praise here used in honour of Thomas\nBecket, it would well become Christians to offer to the Giver of all\ngood, trusting solely and exclusively to the mediation of Christ Jesus\nour Lord for acceptance; and pleading-only the merits of his most\nprecious blood. {224} And yet I am bound to confess, that in principle,\nin spirit, and in fact, I can find no substantial difference between\nthis service of Thomas of Canterbury, and the service which all in\ncommunion with the Church of Rome are under an obligation to use even at\nthe present hour.\n\nThis point remains next for our inquiry, and we will draw from the\nwell-head. I would, however, first suggest the application of a general\ntest for ascertaining the real _bona-fide_ nature of these prayers and\npraises. The test I would apply is, to try with the change only of the\nname, substituting the holiest name ever named in heaven or in earth for\nthe name of Thomas of Canterbury--whether these prayers and praises\nshould not be offered to the Supreme Being alone through the atoning\nmerits of his Blessed Son; whether they are not exclusively appropriate\nto HIM.\n\nTo (Thomas/God Almighty) all things bow and are obedient.\n\nPlagues, diseases, death, and devils,\nFire, air, land, and sea.\n(Thomas/The Almighty) fills the world with glory.\n\nThe world offers obeisance to (Thomas/Almighty God).\n\n(The Martyr Thomas/Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ) began to shine\nforth with miracles [John ii. 11]; restoring sight to the blind [Luke\nvii. 21]; walking to the lame; hearing to the deaf; speech to the dumb;\ncleansing to the lepers [Matt. xi. 5]; making the paralytic sound [Matt.\niv. 24]; healing the dropsy [Luke xiv. 4]; and all kinds of incurable\ndiseases [Luke iv. 40]; restoring the dead to {225} life [Luke viii. 43.\n55]; in a wonderful manner commanding the devils [Matt. viii. 16], and\nall the elements [Luke viii. 25]. He put forth his hand to unwonted and\nunheard-of signs of his own power [Mark ii. 12. John ix. 30].\n\nDo thou, O Lord, by the blood of (Thomas/Christ) cause us to ascend\nwhither (Thomas/Christ) has ascended. (O Thomas/O God), send help to us.\nGuide those who stand; raise up those who fall; correct our morals,\nactions, and life; and guide us into the way of peace.\n\nHail, (Thomas!/Jesus!) Rod of Justice, the Brightness of the world, the\nStrength of the Church, the Love of the people, the Delight of the\nClergy. Hail, Glorious Guardian of the flock! Save Thou those who\ndelight in Thy glory.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe shall apply this same test to many of the collects and prayers used,\nand of necessity to be used, because they are authorized and appointed,\neven at the present day, in the ministrations of the Church of Rome. The\nimpiety in many of those instances is not couched in such startling\nlanguage; but it is not the less real. God forbid that we should charge\nour fellow-creatures with idolatry, who declare that they offer divine\nworship to the Supreme Being only; or that we should pronounce any\nprofessed Christian to have cast off his {226} dependence on the merits\nof Christ alone, who assures us that he looks for mercy only through\nthose merits. But I know and feel, that according to the standard of\nChristian truth, and of the pure worship of Almighty God, which the\nScriptures and primitive antiquity compel me to adopt, I should stain my\nown soul with the guilt of idolatry, and with the sin of relying on\nother merits than Christ's, were I myself to offer those prayers.\n\nThat this service excited much disgust among the early reformers, we\nlearn from various writers[85]. On the merits of the struggle between\nBecket and his king; on the question of Becket's moral and religious\nworth, (a question long and often discussed among the exercises of the\nmasters of Paris in the full assembly of the Sorbonne[86],) or on the\nmotives which influenced Henry the Eighth, I intend not to say one word:\nthose points belong not to our present inquiry. It may not, however, be\nthought irrelevant here to quote a passage {227} from the ordinance of\nthis latter monarch for erasing Becket's service out of the books, and\nhis name from the calendar of the saints.\n\n [Footnote 85: See Mornay \"De la Messe,\" Saumur, 1604. p. 826.\n Becon, in his \"New Year's Gift,\" London, 1564, p. 183, thus\n speaks: \"What saint at any time thought himself so pure,\n immaculate, and without all spot of sin, that he durst presume\n to die for us, and to avouch his death to be an oblation and\n sacrifice for our lives to God the Father, except peradventure\n we will admit for good payment these and such like blasphemies,\n which were wont full solemnly to be sung in the temples unto the\n great ignominy of the glorious name of God, and the dishonour of\n Christ's most precious blood.\" Then quoting the lines from the\n service of Thomas Becket, on which we have above commented, he\n adds, \"I will let pass many more which are easy to be searched\n and found out.\" Becon preached and wrote in the reign of Henry\n VIII. and was then persecuted for his religion, as he was\n afterwards in the reign of Mary.]\n\n [Footnote 86: We are told that forty-eight years after his\n death, the masters of Paris disputed whether Thomas was a\n condemned sinner, or admitted into heaven.]\n\nIn Henry the Eighth's proclamation, dated Westminster, 16th November, in\nthe thirtieth year of his reign, printed by Bertholet, is the following\nvery curious passage:--\n\n \"ITEM, for as moche as it appereth now clerely, that Thomas\n Becket, sometyme Archbyshop of Canterburie, stubburnly to\n withstand the holsome lawes establyshed agaynste the enormities\n of the clergie, by the kynges highness mooste noble progenitour,\n kynge HENRY the Seconde, for the common welthe, reste, and\n tranquillitie of this realme, of his frowarde mynde fledde the\n realme into Fraunce, and to the bishop of Rome, mayntenour of\n those enormities, to procure the abrogation of the sayd lawes,\n whereby arose moch trouble in this said realme, and that his\n dethe, which they untruely called martyrdome, happened upon a\n reskewe by him made, and that, as it is written, he gave\n opprobrious wordes to the gentyllmen, whiche than counsayled hym\n to leave his stubbernesse, and to avoyde the commocion of the\n people, rysen up for that rescue. And he not only callyd the one\n of them bawde, but also toke Tracy by the bosome, and violently\n shoke and plucked hym in suche maner, that he had almoste\n overthrowen hym to the pavement of the Churche; so that upon\n this fray one of their company, perceivynge the same, strake\n hym, and so in the thronge Becket was slayne. And further that\n his canonization was made onely by the bysshop of Rome, bycause\n he had ben a champion of maynteyne his usurped auctoritie, and a\n bearer of the iniquitie of the clergie, for these and for other\n great and urgent causes, longe to recyte, the Kynge's {228}\n Maiestie, by the advyse of his counsayle, hath thought expedient\n to declare to his lovynge subjectes, that notwithstandynge the\n sayde canonization, there appereth nothynge in his lyfe and\n exteriour conversation, wherby he shuld be callyd a sainct, but\n rather estemed to have ben a rebell and traytour to his prynce.\n Therefore his Grace strayghtly chargeth and commandeth that from\n henseforth the sayde Thomas Becket shall not be estemed, named,\n reputed, nor called a sayncte, but bysshop Becket; and that his\n ymages and pictures, through the hole realme, shall be putte\n downe, and avoyded out of all churches, chapelles, and other\n places; and that from henseforthe, the dayes used to be\n festivall in his name shall not be observed, nor the service,\n office, antiphoners, colletes, and prayers, in his name redde,\n but rased and put out of all the bokes[87].\"\n\n [Footnote 87: In the Roman Breviary, adapted to England, several\n biographical lessons are appointed for the Anniversary of \"St.\n Thomas, bishop and martyr,\" interspersed with canticles. In one\n of these we read, \"This is truly a martyr, who, for the name of\n Christ, shed blood; who feared not the threats of judges, nor\n sought the glory of earthly dignity. But he reached the heavenly\n kingdom.\"--Norwich, 1830. Hiem. p. 251.] {229}\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nCOUNCIL OF TRENT.\n\n\nIn the process of ascertaining the real state of doctrine and practice\nin the worship of the Church of Rome at the present day, we must first\ngain as clear and accurate a knowledge of the decree of the Council of\nTrent, as its words will enable us to form. Into the character of that\nCouncil, and of those who constituted it, our present investigation does\nnot lead us to inquire. It is now, I believe, generally understood, that\nits decrees are binding on all who profess allegiance to the Sovereign\nRoman Pontiff; and that the man would be considered to have renounced\nthe Roman Catholic Communion, who should professedly withhold his assent\nfrom the doctrines there promulgated as vital, or against the oppugners\nof which the Council itself pronounced an anathema.\n\nEcclesiastical writers[88] assure us, that the wording of the decrees of\nthat Council was in many cases on purpose framed ambiguously and\nvaguely. The latitude, however, of the expressions employed, does not in\nitself {230} of necessity imply any of those sinister and unworthy\nmotives to which it has been usual with many writers to attribute it. In\ncharity, and without any improbable assumption, it may be referred to an\nhonest and laudable desire of making the terms of communion as wide as\nmight be, with a view of comprehending within what was regarded the pale\nof the Catholic Church, the greatest number of those who professed and\ncalled themselves Christians. Be this as it may, the vagueness and\nuncertainty of the terms employed, compel us in many instances to have\nrecourse to the actual practice of the Church of Rome, as the best\ninterpreter of doubtful expressions in the articles of that Council. The\ndecree which bears on the subject of this volume is drawn up in the\nfollowing words:--\n\n [Footnote 88: See Mosheim, xvi. Cent. c. i. vol. iv. p. 196.\n London, 1811.]\n\n \"SESSION XXV.[89]\n\n \"On the invocation, veneration, and reliques of saints, and of\n sacred images.\n\n \"The Holy Council commands all bishops and others bearing the\n office and care of instruction, that according to the usage of\n the Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the primitive\n times of the Christian religion, and the consent of holy\n fathers, and decrees of sacred councils, they in the first place\n should instruct the faithful concerning the intercession and\n invocation of saints, the honour of reliques, and the lawful use\n of images, teaching them, that the SAINTS REIGNING TOGETHER WITH\n CHRIST, offer their own {231} prayers for men to God: that it is\n good and profitable SUPPLIANTLY TO INVOKE THEM: and to fly to\n their PRAYERS, HELP, and ASSISTANCE, for obtaining benefits from\n God, by his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our only Redeemer\n and Saviour. But that those who deny that the saints, enjoying\n everlasting happiness in heaven, are to be invoked; or who\n assert either that they do not pray for us; or that the\n invocation of them to pray for us even as individuals is\n idolatry, or is repugnant to the word of God, and is opposed to\n the honour of the one Mediator of God and man, Jesus Christ; or\n that it is folly, by voice or mentally, to supplicate those who\n reign in heaven, hold impious sentiments.\n\n \"That the bodies also of the holy martyrs and others living with\n Christ, which were living members of Christ, and a temple of the\n Holy Ghost to be raised by Him to eternal life, and to be\n glorified, are to be worshipped by the faithful; by means of\n which many benefits are conferred on men by God; so that those\n who affirm that worship and honour are not due to the reliques\n of the saints, or that they and other sacred monuments are\n unprofitably honoured by the faithful; and that the shrines of\n the saints are frequented in vain for the purpose of obtaining\n their succour, are altogether to be condemned, as the Church has\n long ago condemned them, and now also condemns them.\"\n\n [Footnote 89: The Latin, which will be found in the Appendix, is\n a transcript from a printed copy of the Acts of the Council of\n Trent, preserved in the British Museum, to which are annexed the\n autograph signatures of the secretaries (notarii), and their\n seals.]\n\nAn examination of this decree, in comparison with the form and language\nof other decrees of the same Council, forces the remark upon us, That\nthe Council does not assert that the practice of invoking saints has any\nfoundation in Holy Scripture. The absence of all such declaration is the\nmore striking and important, because in the very decree immediately\npreceding this, {232} which establishes Purgatory as a doctrine of the\nChurch of Rome, the Council declares that doctrine to be drawn from the\nHoly Scriptures. In the present instance the Council proceeds no further\nthan to charge with impiety those who maintain the invocation of saints\nto be contrary to the word of God. Many a doctrine or practice, not\nfound in Scripture, may nevertheless be not contrary to the word of God;\nbut here the Council abstains from affirming any thing whatever as to\nthe scriptural origin of the doctrine and practice which it\nauthoritatively enforces. In this respect the framers of the decree\nacted with far more caution and wisdom than they had shown in wording\nthe decree on Purgatory; and with far more caution and wisdom too than\nthey exercised in this decree, when they affirmed that the doctrine of\nthe invocation of saints was to be taught the people according to the\nusage of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the primitive\ntimes of the Christian religion, and the consent of the holy fathers. I\nhave good hope that these pages have already proved beyond gainsaying,\nthat the invocation of saints is a manifest departure from the usage of\nthe Primitive Church, and contrary to the testimony of \"the holy\nfathers.\" However, the fact of the Council not having professed to trace\nthe doctrine, or its promulgation, to any authority of Holy Scripture,\nis of very serious import, and deserves to be well weighed in all its\nbearings.\n\nWith regard to the condemnatory clauses of this decree, I would for\nmyself observe, that I should never have engaged in preparing this\nvolume, had I not believed, \"that it was neither good nor profitable to\ninvoke the saints, or to fly to their prayers, their assistance, and\nsuccour.\" I am bound, with this decree {233} before me, to pronounce,\nthat it is a vain thing to offer supplications, either by the voice or\nin the mind, to the saints, even if they be reigning in heaven; and that\nit is also in vain for Christians to frequent the shrines of the saints\nfor the purpose of obtaining their succour.\n\nI am, moreover, under a deep conviction, that the invocation of them is\nboth at variance with the word of God, and contrary to the honour of the\none Mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ.\n\nOn this last point, indeed, I am aware of an anxious desire prevailing\non the part of many Roman Catholics, to establish a distinction between\na mediation of Redemption, and a mediation of Intercession: and thus by\nlimiting the mediation of the saints and angels to intercession, and\nreserving the mediation of redemption to Christ only, to avoid the\nsetting up of another to share the office of Mediator with Him, who is\nso solemnly declared in Scripture to be the one Mediator between God and\nman. But this distinction has no foundation in the revealed will of God;\non the contrary, it is directly at variance with the words and with the\nspirit of many portions of the sacred volume. There we find the two\noffices of redemption and mediation joined together in Christ. \"If any\nman sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the\nRighteous, and He is the propitiation for our sins.\" [1 John ii. 1, 2.\nHeb. ix. 12. vii. 25.] In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the same Saviour\nwho is declared \"by his own blood to have obtained eternal redemption,\"\nis announced also as the Mediator of Intercession. \"Wherefore he is able\nto save them to the uttermost who come unto God through him, seeing he\never liveth to make intercession for them.\" The {234} redemption wrought\nby Christ, and the intercession still made in our behalf by Christ, are\nboth equally declared to us by the most sure warrant of Holy Scripture;\nof any other intercession by saints in glory, by angels, or Virgin, to\nbe sought by our suppliant invocations to them, the covenant of God\nspeaks not.\n\nIt may be observed, that the enactment of this decree by the Council of\nTrent, has been chiefly lamented by some persons on the ground of its\npresenting the most formidable barrier against any reconciliation\nbetween the Church of Rome, and those who hold the unlawfulness of the\ninvocation of saints. Indeed persons of erudition, judgment, piety, and\ncharity, in communion with Rome, have not been wanting to express openly\ntheir regret, that decrees so positive, peremptory, and exclusive,\nshould have been adopted. They would have been better satisfied with the\nterms of communion in the Church to which they still adhered, had\nindividuals been left to their own responsibility on questions of\ndisputable origin and doubtful antiquity, involving rather the subtilty\nof metaphysical disquisitions, than agreeable to the simplicity of\nGospel truth, and essential Christian doctrine. On this point I would\ncontent myself with quoting the sentiments of a Roman Catholic author.\nMany of the facts alleged in his interesting comments deserve the\npatient consideration of every Christian. Here (observes the commentator\non Paoli Sarpi's History of the Council of Trent[90]) the Council makes\nit a duty to pray to saints, though the ancient Church never regarded it\nas necessary. The practice cannot be proved to be introduced into public\nworship {235} before the sixth century; and it is certain, that in the\nancient liturgies and sacramentaries no direct invocation is found. Even\nin our modern missals, being those of our ecclesiastical books in which\nthe ancient form has been longest retained, scarcely is there a collect\n[those he means in which mention is made of the saints] where the\naddress is not offered directly to God, imploring Him to hear the\nprayers of the saints for us; and this is the ancient form of\ninvocation. It is true, that in the Breviaries and other ecclesiastical\nbooks, direct prayers to the saints have been subsequently introduced,\nas in litanies, hymns, and even some collects. But the usage is more\nmodern, and cannot be evidence for ancient tradition. For this [ancient\ntradition] only some invocations addressed to saints in public harangues\nare alleged, but which ought to be regarded as figures of rhetoric,\n_apostrophes_, rather than real invocations; though at the same time\nsome fathers laid the foundation for such a practice by asserting that\none could address himself to the saints, and hope for succour from them.\n\n [Footnote 90: Histoire du Conc. de Trent, par Fra. Paoli Sarpi,\n traduit par Pierre Fran\u00e7ois de Courayer. Amsterdam, note 31.\n 1751. vol. iii. p. 182.]\n\nWe have already alluded to the very great latitude of interpretation\nwhich the words of this Council admit. The expressions indeed are most\nremarkably elastic; capable of being expanded widely enough to justify\nthose of the Church of Rome who allow themselves in the practice of\nasking for aid and assistance, temporal and spiritual, to be expected\nfrom the saints themselves; and at the same time, the words of the\ndecree admit of being so far contracted as not in appearance palpably to\ncontradict those who allege, that the Church of Rome never addresses a\nsaint with any other petition, than purely and simply that the saint\nwould by prayer intercede for the worshippers. The words \"suppliantly\n{236} to invoke them,\" and \"to fly to their prayers, HELP, and SUCCOUR,\"\nare sufficiently comprehensive to cover all kinds of prayer for all\nkinds of benefits, whilst \"the invocation of them to pray for us even\nindividually,\" will countenance those who would restrict the faithful to\nan entreaty for their prayers only.\n\nWhatever may be the advantage of this latitude of interpretation, in one\npoint of view it must be a subject of regret. Complaints had long been\nmade in Christendom, that other prayers were offered to the saints,\nbesides those which petitioned only for their intercession; and if the\nCouncil of Trent had intended it to be a rule of universal application,\nthat in whatever words the invocations of the saints might be couched,\nthey should be taken to mean only requests for their prayers, it may be\nlamented, that no declaration to that effect was given.\n\nThe manner in which writers of the Church of Rome have attempted to\nreconcile the prayers actually offered in her ritual, with the principle\nof invoking the saints only for their prayers, is indeed most\nunsatisfactory. Whilst to some minds the expedient to which those\nwriters have had recourse carries with it the stamp of mental\nreservation, and spiritual subterfuge, and moral obliquity; others under\nthe influence of the purest charity will regret in it the absence of\nthat simplicity, and direct openness in word and deed, which we regard\nas characteristic of the religion of the Gospel; and will deprecate its\nadoption as tending, in many cases inevitably, to become a most\ndangerous snare to the conscience. I will here refer only to the\nprofession of that principle as made by Bellarmin. Subsequent writers\nseem to have adopted his sentiments, and to have expressed themselves\nvery much in his words. {237}\n\nBellarmin unreservedly asserts that Christians are to invoke the saints\nsolely and exclusively for their prayers, and not for any benefits as\nfrom the saints themselves. But then he seems to paralyse that\ndeclaration by this refinement: \"It must nevertheless be observed that\nwe have not to do with words, but with the meaning of words; for as far\nas concerns the words, it is lawful to say, 'Saint Peter, have mercy on\nme! Save me! Open to me the entrance of heaven!' So also, 'Give to me\nhealth of body, Give me patience, Give me fortitude!' Whilst only we\nunderstand 'Save me, and have mercy upon me BY PRAYING for me: Give me\nthis and that, BY THY PRAYERS AND MERITS.' For thus Gregory of\nNazianzen, in his Oratio in Cyprianum; and the Universal Church, when in\nthe hymn to the Virgin she says,\n\n Mary, Mother of Grace,\n Mother of Mercy,\n Do thou protect us from the enemy,\n And take us in the hour of death.\n\n\"And in that of the Apostles,\n\n 'To whose command is subject'\n The health and weakness of all:\n Heal us who are morally diseased;\n Restore us to virtue.\n\n\"And as the Apostle says of himself 'that I might save some,' [Rom. xi.]\nand 'that he might save all,' [I Cor. ix.] not as God, but Thy prayer\nand counsel.\"\n\nI wish not to enter upon the question how far this distinction is\nconsistent with that openness and straightforward undisguised dealing\nwhich is alone allowable when we are contending for the truth; nor how\nfar the {238} charge of moral obliquity and double dealing, often\nbrought against it, can be satisfactorily met. But suppose for a moment\nthat we grant (what is not the case) that in the metaphysical\ndisquisitions of the experienced casuist such a distinction might be\nmaintained, how can we expect it to be recognized, and felt, and acted\nupon by the large body of Christians? Abstractedly considered, such an\ninterpretation in a religious act of daily recurrence by the mass of\nunlearned believers would, I conceive, appear to reflecting minds most\nimprobable, if not utterly impossible. And as to its actual _bona-fide_\nresult in practice, a very brief sojourn in countries where the religion\nof Rome is dominant, will suffice to convince us, that such subtilties\nof the casuist are neither received nor understood by the great body of\nworshippers; and that the large majority of them, when they pray to an\nindividual saint to deliver them from any evil, or to put them in\npossession of some good, do in very deed look to the saint himself for\nthe fulfilment of their wishes. It is a snare to the conscience only too\nevidently successful.\n\nAnd I regret to add, that in the errors into which such language of\ntheir prayers may unhappily betray them, they cannot be otherwise than\nconfirmed as well by the recorded sentiments of men in past years, whom\nthey have been taught to reverence, as by the sentiments which are\ncirculated through the world now, even by what they are accustomed to\nregard as the highest authority on earth[91].\n\n [Footnote 91: See in subsequent parts of this work the\n references to Bonaventura, Bernardin Sen., Bernardin de Bust.,\n &c.; and also the encyclical letter of the present (A.D. 1840)\n reigning pontiff.]\n\nTo this point, however, we must repeatedly revert {239} hereafter; at\npresent, I will only add one further consideration. If, as we are now\nrepeatedly told, the utmost sought by the invocation of saints is that\nthey would intercede for the supplicants; that no more is meant than we\nof the Anglican Church mean when we earnestly entreat our\nfellow-Christians on earth to pray for us,--why should not the prayers\nto the saints be confined exclusively to that form of words which would\nconvey the meaning intended? why should other forms of supplicating them\nbe adopted, whose obvious and direct meaning implies a different thing?\nIf we request a Christian friend to pray for us, that we may be\nstrengthened and supported under a trial and struggle in our spiritual\nwarfare, we do not say, \"Friend, strengthen me; Friend, support me.\"\nThat entreaty would imply our desire to be, that he would visit us\nhimself, and comfort and strengthen us by his own kind words and\ncheering offices of consolation and encouragement. To convey our\nmeaning, our words would be, \"Pray for me; remember me in your\nsupplications to the throne of grace. Implore God, of his mercy, to give\nme the strength and comfort of his Holy Spirit.\" If nothing more is ever\nintended to be conveyed, than a similar request for their prayers, when\nthe saints are \"suppliantly invoked,\" in a case of such delicacy, and\nwhere there is so much danger of words misleading, why have other\nexpressions of every variety been employed in the Roman Liturgies, as\nwell as in the devotions of individuals, which in words appeal to the\nsaints, not for their prayers, but for their own immediate exertion in\nour behalf, their assistance, succour, defence, and comfort,--\"Protect\nus from our enemies--Heal the diseases of our minds--Release us from our\nsin--Receive us at the hour of death?\" {240}\n\nIn the present work, however, were it not for the example and warning\nset us by this still greater departure from Scripture and the primitive\nChurch, we need not have dwelt on this immediate point; because we\nmaintain that any invocation of saint or angel, even if it were confined\nto a petitioning for their prayers and intercessions, is contrary both\nto God's word and to the faith and practice of the primitive, Catholic,\nand Apostolic Church. We now proceed to the next portion of our proposed\ninquiry,--the present state of Roman Catholic worship, with respect to\nthe invocation of saints and angels. {241}\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nSECTION I.--PRESENT SERVICE IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.\n\n\nIn submitting to the reader's consideration the actual state of Roman\nCatholic worship at the present hour, I disclaim all desire to fasten\nupon the Church of Rome any of the follies and extravagancies of\nindividual superstition. Probably many English Roman Catholics have been\nthemselves shocked and scandalized by the scenes which their own eyes\nhave witnessed in various parts of continental Europe. It would be no\nless unfair in us to represent the excesses of superstition there forced\non our notice as the genuine legitimate fruits of the religion of Rome,\nthan it would be in Roman Catholics to affiliate on the Catholics of the\nAnglican Church the wild theories and revolting tenets of all who assume\nthe name of opponents to Rome. Well indeed does it become us of both\nChurches to watch jealously and adversely as against ourselves the\nerrors into which our doctrines, if not preserved and guarded in their\npurity and simplicity, might have a tendency to seduce the unwary. And\nwhilst I am fully alive to the necessity of us Anglican Catholics\nprescribing to ourselves a {242} practical application of the same rule\nin various points of faith and discipline, I would with all delicacy and\nrespect invite Roman Catholics to do likewise. Especially would I\nentreat them to reflect with more than ordinary scrutiny and solicitude\non the vast evils into which the practice of praying to saints and\nangels, and of pleading their merits at the throne of grace, has a\ntendency to betray those who are unenlightened and off their guard; and\nunless my eyes and my ears and my powers of discernment have altogether\noften deceived and failed me, I must add, actually betrays thousands.\nOften when I have witnessed abroad multitudes of pilgrims prostrate\nbefore an image of the Virgin, their arms extended, their eyes fixed on\nher countenance, their words in their native language pouring forth her\npraises and imploring her aid, I have asked myself, If this be not\nreligious worship, what is? If I could transport myself into the midst\nof pagans in some distant part of the world at the present day; or could\nI have mingled with the crowd of worshippers surrounding the image of\nMinerva in Athens, or of Diana in Ephesus, when the servants of the only\nGod called their fellow-creatures from such vanities, should I have seen\nor heard more unequivocal proofs that the worshippers were addressing\ntheir prayers to the idols as representations of their deities? Would\nany difference have appeared in their external worship? When the\nEphesians worshipped their \"great goddess Diana and the image which fell\ndown from Jupiter,\" could their attitude, their eyes, or their words\nmore clearly have indicated an assurance in the worshipper, that the\nSpirit of the Deity was especially present in that image, than the\nattitude, the eyes, the words of the pilgrims at Einsiedlin for example,\nare indications of the same {243} belief and assurance with regard to\nthe statue of the Virgin Mary? These thoughts would force themselves\nagain and again on my mind; and though since I first witnessed such\nthings many years have intervened, chequered with various events of\nlife, yet whilst I am writing, the scenes are brought again fresh to my\nremembrance; the same train of thought is awakened; and the lapse of\ntime has not in the least diminished the estimate then formed of the\ndanger, the awful peril, to which the practice of addressing saints and\nangels in prayer, even in its most modified and mitigated form, exposes\nthose who are in communion with Rome. I am unwilling to dwell on this\npoint longer, or to paint in deeper or more vivid colours the scenes\nwhich I have witnessed, than the necessity of the case requires. But it\nwould have been the fruit of a morbid delicacy rather than of brotherly\nlove, had I disguised, in this part of my address, the full extent of\nthe awful dread with which I contemplate any approximation to prayers,\nof whatever kind, uttered by the lips or mentally conceived, to any\nspiritual existence in heaven above, save only to the one God\nexclusively. It is indeed a dread suggested by the highest and purest\nfeelings of which I believe my frame of mind to be susceptible; it is\nsanctioned and enforced by my reason; and it is confirmed and\nstrengthened more and more by every year's additional reflection and\nexperience. Ardently as I long and pray for Christian unity, I could not\njoin in communion with a Church, one of whose fundamental articles\naccuses of impiety those who deny the lawfulness of the invocations of\nsaints.\n\nBut I return from this digression on the peril of idolatry, to which as\nwell the theory as the practice of {244} the Roman Catholic Church\nexposes her members; and willingly repeat my disclaimer of any wish or\nintention whatever to fasten and filiate upon the Church of Rome the\ndoctrines or the practice of individuals, or even of different sections\nof her communion. Still, in the same manner as I have referred to the\nextravagancies which offend us in many parts of Christendom now, I would\nrecall some of the excesses into which renowned and approved authors of\nher communion have been betrayed. I seek not to fix on those members of\nthe Roman Church who disclaim any participation in such excesses, the\nfolly or guilt of others; but when we find many of the most celebrated\namong her sons tempted into such lamentable departures from primitive\nChristian worship, we are naturally led to ascertain whether the\ndoctrine be not itself the genuine cause and source of the\nmischief;--whether the malady be not the immediate and natural effect of\nthe tenet and practice operating generally, and not to be referred to\nthe idiosyncrasy of the patient. A voice seems to address us from every\nside, when such excesses are witnessed, Firmly resist the beginnings of\nthe evil; oppose its very commencement; it is not a question of degree,\nexclude the principle itself from your worship; give utterance to no\ninvocation; mentally conceive no prayer to any being, save God alone;\nplead no other merits with Him than the merits of his only Son. Then,\nand then only, are you safe. Then, and then only, is your prayer\ncatholic, primitive, apostolic, and scriptural.\n\nThe[92] most satisfactory method of conducting this {245} branch of our\ninquiry seems to be, that we should examine the Roman Ritual with\nreference to those several and progressive stages to which I have before\ngenerally referred; from the mere rhetorical apostrophe to the direct\nprayer for spiritual blessings petitioned for immediately from the\nperson addressed. I am neither anxious to establish the progress\nhistorically, nor do I wish to tie myself down in all cases to the exact\norder of those successive stages, in my present citation of testimonies\nfrom the Roman Ritual. My anxiety is to give a fair view of what is now\nthe real character of Roman Catholic worship, rather than to draw fine\ndistinctions. I shall therefore survey within the same field of view the\ntwo fatal errors by which, as we believe, the worship of the Church of\nRome is rendered unfit for the family of Christ to acknowledge it\ngenerally as their own: I mean the adoration of saints, and the pleading\nof their merits at the throne of grace, instead of trusting to the alone\nexclusive merits of the one only Mediator Jesus Christ our Lord, and\naddressing God Almighty alone.\n\n [Footnote 92: I believe the method best calculated to supply us\n with the very truth is, as I have before observed, to trace the\n conduct of Christians at the shrines of the martyrs, and follow\n them in their successive departures further and further from\n primitive purity and simplicity, on the anniversaries of those\n servants of God. What was hailed there first in the full warmth\n of admiration and zeal for the honour and glory of a national or\n favourite martyr, crept stealthily, and step by step, into the\n regular and stated services of the Church.]\n\nI. In the original form of those prayers in which mention was made of\nthe saints departed, Christians addressed the Supreme Being alone,\neither in praise for the mercies shown to the saints themselves, and to\nthe Church through their means; or else in supplication, that the\nworshippers might have grace to follow their example, and profit by\ntheir instruction. Such, for instance, is the prayer in the Roman\nritual[93] on St. {246} John's day[94] which is evidently the foundation\nof the beautiful Collect now used in the Anglican Church,--\"Merciful\nLord, we beseech thee to cast thy bright beams of light upon thy Church,\nthat it being enlightened by the doctrine of thy Apostle and Evangelist\nSt. John, may so walk in the light of thy truth, that it may at length\nattain to the light of everlasting life, through Jesus our Lord. Amen.\"\nSuch too is the close of the Prayer for the whole state of Christ's\nChurch militant here on earth, offered in our Anglican service,--\"We\nbless thy holy name for all thy servants departed this life in thy faith\nand fear, beseeching thee to give us grace so to follow their good\nexamples, that with them we may be partakers of thy heavenly kingdom.\nGrant this, O Father, for the sake of Jesus Christ our only Mediator and\nAdvocate. Amen.\"\n\n [Footnote 93: The references will generally be given to the\n Roman Breviary as edited by F.C. Husenbeth, Norwich, 1830. That\n work consists of four volumes, corresponding with the four\n quarters of the ecclesiastical year--Winter, Hiem.; Spring,\n Vern.; Summer, _\u00c6stiv_.; Autumn, Aut.; and the volumes will be\n designated by the corresponding initials, H. V. \u00c6. A.]\n\n [Footnote 94: \"Ecclesiam, tuam, Domine, benignus illustra, ut\n beati Johannis Apostoli tui et evangelist\u00e6 illuminata doctrinis,\n ad dona perveniat sempiterna. Per Dominum.\"--Husen. H. p. 243.]\n\nII. The second stage supplies examples of a kind of rhetorical\napostrophe; the speaker addressing one who was departed as though he had\nears to hear. Were not this the foundation stone on which the rest of\nthe edifice seems to have been built, we might have passed it by\nunnoticed. Of this we have an instance in the address to the Shepherds\non Christmas-day. \"Whom have ye seen, ye shepherds? Say ye, tell ye, who\nhath appeared on the earth? Say ye, what saw ye? Announce to us the\nnativity of Christ[95].\"\n\n [Footnote 95: Quem vidistis, Pastores? Dicite, Annunciate nobis.\n In terris quis apparuit? Dicite quidnam vidistis? Et annunciate\n Christi nativitatem.--H. 219.] {247}\n\nAnother instance is seen in that beautiful song ascribed to Prudentius\nand used on the day of Holy Innocents:\n\n \"Hail! ye flowers of Martyrs.\" [Salvete flores martyrum. H. 249.]\n\nIt is of the same character with other songs, said to be from the same\npen, in which the town of Bethlehem is addressed, and even the Cross.\n\n \"O Thou of mighty cities.\" [O sola magnarum urbium. H. 306.]\n \"Bend thy boughs, thou lofty tree....\"\n [Flecte ramos arbor alta, &c. Aut. 344.]\n \"Worthy wast thou alone\n To bear the victim of the world.\"\n\nThus, on the feast of the exaltation of the Cross, this anthem is\nsung,--\"O blessed Cross, who wast alone worthy to bear the King of the\nheavens and the Lord.\" [O crux benedicta, qu\u00e6 sola fuisti digna portare\nRegem coelorum et Dominum. Alleluia. A. 345.] Though unhappily, in an\nanthem on St. Andrew's day, this apostrophe becomes painful and\ndistressing, in which not only is the cross thus apostrophised, but it\nis prayed to, as though it had ears to hear, and a mind to understand,\nand power to act,--\"Hail, precious Cross! do thou receive the disciple\nof Him who hung upon thee, my master, Christ.\" [Salve, crux pretiosa\nsuscipe discipulum ejus, qui pependit in te, magister meus Christus. A.\n547.] The Church of Rome, in this instance, gives us a vivid example of\nthe ease with which exclamations and apostrophes are made the\nground-work of invocations. In the legend of the day similar, though not\nthe same, words form a part of the salutation, which St. Andrew is there\nsaid to have addressed {248} to the cross of wood prepared for his own\nmartyrdom, and then bodily before his eyes. There are many such\naddresses to the Cross, in various parts of the Roman ritual. (See A.\n344.)\n\nIn such apostrophes the whole of the Song of the Three Children abounds;\nand we meet with many such in the early writers.\n\nIII. The third stage supplies instances of prayer to God, imploring him\nto allow the supplication of his saints to be offered for us. Of this we\nfind examples in the Collects for St. Andrew's Eve and Anniversary, for\nthe feast of St. Anthony, and various others.\n\n\"We beseech thee, Almighty God, that he whose feast we are about to\ncelebrate may implore thy aid for us,\" &c. [Qu\u00e6sumus omnipotens Deus, ut\nbeatus Andreas Apostolus cujus pr\u00e6venimus festivitatem, tuum pro nobis\nimploret auxilium. A. 545.]\n\n\"That he may be for us a perpetual intercessor.\" [Ut apud te sit pro\nnobis perpetuus intercessor. A. 551.]\n\n\"We beseech thee, O Lord, let the intercession of the blessed Anthony\nthe Abbot commend us, that what we cannot effect by our own merits, we\nmay obtain by his patronage [Ejus patrocinio assequamur. H. 490.]:\nthrough the Lord.\"\n\nThese prayers I could not offer in faith. I am taught in the written\nword to look for no other intercessor in heaven, than one who is eternal\nand divine, therefore I can need no other. Had God, by his revealed\nword, told me that the intercessions of his servants departed should\nprevail with Him, provided I sought that benefit by prayer, I should,\nwithout any misgiving, have implored Him to receive their {249} prayers\nin my behalf; but I can find no such an intimation in the covenant. In\nthat covenant the word of the God of truth and mercy is pledged to\nreceive those, and to grant the prayers of those who come to him through\nhis blessed Son. In that covenant, I am strictly commanded and most\nlovingly invited to approach boldly the Supreme Giver of all good things\nmyself, and to ask in faith nothing wavering, with an assurance that He\nwho spared not his own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, will, with\nHim, also freely give us all things. In this assurance I place implicit\ntrust; and as long as I have my being in this earthly tabernacle, I\nwill, by his gracious permission and help, pray for whatever is needful\nfor the soul and the body; I will pray not for myself only, but for all,\nindividually and collectively, who are near and dear to me, and all who\nare far from me; for my friends, and for those who wish me ill; for my\nfellow Christians, and for those who are walking still in darkness and\nsin;--I will pray for mercy on all mankind. And I will, as occasion\noffers, desire others among the faithful on earth to pray for me; and\nwill take comfort and encouragement and holy hope from the reflection\nthat their prayers are presented to God in my behalf, and that they will\ncontinue to pray for me when my own strength shall fail and the hour of\nmy departure shall draw nigh. But for the acceptance of my own prayers\nand of theirs I can depend on no other Mediator in the world of spirits,\nthan on HIM, whom his own Word declares to be the one Mediator between\nGod and men, who prayed for me when He was on earth, who is ever making\nintercession for me in heaven. I know of no other in the unseen world,\nby whom I can have access to the Father; I find no other offered to me,\nI seek no {250} other, I want no other. I trust my cause,--the cause of\nmy present life, the cause of my soul's eternal happiness,--to HIM and\nto his intercession. I thank God for the blessing. I am satisfied; and\nin the assurance of the omnipotence of his intercession, and the perfect\nfulness of his mediation, I am happy.\n\nOn this point it were well to compare two prayers both offered to God;\nthe one pleading with Him the intercession of the passion of his only\nSon, the other pleading the prayers of a mortal man. The first prayer is\na collect in Holy Week, the second is a collect on St. Gregory's Day.\n\n We beseech thee, Almighty God, that we who among so many\n adversities from our own infirmity fail, the passion of thy only\n begotten Son interceding for us, may revive. V. 243.\n\n O God, who hast granted the rewards of eternal blessedness[96]\n to the soul of thy servant Gregory, mercifully grant that we who\n are pressed down by the weight of our sins, may, by his prayers\n with Thee, be raised up. V. 480.\n\n [Footnote 96: I can never read this, and such passages as this,\n without asking myself, can such an assertion be in accordance\n with the inspired teaching?--\"Judge nothing before the time,\n until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden\n things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the\n hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.\" I Cor. iv.\n 5.]\n\nIV. The next form of prayer to which I would invite your serious\nattention, is one from which my judgment and my feelings revolt far more\ndecidedly even than from the last-mentioned; and I have the most clear\ndenouncement of my conscience, that by offering it I should do a wrong\nto my Saviour, and ungratefully disparage his inestimable merits, and\nthe full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice and satisfaction of his\nomnipotent {251} atonement: I mean those prayers, still addressed to\nGod, which supplicate that our present and future good may be advanced\nby the merits of departed mortals, that by their merits our sins may be\nforgiven, and our salvation secured; that by their merits our souls may\nbe made fit for celestial joys, and be finally admitted into heaven.\n\nOf these prayers the Roman Breviary contains a great variety of\nexamples, some exceeding others very much in their apparent\nforgetfulness and disregard of the merits of the only Saviour, and\nconsequently far more shocking to the reason and affections of us who\nhold it a point of conscience to make the merits of Christ alone, all in\nall, exclusive of any other to be joined with them, the only ground of\nour acceptance with God.\n\nWe find an example of this prayer in the collect on the day of St.\nSaturnine. \"O God, who grantest us to enjoy the birth-day of the blessed\nSaturnine, thy martyr, grant that we may be aided by his merits, through\nthe Lord.\" [Ejus nos tribue meritis adjuvari per Dominum. A. 544.]\n\nAnother example, in which the supplicants plead for deliverance from\nhell, to be obtained by the merits and prayers of the saint together, is\nthe Collect for December 6th, the day of St. Nicolas.\n\n\"O God, who didst adorn the blessed Pontiff Nicolas with unnumbered\nmiracles, grant, we beseech Thee, that by his merits and prayers we may\nbe set free from the fires of hell, through,\" &c. [Ut ejus meritis et\nprecibus \u00e0 gehenn\u00e6 incendiis liberemur. H. 436.]\n\nAnother example, in like manner specifying both the merits and\nintercession of the departed saint, contains {252} expressions very\nunacceptable to many of those who are accustomed to make the Bible their\nstudy. It is a prayer to Joseph, the espoused husband of the Virgin\nMary. Of him mention is made by name in the Gospel just before and just\nafter the birth of Christ, as an upright, merciful man, to whom God on\nthree several occasions made a direct revelation of his will, by the\nmedium of a dream, with reference to the incarnate Saviour. Again, on\nthe holy family visiting Jerusalem, when our Lord was twelve years of\nage, Mary, his mother, in her remonstrance with her Son, speaks to Him\nof Joseph thus: \"Why hast Thou thus dealt with us? Behold thy father and\nI have sought Thee sorrowing.\" Upon which not one word was uttered by\nour Saviour that would enable us to form an opinion as to his own will\nwith regard to Joseph. Our Lord seems purposely to have drawn their\nthoughts from his earthly connexion with them, and to have raised their\nminds to a contemplation of his unearthly, his heavenly, and eternal\norigin. \"How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about\nmy Father's business?\" After this time, though the writings of the Holy\nBook, either historical, doctrinal, or prophetic, at the lowest\ncalculation embrace a period of fourscore years, no allusion is made to\nJoseph as a man still living, or to his memory as one already dead. And\nyet he is one of those for the benefit of whose intercession the Church\nof Rome teaches her members to pray to God, and from whose merits they\nare taught to hope for succour.\n\nOn the 19th of March the following Collect is offered to the Saviour of\nthe world:--\n\n\"We beseech thee, O Lord, that we may be succoured by the merits of the\nhusband of thy most holy mother, {253} so that what we cannot obtain by\nour own power, may be granted to us by his intercession. Who livest,\"\n&c. [V. 486.]\n\nIt is anticipating our instances of the different stages observable in\nthe invocation of saints, to quote here direct addresses to Joseph\nhimself; still it may be well to bring at once to a close our remarks\nwith regard to the worship paid to him. We find that in the Litany of\nthe Saints, \"St. Joseph, pray for us,\" is one of the supplications; but\non his day (March 19) there are three hymns addressed to Joseph, which\nappear to be full of lamentable superstition, assigning, as they do, to\nhim a share at least in the work of our salvation, and solemnly stating,\nas a truth, what, whether true or not, depends upon a groundless\ntradition, namely, that our blessed Lord and Mary watched by him at his\ndeath; ascribing to Joseph also that honour and praise, which the Church\nwas wont to offer to God alone. The following are extracts from those\nhymns:\n\nFirst hymn. \"Thee, Joseph, let the companies of heaven celebrate; thee\nlet all the choirs of Christian people resound; who, bright in merits,\nwast joined in chaste covenant with the renowned Virgin. Others their\npious death consecrates after death; and glory awaits those who deserve\nthe palm. Thou alive, equal to those above, enjoyest God, more blessed\nby wondrous lot. O Trinity, most High, spare us who pray; grant us to\nreach heaven [to scale the stars] BY THE MERITS OF JOSEPH, that at\nlength we may perpetually offer to thee a grateful song.\" [Te Joseph\ncelebrent agmina coelitum. V. 485.]\n\nSecond hymn. \"O, Joseph, the glory of those in heaven, and the sure hope\nof our life, and the safeguard {254} of the world, benignly ACCEPT THE\nPRAISES WHICH WE joyfully sing TO THEE.... Perpetual praise to the most\nHigh Trinity, who granting to thee honours on high, give to us, BY THY\nMERITS, the joys of a blessed life.\" [Coelitum, Joseph, Decus. V. 486.]\n\nThird hymn. \"He whom we, the faithful, worship with joy, whose exalted\ntriumphs we celebrate, Joseph, on this day obtained by merit the joys of\neternal life. O too happy! O too blessed! at whose last hour Christ and\nthe Virgin together, with serene countenance, stood watching. Hence,\nconqueror of hell, freed from the bands of the flesh, he removes in\nplacid sleep to the everlasting seats, and binds his temples with bright\nchaplets. Him, therefore, reigning, let us all importune, that he would\nbe present with us, and that he obtaining pardon for our transgressions,\nwould assign to us the rewards of peace on high. Be praises to thee, be\nhonours to thee, O Trine God, who reignest, and assignest golden crowns\nto thy faithful servant for ever. Amen.\" [Iste, quem l\u00e6ti colimus\nfideles. V. 490.]\n\nIt is painful to remark, that in these last clauses the very same word\nis employed when the Church of Rome applies to Joseph to assign to the\nfaithful the rewards of peace, and when she ascribes glory to God for\nassigning to his faithful servants crowns of gold. Indeed these hymns\ncontain many expressions which ought to be addressed to the Saviour\nalone, whose \"glory is in the heavens,\" who is \"the hope of us on\nearth,\" and \"the safeguard of the world.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nUnder this fourth head I will add only one more specimen. Would it were\nnot to be found in the Roman {255} Liturgies since the Council of Trent:\nGod grant it may ere long be wiped out of the book of Christian worship!\nIt is a collect in which the Church of Rome offers this prayer to God\nthe Son:--\n\n\"O God, whose right hand raised the blessed Peter when walking on the\nwaves, that he sank not; and rescued his fellow-apostle Paul, for the\nthird time suffering shipwreck, from the depth of the sea; mercifully\nhear us, and grant that by the merits of both we may obtain the glory of\neternity.\" [H. 149.]\n\nNow suppose for a moment it had been intended in any one prayer\nnegatively to exclude the merits of Christ from the great work of our\neternal salvation, and to limit our hopes of everlasting glory to the\nmerits of St. Peter and St. Paul, could that object have been more\neffectually and fully secured than by this prayer? Not one word alluding\nto the redemption which is in Christ can be found in this prayer. The\nsentiment in the first member of the prayer refers us to the power\nexercised by the Son of God, and Son of man, when he was intabernacled\nin our flesh; and the second expression teaches us to contemplate the\nprovidence of our Almighty Saviour in his deeds of beneficence. But no\nreference, even by allusion, is here made to the merits of Christ's\ndeath--none to his merits as our great Redeemer; none to his merits as\nour never-ceasing and never-failing Intercessor. We are led to approach\nthe throne of grace only with the merits of the two Apostles on our\ntongue. If those who offer it hope for acceptance through THE MEDIATION\nof Jesus Christ, and for the sake of his merits, that hope is neither\nsuggested nor fostered by this prayer. The truth, as it is in Jesus,\nwould compel us in addressing {256} Him, the Saviour of the world, to\nthink of the merits of neither Peter nor Paul, of neither angel nor\nspirit. Instead of praying to him that we may obtain the glories of\neternity for their merits, true faith in Christ would bid us throw\nourselves implicitly on his omnipotent merits alone, and implore so\ngreat a blessing for his own mercy's sake. If we receive the whole\ntruth, can it appear otherwise than a disparagement of his perfect and\nomnipotent merits, to plead with Him the merits of one, whom the Saviour\nhimself rebuked with as severe a sentence as ever fell from his lips,\n\"Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence to me; for thou\nsavourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men;\"\n[Matt. xvi. 23.] and of another who after his conversion, when speaking\nof the salvation wrought by Christ, in profound humility confesses\nhimself to be a chief of those sinners for whom the Saviour died, \"This\nis a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus\ncame into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief?\" [1 Tim. i.\n15.] We feel, indeed, a sure and certain hope that these two\nfellow-creatures, once sinners, but by God's grace afterwards saints,\nhave found mercy with God, and will live with Christ for ever; but to\npray for the same mercy at his gracious hands for the sake of their\nmerits is repugnant to our first principles of Christian faith. When we\nthink of merits, for which to plead for mercy, we can think of Christ's,\nand of Christ's alone.\n\nV. Our thoughts are next invited to that class of prayers which the\nChurch of Rome authorizes and directs to be addressed immediately to the\nSaints themselves. {257} Of these there are different kinds, some far\nmore objectionable than others, though all are directly at variance with\nthat one single and simple principle, to which, as we believe, a\ndisciple of the cross can alone safely adhere--prayer to God, and only\nto God. The words of the Council of Trent are, as we have already\nobserved, very comprehensive on this subject. They not only declare it\nto be a good and useful thing supplicantly to invoke the saints reigning\nwith Christ: but also for the obtaining of benefits from God, through\nJesus Christ our Lord, who is our only Redeemer and Saviour, to fly to\ntheir prayers, HELP, and ASSISTANCE. Whether these last words can be\ninterpreted as merely words of surplusage, or whether they must be\nunderstood to mean that the faithful must have recourse to some help and\nassistance of the saints beyond their intercession, is a question to\nwhich we need not again revert. If it had been intended to embrace other\nkinds of beneficial succour, and other help and assistance, perhaps it\nwould be difficult to find words more expressive of such general aid and\nsupport as a human being might hope to derive, in answer to prayer from\nthe Giver of all good. And certainly they are words employed by the\nChurch, when addressing prayers directly to God. Be this as it may, the\npublic service-books of the Church of Rome unquestionably, by no means\nadhere exclusively to such addresses to the saints, as supplicate them\nto pray for the faithful on earth. Many a prayer is couched in language\nwhich can be interpreted only as conveying a petition to them\nimmediately for their assistance, temporal and spiritual.\n\nBut let us calmly review some of the prayers, supplications,\ninvocations, or by whatever name religious addresses now offered to the\nsaints may be called; and {258} first, we will examine that class in\nwhich the petitioners ask merely for the intercession of the saints.\n\nWe have an example of this class in an invocation addressed to St.\nAmbrose on his day, December 7; the very servant of Christ in whose\nhymns and prayers no address of prayer or invocation to any saint or\nmartyr can be found.\n\n\"O thou most excellent teacher, the light of the Holy Church, O blessed\nAmbrose, thou lover of the divine law, deprecate for us [or intercede\nfor us with] the Son of God[97].\"\n\n [Footnote 97: H. 438. \"Deprecare pro nobis Filium Dei.\" This\n invocation to Ambrose is instantly followed by this prayer to\n God: \"O God, who didst assign to thy people the blessed Ambrose\n as a minister of eternal salvation, grant, we beseech Thee, that\n we may deserve to have him as our intercessor in heaven, whom we\n had as a teacher of life on earth.\"]\n\nThe Church of Rome has wisely availed herself of the pious labours of\nAmbrose, Bishop of Milan; and has introduced into her public worship\nmany of the hymns usually ascribed to him. Would she had followed his\nexample, and addressed her invocations to no one but our Creator, our\nRedeemer, and our Sanctifier! Could that holy man hear the supplications\nnow offered to him, and could be make his voice heard in return among\nthose who now invoke him, that voice, we believe, would only convey a\nprohibitory monition like that of the Angel to St. John when he fell\ndown before him, See thou do it not; I am thy fellow-servant; worship\nGod.\n\nIt is needless to multiply instances of this fifth kind of invocation.\nIn the \"Litany of the Saints\" more than fifty different saints are\nenumerated by name, and are invoked to pray and intercede for those who\njoin in {259} it. Among the persons invoked are Raphael [\u00c6. cxcii.],\nGervasius, Protasius, and Mary Magdalene; whilst in the Litany [\u00c6.\ncxcvi.] for the recommendation of the soul of the sick and dying, the\nnames of Abel, and Abraham, are specified.\n\nUnder this head I will call your attention only to one more example.\nIndeed I scarcely know whether this hymn would more properly be classed\nunder this head, or reserved for the next; since it appears to partake\nof the nature of each. It supplicates the martyr to obtain by his\nprayers spiritual blessings, and yet addresses him as the person who is\nto grant those blessings. It implores him to liberate us by the love of\nChrist; but so should we implore the Father of mercies himself. Still,\nas the more safe course, I would regard it as a prayer to St. Stephen\nonly to intercede for us. But it may be well to derive from it a lesson\non this point; how easily the transition glides from one false step to a\nworse; how infinitely wiser and safer it is to avoid evil in its very\nlowest and least noxious appearance:\n\n\"Martyr of God [or Unconquered Martyr], who, by following the only Son\nof the Father, triumphest over thy conquered enemies, and, as conqueror,\nenjoyest heavenly things; by the office of thy prayer wash out our\nguilt; driving away the contagion of evil; removing the weariness of\nlife. The bands of thy hallowed body are already loosed; loose thou us\nfrom the bands of the world, by the love of the Son of God [or by the\ngift of God Most High].\" [H. 237.]\n\nIn the above hymn the words included within brackets are the readings\nadopted in the last English edition of the Roman Breviary; and in this\nplace, when we are about to refer to many hymns now in use, it may be\nwell to observe, that in the present day we find {260} various readings\nin the hymns as they are still printed for the use of Roman Catholics in\ndifferent countries. In some instances the changes are curious and\nstriking. Grancolas, in his historical commentary on the Roman Breviary\n(Venice, 1734, p. 84), furnishes us with interesting information as to\nthe chief cause of this diversity. He tells us that Pope Urban VIII.,\nwho filled the papal throne from 1623 to 1644, a man well versed in\nliterature, especially in Latin poetry, and himself one of the\ndistinguished poets of his time, took measures for the emendation of the\nhymns in the Roman Breviary. He was offended by the many defects in\ntheir metrical composition, and it is said that upwards of nine hundred\nand fifty faults in metre were corrected, which gave to Urban occasion\nto say that the Fathers had begun rather than completed the hymns.\nThese, as corrected, he caused to be inserted in the Breviary. Grancolas\nproceeds to tell us that many complained of these changes, alleging that\nthe primitive simplicity and piety which breathed in the hymns had been\nsacrificed to the niceties of poetry. \"Accessit Latinitas, et recessit\npietas.\" The verse was neater, but the thought was chilled.\n\nVI. But the Roman Church by no means limits herself to this kind of\ninvocation; prayers are addressed to saints, imploring them to hear,\nand, as of themselves, to grant the prayers of the faithful on earth,\nand to release them from the bands of sin, without any allusion to\nprayers to be made by those saints. It grieves me to copy out the\ninvocation made to St. Peter on the 18th of January, called the\nanniversary of the Chair of St. Peter at Rome; the words of our Blessed\nLord himself, and of his beloved and inspired Apostle, seem to rise up\nin judgment against that prayer, and condemn it. It {261} will be well\nto place that hymn addressed to St. Peter, side by side with the very\nword of God, and then ask, Can this prayer be safe?\n\n1. Now, O good Shepherd, 1. Jesus saith, I am the good\nmerciful Peter, Shepherd. John x. 11.\n\n2. Accept the prayers of us 2. Whatsoever ye shall ask in\nwho supplicate, my name, that will I do. That\n whatsoever ye shall ask the\n Father in my name, he may give\n it you. John xiv. 13; xv. 16.\n\n3. And loose the bands of our 3. The blood of Jesus Christ\nsins, by the power committed to his Son cleanseth us from all sin.\nthee, 1 John i. 7.\n\n4. By which thou shuttest 4. These things saith he that\nheaven against all by a word, is holy, he that is true, he that\nand openest it[98]. openeth and no man shutteth, and\n shutteth and no man openeth.\n Rev. iii. 7.\n\n I am he that liveth and was\n dead, and am alive for evermore,\n and have the keys of hell and of\n death. Rev. i. 18.\n\n [Footnote 98: This hymn is variously read. In the edition of Mr.\n Husenbeth (H. 497.) it is: \"O Peter, blessed shepherd, of thy\n mercy receive the prayers of us who supplicate, and loose by thy\n word the bands of our sins, thou to whom is given the power of\n opening heaven to the earth, and of shutting it when\n open.\"--\"Beate pastor, Petre, clemens accipe voces precantum,\n criminumque vincula verbo resolve, cui potestas tradita aperire\n terris coelum, apertum claudere.\" H. 497.]\n\nLet it not be answered that many a Christian minister is now called a\ngood shepherd. Let it not be said that the very words of our ordination\nimply the conveyance of the power of loosing and binding, of opening and\nshutting the gates of heaven. When prayer is contemplated, we can think\nonly of One, HIM, who has appropriated the title of Good Shepherd to\n{262} himself. And we must see that Peter cannot, by any latitude of\ninterpretation, be reckoned now among those to whom the awful duty is\nassigned of binding and loosing upon earth.\n\nThe same unsatisfactory associations must be excited in the mind of\nevery one who takes a similar view of Christian worship with myself, by\nthe following supplication to various saints on St. John's day:\n\n \"Let the heaven exult with praises[99],\n Let the earth resound with joy; {263}\n The sacred solemnities sing\n The glory of the Apostles.\n O ye Just Judges of the age,\n And true lights of the world,\n We pray you with the vows of our hearts,\n Hear the prayers of your suppliants.\n Ye who shut the heaven by a word,\n And loose its bars,\n Loose us by command, we beseech you,\n From all our sins.\n Ye to whose word is subject\n The health and weakness of all,\n Cure us who are diseased in morals,\n Restore us to virtues.\n So that when Christ shall come,\n The Judge at the end of the world,\n He may make us partakers\n Of eternal joy.\n To God the Father be Glory,\n And to his only Son,\n With the Spirit the Comforter,\n Now and for ever. Amen[100].\"\n\n [Footnote 99: Having inserted in the text a translation of this\n hymn from a copy with which I had been long familiar, I think it\n right to insert here the two forms side by side. They supply an\n example of the changes to which we have already alluded.\n\n _Lille_, 1823. _Norwich_, 1830.\n\n OLD VERSION. POPE URBAN'S VERSION.\n\n Exultet coelum laudibus, Exultet orbis gaudiis,\n Resultet terra gaudiis, Coelum resultet laudibus,\n Apostolorum gloriam Apostolorum gloriam\n Sacra canunt solemnia. Tellus et astra concinunt.\n Vos s\u00e6cli justi judices Vos s\u00e6culorum judices\n Et vera mundi lamina, Et vera mundi lumina,\n Votis precamur cordium Votis precamur cordium\n Audite preces supplicum. Audite voces supplicum.\n Qui coelum verbo clauditis Qui templa coeli clauditis\n Serasque ejus solvitis, Serasque verbo solvitis,\n Nos a peccatis omnibus Nos a reatu noxios\n Solvite jussu, qu\u00e6sumus. Solvi jubete qu\u00e6sumus.\n Quorum pr\u00e6cepto subditur Pr\u00e6cepta quorum protinus\n Salus et languor omnium, Languor salusque sentiunt,\n Sanate \u00e6gros moribus, Sanate mentes languidas,\n Nos reddentes virtutibus. Augete nos virtutibus.\n Ut cum judex advenerit Ut cum redibit arbiter\n Christus in fine s\u00e6culi, In fine Christus s\u00e6culi,\n Nos sempiterni gaudii Nos sempiterni gaudii\n Faciat esse compotes. Concedat esse compotes.\n Deo Patri sit gloria, Jesu, tibi sit gloria\n Ejusque soli Filio, Qui natus es de virgine,\n Cum Spiritu paracleto, Cum Patre et Almo Spiritu,\n Et nunc et in perpetuum. In sempiterna s\u00e6cula.\n\n Amen. Amen.\n (H. 243.)\n ]\n\n [Footnote 100: Or as in the present Roman Breviary:--\n\n Let the world exult with joy,\n Let the heaven resound with praise;\n The earth and stars sing together\n The glory of the Apostles.\n Ye judges of the ages\n And true lights of the world,\n With the prayers of our hearts we implore,\n Hear the voices of your suppliants.\n Ye who shut the temples of heaven,\n And loose its bars by a word,\n Command ye us, who are guilty,\n To be released from our sins; we pray.\n Ye whose commands forthwith\n Sickness and health feel,\n Heal our languid minds,\n Increase us in virtues,\n That when Christ, the Judge, shall return,\n In the end of the world,\n He may grant us to be partakers\n Of eternal joy.\n Jesus, to thee be glory,\n Who wast born of a virgin,\n With the Father and the Benign Spirit,\n Through eternal ages. Amen. {264}\n ]\n\nMany a pious and humble Catholic of the Roman Communion, I have no\ndoubt, would regard these prayers as little more than an application to\nPeter and the rest of the Apostles for absolution, and would interpret\nits several clauses as an acknowledgment only of that power, which\nChrist himself delegated to them of binding and loosing sins on earth.\nBut the gulf fixed between these prayers, and the lawful use of the\npower given to Christ's ordained ministers on earth, is great indeed. To\nsatisfy the mind of this, it is not necessary to enter upon even the\nconfines of the wide field of controversy, as to what was really\nconveyed by Christ to his Apostles. I would ask only two questions.\nCould any of us address these same words to one of Christ's ministers on\nearth? And could we address our blessed Saviour himself in stronger or\nmore appropriate language, as the Lord of our destinies--the God who\nheareth prayer--the Physician of our souls?\n\nSuppose for example we were celebrating the anniversary of Christ's\nNativity, of his Resurrection, or his Ascension, what word in this hymn,\nexpressive of {265} power, and honour, and justice, and mercy, would not\nbe appropriate? What word would not apply to Him, in most perfect\naccordance with Scripture language? And can we without offence, without\ndoing wrong to his great Name, address the same to our fellow-servants,\neven though we may believe them to be with Him in glory?\n\n Let the heaven exult with praises--\n Let the earth resound with joy;\n The sacred solemnities sing\n The glory of the Lord.\n O Thou just Judge of the age,\n And true light of the world,\n We pray Thee with the supplications of our hearts\n Hear the prayers of Thy suppliants,\n Thou who shuttest the heavens by a word,\n And loosest its bars.\n Loose us by command, we beseech Thee,\n From all our sins.\n Thou to whose word is subject\n The health and weakness of all,\n Cure us who are diseased in morals,\n Restoring us to virtue.\n So that when Thou shalt come,\n The Judge at the end of the world,\n Thou mayest make us partakers\n Of eternal joy.\n Glory to Thee, O Lord,\n Who wast born of a virgin,\n With the Father and the Holy Spirit,\n For ever and ever. Amen.\n\nOnly for a moment let us see how peculiarly all these expressions are\nfitting in a hymn of prayer and praise {266} to our God and Saviour,\nrecalling to our minds the words of inspiration; and then again let us\nput the question to our conscience, Is this language fit for us to use\nto a fellow-creature?\n\nLet the heaven exult with praises, Let the heavens rejoice, and\nLet the earth resound with joy: let the earth be glad ... (exultet\n is the very word used in the Vulgate\n translation of the Psalm)--before\n the Lord, for He cometh\n to judge the earth.--Ps. xcvi\n (xcv). 11.\n\nThe holy solemnities sing Ye shall have a song, as in the\nThe glory of the Lord. night when a holy solemnity is\n kept ... And the Lord shall cause\n His glorious voice to be heard.\n Isa. xxx. 29. Let the heaven\n and earth praise Him. Ps. lxix\n (lxviii). 34.\n\nThou just Judge of mankind, All judgment is committed\nAnd true light of the world, unto the Son. John v. 22. That\n was the true Light, which lighteth\n every man that cometh into\n the world. John i. 9.\n\nWith the prayers of our hearts we With my whole heart have I\n pray Thee, sought Thee. Ps. cxix (cxviii).\nHear the prayers of Thy suppliants. 10. Hear my prayer, O God.\n Ps. lxi (lx). 1. Whom have I in\n heaven but Thee? Ps. lxxiii\n (lxxii). 25. And this is the\n confidence that we have in Him,\n that if we ask any thing according to\n His will, He heareth us. 1 John\n v. 14.\n\nThou who shuttest heaven by I have the keys of death and of\n Thy word, hell. These things saith He that\nAnd loosest its bars, is holy, He that is true: He\n that hath the key of David. He\n that openeth and no man shutteth,\n and shutteth and no man {267}\n openeth. I have set before thee\n an open door, and no man can\n shut it. Rev. i. 18; iii. 7,8\n\nRelease us by command, we pray Thy sins be forgiven thee.\nThee, Matt. ix. 22. Bless the Lord, O\nFrom all our sins. my soul ... who forgiveth all\n thine iniquities. Ps. ciii. 2. This\n is your blood of the New Testament,\n which is shed for many\n for the remission of sins. Matt.\n xxvi. 28. Have mercy upon me,\n O God ... according to the\n multitude of Thy tender mercies,\n blot out my transgressions. Wash\n me throughly from mine iniquity,\n and cleanse me from my\n sin. Ps. li (l).\n\nThou to whose word is subject Bless the Lord, O my soul ...\nThe health and weakness of all, who healeth all thy diseases. Ps.\n ciii (cii). 2, 3.\n\nDo Thou heal us who are morally Create in me a clean heart, O\ndiseased, God, and renew a right spirit\nRestoring us to virtue; within me. Ps. li. 10 (4.)\nThat when Thou, the Judge, shalt\nappear in the end of the world,\nThou mayest grant us to be\npartakers of eternal joy.\n\nThis would be a Christian prayer, a primitive prayer, a scriptural\nprayer, a prayer well fitting mortal man to utter by his tongue and from\nhis heart, to the God who heareth prayer; and him who shall in sincere\nfaith offer such a prayer, Christ will never send empty away. But if\nthis prayer, fitted as it seems only to be addressed to God, be offered\nto the soul of a departed saint--I will not talk of blasphemy, and\ndeadly sin, and idolatry,--I will only ask members of the Church of Rome\nto weigh all these things well, one by one. These are not subjects for\ncrimination and recrimination. {268}\n\nWe have had far too much of those unholy weapons on both sides. Speaking\nthe truth in love, I should be verily guilty of a sin in my own\nconscience were I, with my views of Christian worship, to offer this\nprayer to the soul of a man however holy, however blessed, however\nexalted.\n\nThe next part of our work will be given exclusively to the worship of\nthe Blessed Virgin Mary. {269}\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nPART III.\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nSECTION I.--THE VIRGIN MARY.\n\n\nThe worship of the blessed Virgin Mary is so highly exalted in the\nChurch of Rome, as to require the formation of a new name to express its\nhigh character. Neither could the Latin language provide a word which\nwould give an adequate idea of its excellence, nor could any word\npreviously employed by the writers in Greek, meet the case\nsatisfactorily. The newly invented term Hyperdulia, meaning \"a service\nabove others,\" seems to place the service of the Virgin on a footing\npeculiarly its own, as raised above the worship of the saints departed,\nand of the angels of God, cherubim and seraphim, with all the hosts of\nprincipalities and powers in heavenly places. The service of the Virgin\nMary thus appears not only to justify, but even to require a separate\nand distinct examination in this volume. The general principles,\nhowever, which we have already endeavoured to establish and illustrate\nwith regard as well to the study of the Holy Scriptures as to the\nevidence of primitive antiquity, are equally applicable here; and with\nthose principles present to our minds, {270} we will endeavour now to\nascertain the truth with regard to the worship of the Virgin as now\nwitnessed in the Roman Catholic Church.\n\nOf the Virgin Mary, think not, brethren of the Church of Rome, that a\ntrue member of the Anglican branch of the Catholic Church will speak\ndisparagingly or irreverently. Were such an one found among us, we\nshould say of him, he knows not what spirit he is of. Our church, in her\nLiturgy, her homilies, her articles, in the works too of the best and\nmost approved among her divines and teachers, ever speaks of Saint Mary,\nthe blessed Virgin, in the language of reverence, affection, and\ngratitude.\n\nShe was a holy virgin and a holy mother. She was highly favoured,\nblessed among women. The Lord was with her, and she was the mother of\nour only Saviour. She was herself blessed, and blessed was the fruit of\nher womb. We delight in the language of our ancestors, in which they\nwere used to call her \"Mary, the Blissful Maid.\" Should any one of those\nwho profess and call themselves Christians and Catholics, entertain a\nwish to interrupt the testimony of every succeeding age, and to\ninterpose a check to the fulfilment of her own recorded prophecy, \"All\ngenerations shall call me blessed,\" certainly the Anglican Catholic\nChurch will never acknowledge that wish to be the genuine desire of one\nof her own sons. The Lord hath blessed her; yea, and she shall be\nblessed.\n\nBut when we are required either to address our supplications to her, or\nelse to sever ourselves from the communion of a large portion of our\nfellow-Christians, we have no room for hesitation; the case offers us no\nalternative. Our love of unity must yield to our love {271} of truth; we\ncannot join in that worship which in our conscience we believe to be a\nsin against God. Whether we are right or wrong in this matter, God will\nhimself judge: and, compared with his acquittal and approval, the\nseverity of man's judgment cannot turn us aside from our purpose. But\nbefore any one pronounces a sentence of condemnation against us, or of\napproval on himself, it well becomes him patiently and dispassionately\nto weigh the evidence; lest his decision may not be consistent with\njustice and truth.\n\nIn addition to what has been already said on the general subject of\naddressing our invocation to any created being--to any one among the\nprincipalities and thrones, dominions, powers, angels, archangels, and\nall the hosts of heaven, to any one among the saints, martyrs,\nconfessors, and holy men departed hence in the Lord--I would submit to\nmy brethren of the Roman Catholic Church some considerations\nspecifically applicable to the case of the blessed Virgin, and to the\npractice of the Church of Rome in the religious worship paid to her.\n\nFirst, it will be well for us to possess ourselves afresh of whatever\nlight is thrown on this subject by the Scriptures themselves.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\nSECTION II.--EVIDENCE OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.\n\n\nThe first intimation given to us that a woman was in the providence of\nGod appointed to be the instrument, or channel by which the Saviour of\nmankind should be brought into the world, was made immediately after the\nFall, and at the very first dawn of the day of salvation. {272} I am\nfully aware how the various criticisms on the words in which that first\npromise of a Saviour is couched, have been the well-spring of angry\ncontroversy. I will not enter upon that field. The authorized English\nversion thus renders the passage: \"I will put enmity between thee and\nthe woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head,\nand thou shalt bruise his heel.\" [Gen. iii. 15.] The Roman Vulgate,\ninstead of the word \"it,\" reads \"she.\" Surely such a point as this\nshould be made a subject of calm and enlightened criticism, without\nwarmth or heart-burnings on either side. But for our present purpose, it\nmatters little what turn that controversy may take. I believe our own to\nbe the true rendering: but whether the word dictated here by the Holy\nSpirit to Moses should be so translated as to refer to the seed of the\nwoman generally, as in our authorized version, or to the male child, the\ndescendant of the woman, as the Septuagint renders it, or to the word\n\"woman\" itself; and if the latter, whether it refer to Eve, the mother\nof every child of a mortal parent, or to Mary, the immediate mother of\nour Saviour: whatever view of that Hebrew word be taken, no Christian\ncan doubt, that before the foundations of the world were laid, it was\nforeordained in the counsels of the Eternal Godhead, that the future\nMessiah, the Redeemer of Mankind, should be of the seed of Eve, and in\nthe fulness of time be born of a Virgin of the name of Mary, and that in\nthe mystery of that incarnation should the serpent's head be bruised. I\nwish not to dwell on this, because it bears but remotely and\nincidentally on the question at issue. I will, therefore, pass on,\nquoting {273} only the words of one of the most laborious among Roman\nCatholic commentators, De Sacy. \"The sense is the same in the one and in\nthe other, though the expression varies. The sense of the Hebrew is, The\nSon of the Woman, Jesus Christ, Son of God, and Son of a Virgin, shall\nbruise thy head, and by establishing the kingdom of God on earth,\ndestroy thine. The sense of the Vulgate is, The woman, by whom thou hast\nconquered man, shall bruise thy head, not by herself, but by Jesus\nChrist.\" [Vol. i. p. 132.]\n\nThe only other passage in which reference appears to be made in the Old\nTestament to the Mother of our Lord, contains that celebrated prophecy\nin the seventh chapter of Isaiah, about which I am not aware that any\ndifference exists between the Anglican and the Roman Churches. \"A Virgin\nshall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel.\"\n[Isaiah vii. 4.]\n\nI find no passage in the Old Testament which can by any inferential\napplication be brought to bear on the question of Mary's being a proper\nobject of invocation.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn the New Testament, mention by name is made of the Virgin Mary by St.\nMatthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, and by St. John in his Gospel, as the\nMother of our Lord, but not by name; and by no other writer. Neither St.\nPaul in any one of his many Epistles, though he mentions the names of\nmany of our Lord's disciples, nor St. James, nor St. Peter, who must\noften have seen her during our Lord's ministry, nor St. Jude, nor St.\nJohn in any of his three Epistles, or in the {274} Revelation (though,\nas we learn from his own Gospel, she had of especial trust been\ncommitted to his care)--no one of these either mentions her as living,\nor alludes to her memory as dead.\n\nThe first occasion on which any reference is made in the New Testament\nto the Virgin Mary is the salutation of the Angel, as recorded by St.\nLuke in the opening chapter of his Gospel. The last occasion is when she\nis mentioned by the same Evangelist, as \"Mary the Mother of Jesus,\" in\nconjunction with his brethren and with the Apostles and the women all\ncontinuing in prayer and supplication, immediately after the ascension\nof our blessed Lord. Between these two occasions the name of Mary occurs\nunder a variety of circumstances, on every one of which we shall do well\nto reflect.\n\nThe first occasion, we have already said, is the salutation of Mary by\nthe angel, announcing to her that she should be the Mother of the Son of\nGod. Surely no daughter of Eve was ever so distinguished among women;\nand well does it become us to cherish her memory with affectionate\nreverence. The words addressed to her when on earth by the angel in that\nannouncement, with a little variation of expression, are daily addressed\nto her by the Roman Catholic Church, now that she is no longer seen, but\nis removed to the invisible world. \"Hail, thou that art highly\nfavoured!\" (or as the Vulgate reads it, \"full of grace\") \"the Lord is\nwith thee. Blessed art thou among women.\" [Luke i. 28.] On the\nsubstitution of the expression, \"full of grace,\" for \"highly favoured,\"\nor, as our margin suggests, \"graciously accepted, or much graced,\" I am\nnot desirous {275} of troubling you with any lengthened remark. I could\nhave wished that since the Greek is different in this passage, and in\nthe first chapter of St. John, where the words \"full of grace\" are\napplied to our Saviour, a similar distinction had been observed in the\nRoman translation. But the variation is unessential. The other\nexpression, \"Blessed art thou among women,\" is precisely and identically\nthe same with the ascription of blessedness made by an inspired tongue,\nunder the elder covenant, to another daughter of Eve. \"Blessed above\nwomen,\" or (as both the Septuagint and the Vulgate render the word)\n\"Blessed among women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be.\"\n[Judges v. 24.] We can see no ground in such ascription of blessedness\nfor any posthumous adoration of the Virgin Mary.\n\nThe same observation applies with at least equal strictness to that\naffecting interview between Mary and Elizabeth, when, enlightened\ndoubtless by an especial revelation, Elizabeth returned the salutation\nof her cousin by addressing her as the Mother of her Lord, and hailing\nher visit as an instance of most welcome and condescending kindness,\n\"Whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?\"\n[Luke i. 43.] Members of the Anglican Church are taught to refer to this\nevent in Mary's life with feelings of delight and gratitude. On this\noccasion she uttered that beautiful hymn, \"The Song of the blessed\nVirgin Mary,\" which our Church has selected for daily use at Evening\nPrayer. These incidents bring before our minds the image of a spotless\nVirgin, humble, pious, obedient, holy: a chosen servant of God--an\nexalted pattern for her fellow-creatures; but still a fellow-creature,\nand a fellow-servant: {276} a virgin pronounced by an angel blessed on\nearth. But further than this we cannot go. We read of no power, no\nauthority, neither the power and influence of intercession, nor the\nauthority or right of command being ever, even by implication, committed\nto her; and we dare not of our own minds venture to take for granted a\nstatement of so vast magnitude, involving associations so awful. We\nreverence her memory as a blessed woman, the virgin mother of our Lord.\nWe cannot supplicate any blessing at her hand; we cannot pray to her for\nher intercession.\n\nThe angel's announcement to Joseph, whether before or after the birth of\nChrist, the visit of the Magi, the flight into Egypt, and the return\nthence, in the record of all of which events by St. Matthew the name of\nMary occurs, however interesting and important in themselves, seem to\nrequire no especial attention with reference to the immediate subject of\nour inquiry. To Joseph the angel speaks of the blessed Virgin as \"Mary\nthy wife.\" [Matt. i. 20.] In every other instance she is called \"The\nyoung child's mother,\" or \"His mother.\"\n\nIn relating the circumstances of Christ's birth the Evangelist employs\nno words which seem to invite any particular examination. Joseph went up\ninto the city of David to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife; and\nthere she brought forth her first-born son, and wrapped him in swaddling\nclothes, and laid him in a manger. And the shepherds found Mary and\nJoseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And Mary kept all these things,\nand pondered them in her heart. [Luke ii. 19.]\n\nBetween the birth of Christ, and the flight into Egypt, St. Luke records\nan event to have happened by no means unimportant--the presentation of\nChrist in {277} the temple. \"And when the days of her purification\naccording to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to\nJerusalem to present him to the Lord. And he (Simeon) came by the Spirit\ninto the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus to do\nfor him after the custom of the law, then took he him up in his arms,\nand blessed God, and said, Lord, &c. And Joseph and his mother marvelled\nat those things which were spoken of him. And Simeon blessed them, and\nsaid unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and\nrising again of many in Israel; and for a sign that shall be spoken\nagainst, (yea, a sword shall pierce through thine own soul also) that\nthe thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.\" [Luke ii. 28.] In this\nincident it is worthy of remark, that Joseph and Mary are both mentioned\nby name, that they are both called the parents of the young child; that\nboth are equally blessed by Simeon; and that the good old Israelite,\nillumined by the spirit of prophecy, when he addresses himself\nimmediately to Mary, speaks only of her future sorrow, and does not even\nmost remotely or faintly allude to any exaltation of her above the other\ndaughters of Abraham. \"A sword shall pass through thine own soul also,\"\na prophecy, as St. Augustine interprets it, accomplished when she\nwitnessed the sufferings and death of her Son. (See De Sacy, vol. xxxii.\np. 138.)\n\nThe next occasion on which the name of the Virgin Mary is found in\nScripture, is the memorable visit of herself, her husband, and her Son,\nto Jerusalem, when he was twelve years old. And the manner in which this\nincident is related by the inspired Evangelist, so far from intimating\nthat Mary was destined to be an object of worship to the believers in\nher Son, affords {278} evidence which exhibits strongly a bearing the\ndirect contrary. Here again Joseph and Mary are both called his parents:\nJoseph is once mentioned by name, and so is Mary. If the language had\nbeen so framed as on purpose to take away all distinction of preference\nor superiority, it could not more successfully have effected its\npurpose. But not only so, of the three addresses recorded as having been\nmade by our blessed Lord to his beloved mother (and only three are\nrecorded in the New Testament), the first occurs during this visit to\nJerusalem. It was in answer to the remonstrance made by Mary, \"Son, why\nhast thou thus dealt with us? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee\nsorrowing.\" [Luke ii. 48.] \"How is it that ye sought me? Knew ye not\nthat I must be about my Father's business?\"--[or in my Father's house,\nas some render it.] He lifts up their minds from earth to heaven, from\nhis human to his eternal origin. He makes no distinction here,--\"Wist YE\nnot.\" Again, I would appeal to any dispassionate person to pronounce,\nwhether this reproof, couched in these words, countenances the idea that\nour blessed Lord intended his human mother to receive such divine honour\nfrom his followers to the end of time as the Church of Rome now pays?\nand whether St. Luke, whose pen wrote this account, could have been made\ncognizant of any such right invested in the Virgin?\n\nThe next passage calling for our consideration is that which records the\nfirst miracle: \"And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of\nGalilee, and the mother of Jesus was there, and both Jesus was called\nand his disciples to the marriage. And when they wanted wine (when the\nwine failed), the mother of {279} Jesus saith unto him, They have no\nwine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine\nhour is not yet come.\" [John ii. 1.]\n\nI have carefully read the comments on this passage, which different\nwriters of the Roman Catholic communion have recommended for the\nadoption of the faithful, and I desire not to make any remarks upon\nthem. Let the passage be interpreted in any way which enlightened\ncriticism and the analogy of Scripture will sanction, and I would ask,\nafter a careful weighing of this incident, the facts, and the words in\nall their bearings, would any unprejudiced mind expect that the holy and\nbeloved person, towards whom the meek and tender and loving Jesus\nemployed this address, was destined by that omniscient and omnipotent\nSaviour to be an object of those religious acts with which, as we shall\nsoon be reminded, the Church of Rome now daily approaches her?\n\nIt is pain and grief to me thus to extract and to comment upon these\npassages of Holy Writ. The feelings of affection and of reverence\napproaching awe, with which I hold the memory of that blessed Virgin\nMother of my Lord, raise in me a sincere repugnance against dwelling on\nthis branch of our subject, beyond what the cause of the truth as it is\nin Jesus absolutely requires; and very little more of the same irksome\ntask awaits us. You will of course expect me to refer to an incident\nrecorded with little variety of expression, and with no essential\ndifference, by the first three Evangelists. St. Matthew's is the most\nfull account, and is this,--\"While he yet talked to the people, behold\nhis mother and his brethren stood without desiring to speak with him.\nThen one said unto him, {280} Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand\nwithout, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him\nthat told him, Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? And he\nstretched forth his hand toward his disciples and said, Behold my mother\nand my brethren. For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is\nin heaven, the same is my brother and sister and mother.\" [Matt. xii.\n46.] Or, as St. Luke expresses it,--\"And he answered and said unto them,\nMy mother and my brethren are these, who hear the word of God and do\nit.\" [Luke viii. 21.]\n\nHumanly speaking, could a more favourable opportunity have presented\nitself to our blessed Lord of referring to his beloved mother, in such a\nmanner as to exalt her above her fellow daughters of Eve,--in such a\nmanner too, as that Christians in after days, when the Saviour's bodily\npresence should have been taken away from them, and the extraordinary\ncommunications of the Spirit of truth should have been withdrawn, might\nhave remembered that He had spoken these things, and have been\ncountenanced by his words in doing her homage? But so far is this from\nthe plain and natural tendency of the words of her blessed Son, that,\nhad He of acknowledged purpose (and He has condescended to announce to\nus, in another place (John xiii. 19, &c.), the purpose of his words)\nwished to guard his disciples, whilst the world should last, against\nbeing seduced by any reverence and love which they might feel towards\nHimself into a belief that they ought to exalt his mother above all\nother created beings, and pay her holy worship, we know not what words\nHe could have adopted more fitted for that purpose. There was nothing in\nthe communication which seemed to call for {281} such a remark. A plain\nmessage announces to Him as a matter of fact one of the most common\noccurrences of daily life. And yet He fixes upon the circumstance as the\ngroundwork not only of declaring the close union which it was his good\npleasure should exist between obedient and true believers and Himself,\nbut of cautioning all against any superstitious feelings towards those\nwho were nearly allied to Him by the ties of his human nature. With\nreverence I would say, it is as though He desired to record his\nforeknowledge of the errors into which his disciples were likely to be\nseduced, and warned them beforehand to shun and resist the temptation.\nThe evidence borne by this passage against our offering any religious\nworship to the Virgin, on the ground of her having been the mother of\nour Lord, seems clear, strong, direct, and inevitable. She was the\nmother of the Redeemer of the world, and blessed is she among women; but\nthat very Redeemer Himself, with his own lips, assures us that every\nfaithful servant of his heavenly Father shall be equally honoured with\nher, and possess all the privileges which so near and dear a\nrelationship with Himself might be supposed to convey.--Who is my\nmother? Or, who are my brethren? Behold my mother and my brethren!\nWhosoever shall do the will of my Father in heaven, the same is my\nbrother, and my sister, and my mother.\n\nNo less should we be expected in this place to take notice of that most\nremarkable passage of Holy Scripture, [Luke xi. 27.] in which our\nblessed Lord is recorded under different circumstances to have expressed\nthe same sentiments, but in words which will appear to many even more\nstrongly indicative of his desire to prevent any {282} undue exaltation\nof his mother. \"As he spake these things, a certain woman of the company\nlifted up her voice and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare\nthee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.\" On the truth or wisdom of\nthat exclamation our Lord makes no remark; He refers not to his mother\nat all, not even to assure them (as St. Augustine in after-ages taught,\nsee De Sacy, vol. xxxii. p. 35.), that however blessed Mary was in her\ncorporeal conception of the Saviour, yet far more blessed was she\nbecause she had fully borne Him spiritually in her heart. He alludes not\nto his mother except for the purpose of instantly drawing the minds of\nhis hearers from contemplating any supposed blessedness in her, and of\nfixing them on the sure and greater blessedness of his true, humble,\nfaithful, and obedient disciples, to the end of time. \"But he said, Yea,\nrather [or, as some prefer, yea, verily, and] blessed are they that hear\nthe word of God, and keep it.\" Again, it must be asked, could such an\nexclamation have been met by such a reply, had our Lord's will been to\nexalt his mother, as she is now exalted by the Church of Rome? Rather,\nwe would reverently ask, would He have given this turn to such an\naddress, had He not desired to check any such feeling towards her?\n\nThat most truly affecting and edifying incident recorded by St. John as\nhaving taken place whilst Jesus was hanging in his agony on the cross,\nan incident which speaks to every one who has a mind to understand and a\nheart to feel, presents to us the last occasion on which the name of the\nVirgin Mother of our Lord occurs in the Gospels. No paraphrase could add\nforce, or clearness, or beauty to the simple narrative of the\nEvangelist; no exposition could bring out its parts more prominently or\n{283} affectingly. The calmness and authority of our blessed Lord, his\ntenderness and affection, his filial love in the very midst of his\nagony, it is impossible to describe with more heart-stirring and\nheart-soothing pathos than is conveyed in the simple language of him\nwhom the Saviour at that awful hour addressed, as He committed his\nmother to him of especial trust. But not one syllable falls from the\nlips of Christ, or from the pen of the beloved disciple, who records\nthis act of his blessed Master's filial piety, which can by possibility\nbe construed to imply, that our blessed Lord intended Mary to be held in\nsuch honour by his disciples, as would be shown in the offering of\nprayer and praise to her after her dissolution. He who could by a word,\nrather by the mere motion of his will, have bidden the whole course of\nnature and of providence, so to proceed as that all its operations\nshould provide for the health and safety, the support and comfort of his\nmother--He, when He was on the cross, and when He was on the point of\ncommitting his soul into the hands of his Father, leaves her to the care\nof one whom He loved, and whose sincerity and devotedness to Him He had,\nhumanly speaking, long experienced. He bids him treat Mary as his own\nmother, He bids Mary look to John as to her own son for support and\nsolace: \"Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his\nmother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When\nJesus, therefore, saw his mother and the disciple standing by whom he\nloved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son; then saith he to\nthe disciple, Behold thy mother.\" [John xix. 25.] And He added no more.\nIf Christ willed that his beloved mother should end her days in peace,\nremoved equally {284} from want and the desolation of widowhood on the\none hand, and from splendour and notoriety on the other, nothing could\nbe more natural than such conduct in such a Being at such a time. But if\nhis purpose was to exalt her into an object of religious adoration, that\nnations should kneel before her, and all people do her homage, then the\nwords and the conduct of our Lord at this hour seem altogether\nunaccountable: and so would the words of the Evangelist also be, \"And\nfrom that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.\"\n\nAfter this not another word falls from the pen of St. John which can be\nmade to bear on the station, the character, the person, or circumstances\nof Mary. After his resurrection our Saviour remained on earth forty days\nbefore He finally ascended into heaven. Many of his interviews and\nconversations with his disciples during that interval are recorded in\nthe Gospel. Every one of the four Evangelists relates some act or some\nsaying of our Lord on one or more of those occasions. Mention is made by\nname of Mary Magdalene, of Mary [the mother] of Joses, of Mary [the\nmother] of James, of Salome, of Joanna, of Peter, of Cleophas, of the\ndisciple whom Jesus loved, at whose house the mother of our Lord then\nwas; of Thomas, of Nathanael. The eleven also are mentioned generally.\nBut by no one of the Evangelists is reference made at all to Mary the\nmother of our Lord, as having been present at any one of those\ninterviews; her name is not alluded to throughout.\n\nOn one solitary occasion subsequently to the ascension of Christ,\nmention is made of Mary his mother, in company with many others, and\nwithout any further distinction to separate her from the rest: \"And when\n{285} they were come in (from having witnessed the ascension of our\nSaviour), they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and\nJames, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew and\nMatthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the\nbrother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and\nsupplication with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his\nbrethren.\" [Acts i. 13.] Not one word is said of Mary having been\npresent to witness even the ascension of her blessed Son; we read no\ncommand of our Lord, no wish expressed, no distant intimation to his\ndisciples that they should even show to her marks of respect and honour;\nnot an allusion is there made to any superiority or distinction and\npreeminence. Sixty years at the least are generally considered to be\ncomprehended within the subsequent history of the New Testament before\nthe Apocalypse was written; but neither in the narrative, nor in the\nEpistles, nor yet in the prophetic part of the Holy Book, is there the\nmost distant allusion to Mary. Of him to whose loving care our dying\nLord committed his beloved mother of especial trust, we hear much. John,\nwe find, putting forth the miraculous power of Christ at the Beautiful\nGate of the Temple; we find him imprisoned and arraigned before the\nJewish authorities; but not one word is mentioned as to what meanwhile\nbecame of Mary. We find John confirming the Church in Samaria; we find\nhim an exile in the island of Patmos; but no mention is made of Mary.\nNay, though we have three of his epistles, and the second of them\naddressed to one \"whom he loved in the truth,\" we find neither from the\ntongue nor from the pen of St. John, one single allusion to the mother\nof our Lord alive or dead. And then, whatever may have been the matter\n{286} of fact as to St. Paul, neither the many letters of that Apostle,\nnor the numerous biographical incidents recorded of him, intimate in the\nmost remote degree that he knew any thing whatever concerning her\nindividually. St. Paul does indeed refer to the human nature of Christ\nderived from his human mother, and had he been taught by his Lord to\nentertain towards her such sentiments as the Roman Church now professes\nto entertain, he could not have had a more inviting occasion to give\nutterance to them. But instead of thus speaking of the Virgin Mary, he\ndoes not even mention her name or state at all, but refers only in the\nmost general way to her nature and her sex as a daughter of Adam: \"But\nwhen the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, MADE OF A\nWOMAN, made under the law; to redeem them that were under the Law, that\nwe might receive the adoption of sons.\" [Gal. iv. 4.] From a time\ncertainly within a few days of our Saviour's ascension the Scriptures\nare totally silent throughout as to Mary, whether in life or in death.\n\nHere we might well proceed to contrast this view which the Scriptures of\neternal truth give of the blessed Virgin Mary with the authorized and\nappointed worship of that branch of the Christian Church which is in\ncommunion with Rome. We must first, however, here also examine the\ntreasures of Christian antiquity, and ascertain what witness the\nearliest uninspired records bear on this immediate point. {287}\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.--EVIDENCE OF PRIMITIVE WRITERS.\n\n\nClosing the inspired volume, and seeking at the fountain-head for the\nevidence of Christian antiquity, what do we find? For upwards of three\ncenturies and a half (the limit put to our present inquiry) we discover\nin no author, Christian or heathen, any trace whatever of the invocation\nof the Virgin Mary by Catholic Christians. I have examined every passage\nwhich I have found adduced by writers of the Church of Rome, and have\nsearched for any other passages which might appear to deserve\nconsideration as bearing favourably on their view of the subject; and\nthe worship of the Virgin, such as is now insisted upon by the Council\nof Trent, prescribed by the Roman ritual, and practised in the Church of\nRome, is proved by such an examination to have had neither name, nor\nplace, nor existence among the early Christians. Forgive my importunity\nif I again and again urge you to join us in weighing these facts well;\nand to take your view of them from no advocate on the one side or the\nother. Search the Scriptures for yourselves, search the earliest writers\nfor yourselves, and for yourselves search with all diligence into the\nauthentic and authorized liturgies of your own Church, your missals, and\nbreviaries, and formularies. Hearsay evidence, testimony {288} taken at\nsecond or third hand, vague rumours and surmises will probably expose\nus, on either side, to error. Let well-sifted genuine evidence be\nbrought by an upright and an enlightened mind to bear on the point at\nissue, and let the issue joined be this, Is the practice of praying to\nthe Virgin, and praising her, in the language of the prayers and praises\nnow used in the prescribed formularies of the Roman Church, primitive.\nCatholic, Apostolical?\n\nI am aware that among those who adhere to the Tridentine Confession of\nfaith, there are many on whom this investigation will not be allowed to\nexercise any influence.\n\nThe sentiments of Huet, wherever they are adopted, would operate to the\ntotal rejection of such inquiries as we are instituting in this work.\nHis words on the immaculate conception of the Virgin are of far wider\napplication than the immediate occasion on which he used them, \"That the\nblessed Mary never conceived any sin in herself is in the present day an\nestablished principle of the Church, and confirmed by the Council of\nTrent. In which it is our duty to acquiesce, rather than in the dicta of\nthe ancients, if any seem to think otherwise, among whom must be\nnumbered Origen.\" [Origen's Works, vol. iv. part 2, p. 156.]\n\nIn this address, however, we take for granted that the reader is open to\nconviction, desirous of arriving at the truth, and, with that view,\nready to examine and sift the evidence of primitive antiquity.\n\nIn that investigation our attention is very soon called to the\nremarkable fact, that, whereas in the case of the invocation of saints\nand angels, the defenders of that doctrine and practice bring forward a\ngreat variety of passages, in which mention is supposed to be made of\n{289} those beings as objects of honour and reverential and grateful\nremembrance, the passages quoted with a similar view, as regards the\nVirgin Mary, are very few indeed: whilst the passages which intimate\nthat the early Christians paid her no extraordinary honour (certainly\nnot more than we of the Anglican Church do now) are innumerable.\n\nI have thought that it might be satisfactory here to refer to each\nseparately of those earliest writers, whose testimony we have already\nexamined on the general question of the invocation of saints and angels,\nand, as nearly as may be, in the same order.\n\nIn the former department of our investigation we first endeavoured to\nascertain the evidence of those five primitive writers, who are called\nthe Apostolical Fathers; and, with regard to the subject now before us,\nthe result of our inquiry into the same works is this:\n\n1. In the Epistle ascribed to BARNABAS we find no allusion to Mary.\n\n2. The same must be affirmed of the book called The Shepherd of HERMAS.\n\n3. In CLEMENT of Rome, who speaks of the Lord Jesus having descended\nfrom Abraham according to the flesh, no mention is made of that daughter\nof Abraham of whom he was born.\n\n4. IGNATIUS in a passage already quoted (Ad Eph. vii. p. 13 and 16)\nspeaks of Christ both in his divine and human nature as Son of God and\nman, and he mentions the name of Mary, but it is without any adjunct or\nobservation whatever, \"both of Mary and of God.\" In another place he\nspeaks of her virgin state, and the fruit of her womb; and of her having\nborne our God Jesus the Christ; but he adds no {290} more; not even\ncalling her \"The blessed,\" or \"The Virgin.\" In the interpolated Epistle\nto the Ephesians, the former passage adds \"the Virgin\" after \"Mary,\" but\nnothing more.\n\n5. In the Epistle of POLYCARP we find an admonition to virgins (Page\n186), how they ought to walk with a spotless and chaste conscience, but\nthere is no allusion to the Virgin Mary.\n\nJUSTIN MARTYR. In this writer I do not find any passage so much in point\nas the following, in which we discover no epithet expressive of honour,\nor dignity, or exaltation, though it refers to Mary in her capacity of\nthe Virgin mother of our Lord:--\"He therefore calls Himself the Son of\nMan, either from his birth of a virgin, who was of the race of David,\nand Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, or because Abraham himself was the\nfather of those persons enumerated, from whom Mary drew her origin.\"\n[Trypho, \u00a7 100. p. 195.] And a little below he adds, \"For Eve being a\nvirgin and incorrupt, having received the word from the serpent, brought\nforth transgression and death; but Mary the Virgin having received faith\nand joy (on the angel Gabriel announcing to her the glad tidings, that\nthe Spirit of the Lord should come upon her, and the power of the\nHighest overshadow her) answered, Be it unto me according to thy word.\nAnd of her was born He of whom we have shown that so many Scriptures\nhave been spoken; He by whom God destroys the serpent, and angels and\nmen resembling [the serpent]; but works a rescue from death for such as\nrepent of evil and believe in Him.\" One more passage will suffice, \"And\naccording to the command of God, Joseph, taking Him with Mary, went into\nEgypt.\" [Trypho, \u00a7 102. p. 196.] {291}\n\nAmong those \"Questions\" to which we have referred under the head of\nJustin Martyr's works, but which are confessedly of a much less remote\ndate, probably of the fifth century, an inquiry is made, How could\nChrist be free from blame, who so often set at nought his parent? The\nanswer is, that He did not set her at nought; that He honoured her in\ndeed, and would not have hurt her by his words;--but then the respondent\nadds, that Christ chiefly honoured Mary in that view of her maternal\ncharacter, under which all who heard the word of God and kept it, were\nhis brothers and sisters and mother; and that she surpassed all women in\nvirtue. [Qu. 136. p. 500.]\n\nIREN\u00c6US. To the confused passage relied upon by Bellarmin, in which\nIren\u00e6us is supposed to represent Mary as the advocate of Eve, we have\nalready fully referred (page 120 of this work). In that passage there is\nno allusion to any honour paid, or to be paid to her, nor to any\ninvocation of her. In every passage to which my attention has been\ndrawn, Iren\u00e6us speaks of the mother of our Lord as Mary, or the Virgin,\nwithout any adjunct, or term of reverence.\n\nCLEMENT of Alexandria speaks of the Virgin, and refers to an opinion\nrelative to her virgin-state, but without one word of honour. [Stromat.\nvii. 16. p. 889.]\n\nTERTULLIAN[101]. The passages in which this ancient writer refers to the\nmother of our Lord are very far from countenancing the religious worship\nnow paid to her by Roman Catholics: \"The brothers of the Lord had not\nbelieved on him, as it is contained in the Gospel published {292} before\nMarcion. His mother likewise is not shown to have adhered to him;\nwhereas others, Marys and Marthas, were frequently in his company.\" (See\nTert. De carne Christi, c. 7. (p. 364. De Sacy, 29. 439.)) And he tells\nus that Christ was brought forth by a virgin, who was also about to be\nmarried once after the birth, that the two titles of sanctity might be\nunited in Christ by a mother who was both a virgin and also once\nmarried[102].\n\n [Footnote 101: Paris, 1675. De carne Christi, vii. p. 315. De\n Monogamia, vii. p. 529. N.B. Both these treatises were probably\n written after he became a Montanist.]\n\n [Footnote 102: On the works once ascribed to Methodius, but now\n pronounced to be spurious, see above, p. 131.]\n\nORIGEN thus speaks: \"Announcing to Zacharias the birth of John, and to\nMary the advent of our Saviour among men.\" [Comment on John, \u00a7 24. vol.\niv. p. 82.] In his eighth homily on Leviticus, he refers to Mary as a\npure Virgin. [Vol. ii. p. 228.] In the forged work of later times, the\nwriter, speaking of our Saviour, says, \"He had on earth an immaculate\nand chaste mother, this much blessed Virgin Mary.\" [Hom. iii. in\nDiversos.]\n\nIn CYPRIAN we do not find one word expressive of honour or reverence\ntowards the Virgin Mary. Nor is her name mentioned in the letter of his\ncorrespondent Firmilian, Bishop of Cappadocia.\n\nLACTANTIUS speaks of \"a holy virgin\" [Vol. i. p. 299.] chosen for the\nwork of Christ but not one other word of honour, or tending to\nadoration; though whilst dwelling on the incarnation of the Son of God,\nhad he or his fellow-believers paid religious honour to her, he could\nscarcely have avoided all allusion to it.\n\nEUSEBIUS speaks of the Virgin Mary, but is altogether silent as to any\nreligious honour of any kind being due to her. In the Oration of the\nEmperor Constantine (as it is recorded by Eusebius), direct mention is\nmade of the \"chaste virginity,\" and of the maid who was mother {293} of\nGod, and yet remained a virgin. But the object present to the author's\nmind was so exclusively God manifest in the flesh, that he does not\nthroughout even mention the name of Mary, or allude to any honour paid\nor due to her. [Cantab. 1720. \u00a7 11. p. 689. and \u00a7 19. p. 703.]\n\nATHANASIUS, bent ever on establishing the perfect divinity and humanity\nof Christ, thus speaks: \"The general scope of Holy Scripture is to make\na twofold announcement concerning the Saviour, that He was always God,\nand is a Son; being the Word and the brightness and wisdom of the\nFather, and that He afterwards became man for us, taking flesh of the\nVirgin Mary, who bare God ([Greek: taes theotokou]).\" [Athan. Orat. iii.\nCont. Arian. p. 579.]\n\nThe work which we have already examined, called The Apostolical\nConstitutions, compiled probably about the commencement of the fourth\ncentury, cannot be read without leaving an impression clear and powerful\non the mind, that no religious honour was paid to the Virgin Mary at the\ntime when they were written; certainly not more than is now cheerfully\npaid to her memory by us of the Anglican Church. Take, for example, the\nprayer prescribed to be used on the appointment of a Deaconess; the\ninference from it must be, that others with whom the Lord's Spirit had\ndwelt, were at least held in equal honour with Mary: \"O Eternal God,\nFather of our Lord Jesus Christ, Maker of male and female, who didst\nfill with thy Spirit Miriam, and Hannah, and Holda, and didst not\ndisdain that thy Son should be born of a woman,\" &c. [Book viii. c. 20.]\nThus, {294} too, in another passage, Mary is spoken of just as other\nwomen who had the gift of prophecy; and of her equally and in\nconjunction with the others it is said, that they were not elated by the\ngift, nor lifted themselves up against the men. \"But even have women\nprophesied; in ancient times Miriam, the sister of Aaron and Moses;\nafter her Deborah; and afterwards Huldah and Judith; one under Josiah,\nthe other under Darius; and the mother of the Lord also prophesied, and\nElizabeth her kinswoman; and Anna; and in our day the daughters of\nPhilip; yet they were not lifted up against the men, but observed their\nown measure. Therefore among you also should any man or woman have such\na grace, let them be humble, that God may take pleasure in them.\" [Book\nviii. c. 2.]\n\nIn the Apostolical Canons I find no reference to Mary; nor indeed any\npassage bearing on our present inquiry, except the last clause of all,\ncontaining the benediction. In this passage not only is the prayer for\nspiritual blessings addressed to God alone, but it is offered\nexclusively through the mediation of Christ alone, without alluding to\nintercessions of angels saints, or the Virgin: \"Now may God, the only\nunproduced Being, the Creator of all things, unite you all by peace in\nthe Holy Ghost; make you perfect unto every good work, not to be turned\naside, unblameable, not deserving reproof; and may He deem you worthy of\neternal life with us, by the mediation of his beloved Son Jesus Christ\nour God and Saviour: with whom be glory to Him the Sovereign God and\nFather, in the Holy Ghost the Comforter, now and ever, world without\nend. Amen.\" [Vol. i. p. 450.]\n\nI have not intentionally omitted any ancient author {295} falling within\nthe limits of our present inquiry, nor have I neglected any one passage\nwhich I could find bearing testimony to any honour paid to the Virgin.\nThe result of my research is, that I have not discovered one solitary\nexpression which implies that religious invocation and honour, such as\nis now offered to Mary by the Church of Rome, was addressed to her by\nthe members of the primitive Catholic Church. {296}\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.--THE ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN MARY.\n\n\nBy the Church of England, two festivals are observed in grateful\ncommemoration of two events relating to Mary as the mother of our\nLord:--the announcement of the Saviour's birth by the message of an\nangel, called, \"The Annunciation of the blessed Virgin Mary,\" and \"The\nPresentation of Christ in the Temple,\" called also, \"The Purification of\nSaint Mary the Virgin.\" In the service for the first of these\nsolemnities, we are taught to pray that, as we have known the\nincarnation of the Son of God by the message of an angel, so by his\nCross and Passion we may be brought to the glory of his resurrection. In\nthe second, we humbly beseech the Divine Majesty that, as his\nonly-begotten Son was presented in the Temple in the substance of our\nflesh, so we may be presented unto Him with pure and clean hearts by the\nsame, his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. These days are observed to\ncommemorate events declared to us on the most sure warrant of Holy\nScripture; and these prayers are primitive and evangelical. They pray\nonly to God for spiritual blessings through his Son. The second prayer\nwas used in the Church {297} from very early times, and is still\nretained in the Roman Breviary (Hus. Brev. Rom. H. 536.); whereas,\ninstead of the first[103], we find there unhappily a prayer now\nsupplicating that those who offer it, \"believing Mary to be truly the\nMother of God, might be aided by her intercessions with Him.\" [V. 496.]\n\n [Footnote 103: This collect also is found in the Roman Missal,\n as a Prayer at the Post Communion; though it does not appear in\n the Breviarium Romanum.]\n\nIn the Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, feasts are observed to\nthe honour of the Virgin Mary, in which the Anglican Church cannot join;\nsuch as the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, and the immaculate conception\nof her by her mother. On the origin and nature of these feasts it is not\nmy intention to dwell. I can only express my regret, that by appointing\na service and a collect commemorative of the Conception of the\nVirgin[104] in her mother's womb, and praying that the observance of\nthat solemnity may procure the votaries an increase of peace, the Church\nof Rome has given countenance to a superstition, against which at its\ncommencement, so late as the 12th century, St. Bernard strongly\nremonstrated, in an epistle to the monks of Lyons; a superstition which\nhas been supported and explained by discussions in no way profitable to\nthe head or the heart. [Epist. 174. Paris, 1632, p. 1538.]\n\n [Footnote 104: Ut quibus beat\u00e6 Virginis partus exstitit salutis\n exordium, conceptionis ejus votiva solemnitas pacis tribuat\n incrementum. H. 445.]\n\nOf all these institutions however in honour of the Virgin, the Feast of\nthe ASSUMPTION appears to be as it were the crown and the\nconsummation[105]. This festival {298} is kept to celebrate the\nmiraculous taking up (assumptio) of the Virgin Mary into heaven. And its\ncelebration, in Roman Catholic countries, is observed in a manner worthy\na cause to which our judgment would give deliberately its sanction; in\nwhich our feelings would safely and with satisfaction rest on the\nfirmness of our faith; from joining in which a truly pious mind would\nhave no ground for inward misgiving, nor for the aspiration, Would it\nwere founded in truth!\n\n [Footnote 105: \"The Assumption of the Virgin Mary is the\n greatest of all the festivals which the Church celebrates in her\n honour. It is the consummation of all the other great mysteries\n by which her life was rendered most wonderful. It is the\n birthday of her true greatness and glory, and the crown of all\n the virtues of her whole life, which we admire single in her\n other festivals.\" Alban Butler, vol. viii. p. 175.]\n\nBefore such a solemn office of praise and worship were ever admitted\namong the institutions of the religion of truth, its originators and\ncompilers should have built upon sure grounds; careful too should they\nalso be who now join in the service, and so lend it the countenance of\ntheir example; more especially should those sift the evidence well, who,\nby their doctrine and writings, uphold, and defend, and advance it; lest\nthey prove at the last to love Rome rather than the truth as it is in\nJesus. So solemn, so marked, a religious service in the temples and at\nthe altar of HIM who is the truth, a service so exalted above his\nfellows, ought beyond question to be founded on the most sure warrant of\nHoly Scripture, or at the least on undisputed historical evidence, as to\nthe alleged matter of fact on which it is built,--the certain,\nacknowledged, uninterrupted, and universal testimony of the Church\nCatholic from the very time. They incur a momentous responsibility who\naid in propagating for religious truths the inventions of men[106].\n\n [Footnote 106: Very different opinions are held by Roman\n Catholic writers as to the antiquity of this feast. All, indeed,\n maintain that it is of very ancient introduction; but whilst\n some, with Lambecius (lib. viii. p. 286), maintain the antiquity\n of the festival to be so remote, that its origin cannot be\n traced; and thence infer that it was instituted by a silent and\n unrecorded act of the Apostles themselves; others (among whom\n Kollarius, the learned annotator on the opinion of Lambecius)\n acknowledged, that it was introduced by an ordinance of the\n Church, though not at the same time in all countries of\n Christendom. That annotator assigns its introduction at Rome to\n the fourth century; at Constantinople to the sixth; in Germany\n and France to the ninth.] {299}\n\nBut what is the real state of the case with regard to the fact of the\nAssumption of the Virgin Mary? It rests (as we shall soon see) on no\nauthentic history; it is supported by no primitive tradition. I profess\nmy surprise to have been great, when I found the most celebrated\ndefenders of the Roman Catholic cause, instead of citing such evidence\nas would bear with it even the appearance of probability, appealing to\nhistories written more than a thousand years after the alleged event, to\nforged documents and vague rumours. I was willing to doubt the\nsufficiency of my research; till I found its defenders, instead of\nalleging and establishing by evidence what God was by them said to have\ndone, contenting themselves with asserting his omnipotence, in proof\nthat the doctrine implied no impossibility; dwelling on the fitness and\nreasonableness of his working such a miracle in the honour of her who\nwas chosen to be the mother of his eternal Son; and whilst they took the\nfact as granted, substituting for argument glowing and fervent\ndescriptions of what might have been the joy in heaven, and what ought\nto be the feelings of mortals on earth.\n\nAt every step of the inquiry into the merits of this case, the principle\nrecurs to the mind, that, as men really and in earnest looking onward to\na life after this, our duty is to ascertain to the utmost of our {300}\npower, not what God could do, not what we or others might pronounce it\nfit that God should do, but what He has done; not what would be\nagreeable to our feelings, were it true, but what, whether agreeably or\nadversely to our feelings or wishes, is proved to be true. The very\nmoment a Christian writer refers me from evidence to possibilities, I\nfeel that he knows not the nature of Christianity; he throws me back\nfrom the sure and certain hope of the Gospel to the \"beautiful fable\" of\nSocrates,--\"It were better to be there than here, IF THESE THINGS ARE\nTRUE.\"\n\nBut let us inquire into the facts of the case.\n\nFirst, I would observe that it is by no means agreed among all who have\nwritten upon the subject, what was the place, or what was the time of\nthe Virgin's death. Whilst some have maintained that she breathed her\nlast at Ephesus, the large majority assert that her departure from this\nworld took place at Jerusalem. And as to the time of her death, some\nhave assigned it to the year 48 of the Christian era, about the time at\nwhich Paul and Barnabas (as we read in Holy Scripture) returned to\nAntioch; whilst others refer it to a later date. I am not, however,\naware of any supposition which fixes it at a period subsequent to that\nat which the canon of Scripture closes. Epiphanius indeed, towards the\nclose of the fourth century, reminding us that Scripture is totally and\npurely silent on the subject as well of Mary's death and burial, as of\nher having accompanied St. John in his travels or not, without alluding\nto any tradition as to her assumption, thus sums up his sentiments: \"I\ndare to say nothing; but considering it, I observe silence.\" [Epiph.\nvol. i. p. 1043.] {301}\n\nShould any of my readers have deliberately adopted as the rule of their\nfaith the present practice of the Church of Rome, I cannot hope that\nthey will take any interest in the following inquiry; but I have been\nassured, by most sensible and well-informed members of that Church, that\nthere is a very general desire entertained to have this and other\nquestions connected with our subject examined without prejudice, and\ncalmly placed before them. To such persons I trust this chapter may not\nappear altogether unworthy of their consideration. Those who would turn\nfrom it on the principle to which we have here alluded, will find\nthemselves very closely responding to the sentiments professed by St.\nBernard, \"Exalt her who is exalted above the choirs of angels to the\nheavenly kingdom. These things the Church sings to me of her, and has\ntaught me to sing the same to others. For my part, what I have received\nfrom it, I am secure in holding and delivering; which also, I confess, I\nam not OVER-SCRUPULOUS in admitting. (Quod non scrupulosius fateor\nadmiserim.) I have received in truth from the Church that that day is to\nbe observed with the highest veneration on which she was TAKEN up\n(assumpta) from this wicked world, and carrying with her into heaven\nfeasts of the most celebrated joys[107].\"\n\n [Footnote 107: See Lambecius, book viii. p. 286. The letter of\n St. Bernard is addressed to the Canons of Lyons on the\n Conception of the holy Mary. Paris, 1632, p. 1538. His\n observations in that letter, with a view of discountenancing the\n rising superstition, in juxtaposition with these sentiments, are\n well deserving the serious consideration of every one.]\n\nLet us then, with the authorized and enjoined service of the Church of\nRome for the 15th of August before us, examine the evidence on which\nthat religious {302} service, the most solemn consummation of all the\nrest, is founded.\n\nIn the service of the Assumption, more than twice seven times is it\nreiterated in a very brief space, and with slight variations of\nexpression, that Mary was taken up into heaven; and that, not on any\ngeneral and indefinite idea of her beatific and glorified state, but\nwith reference to one specific single act of divine favour, performed at\na fixed time, effecting her assumption, as it is called, \"to-day.\" [\u00c6s.\n595.] \"To-day Mary the Virgin ascended the heavens. Rejoice, because she\nis reigning with Christ for ever.\" \"Mary the Virgin is taken up into\nheaven, to the ethereal chamber in which the King of kings sits on his\nstarry throne.\" \"The holy mother of God hath been exalted above the\nchoirs of angels to the heavenly realms.\" \"Come, let us worship the King\nof kings, to whose ethereal heaven the Virgin Mother was taken up\nto-day.\" And that it is her bodily ascension, her corporeal assumption\ninto heaven, and not merely the transit of her soul[108] from mortal\nlife to eternal bliss, which the Roman Church maintains and propagates\nby this service, is put beyond doubt by the service itself. In the\nfourth and sixth reading[109], or lesson, for example, we find these\n{303} sentences:--\"She returned not into the earth but is seated in the\nheavenly tabernacles.\" \"How could death devour, how could those below\nreceive, how could corruption invade, THAT BODY, in which life was\nreceived? For it a direct, plain, and easy path to heaven was prepared.\"\n\n [Footnote 108: Lambecius, indeed (book viii. p. 306), distinctly\n affirms, that one object which the Church had in view was to\n condemn the HERESY of those who maintain that the reception of\n the Virgin into heaven, was the reception of her soul only, and\n not also of her body. \"Ut damnet eorum h\u00e6resin qui sanctissim\u00e6\n Dei genetricis rcceptionem in coelum ad animam ipsius tantum,\n non vero simul etiam ad corpus pertinere existimant.\"]\n\n [Footnote 109: Non reversa est in terram, sed ... in coelestibus\n tabernaculis collocatum. Quomodo mois devoraret, quomodo inferi\n susciperent, quomodo corruptio invaderit CORPUS ILLUD in quo\n vita suscepta est? Huic recta plana et facilis ad coelum parata\n est via. \u00c6s. 603, 604.]\n\nNow, on what authority does this doctrine rest? On what foundation stone\nis this religious worship built? The holy Scriptures are totally and\nprofoundly silent, as to the time, the place, the manner of Mary's\ndeath. Once after the ascension of our Lord, and that within eight days,\nwe find mentioned the name of Mary promiscuously with others; after\nthat, no allusion is made to her in life or in death; and no account, as\nfar as I can find, places her death too late for mention to have been\nmade of it in the Acts of the Apostles. The historian, Nicephorus\nCallistus, refers it to the 5th year of Claudius, that is about A.D. 47:\nafter which period, events through more than fifteen years are recorded\nin that book of sacred Scripture.\n\nBut closing the holy volume, what light does primitive antiquity enable\nus to throw on this subject?\n\nThe earliest testimony quoted by the defenders of the doctrine, that\nMary was at her death taken up bodily into heaven, is a supposed entry\nin the Chronicon of Eusebius, opposite the year of our Lord 48. This is\ncited by Coccius without any remark; and even Baronius rests the date of\nMary's assumption upon this testimony. [Vol. i. 403.] The words referred\nto are these,--\"Mary the Virgin, the mother of Jesus, was taken up into\nheaven; as some write that it had been revealed to them.\" {304}\n\nNow, suppose for one moment that this came from the pen of Eusebius\nhimself, to what does it amount? A chronologist in the fourth century\nrecords that some persons, whom he does not name, not even stating when\nthey lived, had written down, not what they had heard as matter of fact,\nor received by tradition, but that a revelation had been made to them of\na fact alleged to have taken place nearly three centuries before the\ntime of that writer. But instead of this passage deserving the name of\nEusebius as its author, it is now on all sides acknowledged to be\naltogether a palpable interpolation. Suspicions, one would suppose, must\nhave been at a very remote date suggested as to the genuineness of this\nsentence. Many manuscripts, especially the seven in the Vatican, were\nknown to contain nothing of the kind; and the Roman Catholic editor of\nthe Chronicon at Bordeaux, A.D. 1604, tells us that he was restrained\nfrom expunging it, only because nothing certain as to the assumption of\nthe Virgin could be substituted in its stead. [P. 566.] Its spuriousness\nhowever can no longer be a question of dispute or doubt; it is excluded\nfrom the Milan edition of 1818, by Angelo Maio and John Zohrab; and no\ntrace of it is to be found in the Armenian[110] version, published by\nthe monks of the Armenian convent at Venice, in 1818.\n\n [Footnote 110: The author visited that convent whilst this\n edition of the Chronicon of Eusebius was going through the\n press, and can testify to the apparent anxiety of the monks to\n make it worthy of the patronage of Christians.]\n\nThe next authority, to which we are referred, is a letter[111] said to\nhave been written by Sophronius the {305} presbyter, about the\ncommencement of the fifth century. The letter used to be ascribed to\nJerome; Erasmus referred it to Sophronius; but Baronius says it was\nwritten \"by an egregious forger of lies,\" (\"egregius mendaciorum\nconcinnator,\") who lived after the heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches\nhad been condemned. I am not at all anxious to enter upon that point of\ncriticism; that the letter is of very ancient origin cannot be doubted.\nThis document would lead us to conclude, that so far from the tradition\nregarding the Virgin's assumption being general in the Church, it was a\npoint of grave doubt and discussion among the faithful, many of whom\nthought it an act of pious forbearance to abstain altogether from\npronouncing any opinion on the subject. Whoever penned the letter, and\nwhether we look to the sensible and pious sentiments contained in it, or\nto its undisputed antiquity, the following extract cannot fail to be\ninteresting[112].\n\n [Footnote 111: The letter is entitled \"Ad Paulam et Eustochium\n de Assumptione B.M. Virginis.\" It is found in the fifth volume\n of Jerome's works, p. 82. Edit. Jo. Martian.]\n\n [Footnote 112: Baronius shows great anxiety (Cologne, 1609, vol.\n i. p. 408) to detract from the value of this author's testimony,\n whoever he was; sharply criticising him because he asserts, that\n the faithful in his time still expressed doubts as to the matter\n of fact of Mary's assumption. By assigning, however, to the\n letter a still later date than the works of Sophronius, Baronius\n adds strength to the arguments for the comparatively recent\n origin of the tradition of her assumption. See Fabricius\n (Hamburgh, 1804), vol. ix. p. 160.]\n\n\"Many of our people doubt whether Mary was taken up together with her\nbody, or went away, leaving the body. But how, or at what time, or by\nwhat persons her most holy body was taken hence, or whither removed, or\nwhether it rose again, is not known; although some will maintain that\nshe is already revived, and is clothed with a blessed immortality with\nChrist in heavenly places, which very many affirm also of the blessed\n{306} John, the Evangelist, his servant, to whom being a virgin, the\nvirgin was intrusted by Christ, because in his sepulchre, as it is\nreported, nothing is found but manna, which also is seen to flow forth.\nNevertheless which of these opinions should be thought the more true we\ndoubt. Yet it is better to commit all to God, to whom nothing is\nimpossible, than to wish to define rashly[113] by our own authority any\nthing, which we do not approve of.... Because nothing is impossible with\nGod, we do not deny that something of the kind was done with regard to\nthe blessed Virgin Mary; although for caution's sake (salva fide)\npreserving our faith, we ought rather with pious desire to think, than\ninconsiderately to define, what without danger may remain unknown.\" This\nletter, at the earliest, was not written until the beginning of the\nfifth century.\n\n [Footnote 113: These last words, stamping the author's own\n opinion, \"Which we do not approve of,\" are left out in the\n quotation of Coccius.]\n\nSubsequent writers were not wanting to fill up what this letter declares\nto have been at its own date unknown, as to the manner and time of\nMary's assumption, and the persons employed in effecting it. The first\nauthority appealed to in defence of the tradition relating to the\nassumption of the Virgin[114], is usually cited as a well-known work\nwritten by Euthymius, who was contemporary with Juvenal, Archbishop of\nJerusalem. And the testimony simply quoted as his, offers to us the\nfollowing account of the miraculous transaction[115]:--\n\n [Footnote 114: Coccius heads the extract merely with these\n words: \"Euthumius Eremita Histori\u00e6 Ecclesiastic\u00e6, lib. iii. c.\n 40;\" assigning the date A.D. 549.]\n\n [Footnote 115: This version by Coccius differs in some points\n from the original. Jo. Dam. vol. ii. p. 879.]\n\n\"It has been above said, that the holy Pulcheria {307} built many\nchurches to Christ at Constantinople. Of these, however, there is one\nwhich was built in Blachern\u00e6, in the beginning of Marcian I's _reign_ of\ndivine memory. These, therefore, namely, Marcian and Pulcheria, when\nthey had built a venerable temple to the greatly to be celebrated and\nmost holy mother of God and ever Virgin Mary, and had decked it with all\nornaments, sought her most holy body, which had conceived God. And\nhaving sent for Juvenal, Archbishop of Jerusalem, and the bishops of\nPalestine, who were living in the royal city on account of the synod\nthen held at Chalcedon, they say to them, 'We hear that there is in\nJerusalem the first and famous Church of Mary, mother of God and ever\nVirgin, in the garden called Gethsemane, where her body which bore the\nLife was deposited in a coffin. We wish, therefore, her relics to be\nbrought here for the protection of this royal city. But Juvenal\nanswered, 'In the holy and divinely inspired Scripture, indeed, nothing\nis recorded of the departure of holy Mary, mother of God. But from an\nancient and most true tradition we have received, that at the time of\nher glorious falling asleep, all the holy Apostles who were going\nthrough the world for the salvation of the nations, in a moment of time\nborne aloft, came together at Jerusalem. And when they were near her,\nthey had a vision of angels, and divine melody of the highest powers was\nheard: and thus with divine and more than heavenly glory, she delivered\nher holy soul into the hands of God in an unspeakable manner. But that\nwhich had conceived God being borne with angelic and apostolic psalmody,\nwith funeral rites, was deposited in a coffin in Gethsemane. In this\nplace the chorus and singing of the angels continued for three whole\ndays. But {308} after three days, on the angelic music ceasing, since\none of the Apostles had been absent, and came after the third day, and\nwished to adore the body which had conceived God, the Apostles, who were\npresent, opened the coffin; but the body, pure and every way to be\npraised, they could not at all find. And when they found only those\nthings in which it had been laid out and placed there, and were filled\nwith an ineffable fragrancy proceeding from those things, they shut the\ncoffin. Being astounded at the miraculous mystery, they could form no\nother thought, but that He, who in his own person had vouchsafed to be\nclothed with flesh, and to be made man of the most holy Virgin, and to\nbe born in the flesh, God the Word, and Lord of Glory, and who after\nbirth had preserved her virginity immaculate, had seen it good after she\nhad departed from among the living, to honour her uncontaminated and\nunpolluted body by a translation before the common and universal\nresurrection.\"\n\nSuch is the passage offered to us in its insulated form, as an extract\nfrom Euthymius. To be enabled, however, to estimate its worth, the\ninquirer must submit to the labour of considerable research. He will not\nhave pursued his investigation far, before he will find, that a thick\ncloud of uncertainty and doubt hangs over this page of ecclesiastical\nhistory. Not that the evidence alleged in support of the reputed miracle\ncan leave us in doubt as to the credibility of the tradition; for that\ntradition can scarcely be now countenanced by the most zealous and\nuncompromising maintainers of the assumption of the Virgin. What I would\nsay is, that the question as to the genuineness and authenticity of the\nworks by which the tradition is said to have been preserved, is far more\ndifficult and complicated, than {309} those writers must have believed,\nwho appeal to such testimony without any doubt or qualification. The\nresult of my own inquiries I submit to your candid acceptance.\n\nThe earliest author in whose reputed writings I have found the\ntradition, is John Damascenus, a monk of Jerusalem, who flourished\nsomewhat before the middle of the eighth century. The passage is found\nin the second of three homilies on the \"Sleep of the Virgin,\" a term\ngenerally used by the Greeks as an equivalent for the Latin word\n\"Assumptio.\" The original publication of these homilies in Greek and\nLatin is comparatively of a late date. Lambecius, whose work is dated\n1665, says he was not aware that any one had so published them before\nhis time[116]. But not to raise the question of their genuineness, the\npreacher's introduction of this passage into his homily is preceded by a\nvery remarkable section, affording a striking example of the manner in\nwhich Christian orators used to indulge in addresses and appeals not\nonly to the spirits of departed men, but even to things which never had\nlife. The speaker here in his sermon addresses the tomb of Mary, as\nthough it had ears to hear, and an understanding to comprehend; and then\nrepresents the tomb as having a tongue to answer, and as calling forth\nfrom the preacher and his congregation an address of admiration and\nreverence. Such apostrophes as these cannot be too steadily borne in\nmind, or too carefully weighed, when any argument is sought to be drawn\nfrom similar salutations offered by ancient Christian orators to saint,\nor angel, or the Virgin.\n\n [Footnote 116: Vol. viii. p. 281. Le Quien, who published them\n in 1712, refers to earlier homilies on the Dormitio Virginis.\n Jo. Damas. Paris, 1712. vol. ii. p. 857.] {310}\n\nThe following are among the expressions in which the preacher, in the\npassage under consideration, addresses the Virgin's tomb: \"Thou, O Tomb,\nof holy things most holy (for I will address thee as a living being),\nwhere is the much desired and much beloved body of the mother of God?\"\n[Vol. ii. p. 875.] The answer of the tomb begins thus, \"Why seek ye her\nin a tomb, who has been taken up on high to the heavenly tabernacles?\"\nIn reply to this, the preacher first deliberating with his hearers what\nanswer he should make, thus addresses the tomb: \"Thy grace indeed is\nnever-failing and eternal,\" &c. [P. 881.] By the maintainers of the\ninvocation of saints, many a passage far less unequivocal and less\ncogent than this has been adduced to show, that saints and martyrs were\ninvoked by primitive worshippers.\n\nWe find John Damascenus thus introducing the passage of Euthymius, \"Ye\nsee, beloved fathers and brethren, what answer the all-glorious tomb\nmakes to us; and that these things are so, in the EUTHYMIAC HISTORY, the\nthird book and fortieth chapter, is thus written word for word.\" [P.\n877.]\n\nLambecius maintains, that the history here quoted by John Damascenus was\nnot an ecclesiastical history, written by Euthymius, who died in A.D.\n472, but a biographical history concerning Euthymius himself, written by\nan ecclesiastic, whom he supposes to be Cyril, the monk, who died in\nA.D. 531. This opinion of Lambecius is combated by Cotelerius; the\ndiscussion only adding to the denseness of the cloud which involves the\nwhole tradition. But whether the work quoted had Euthymius for its\nauthor or its subject, the work itself is lost; and an epitome only of\nsuch a work has come down to {311} our time. In that abridgment the\npassage quoted by Damascenus is not found.\n\nThe editor of John Damascenus, Le Quien, in his annotations on this\nportion of his work, offers to us some very interesting remarks, which\nbear immediately on the agitated question as to the first observance of\nthe feast of the Assumption, as well as on the tradition itself. Le\nQuien infers, from the words of Modestus, patriarch of Jerusalem, that\nscarcely any preachers before him had addressed their congregations on\nthe departure of the Virgin out of this life; he thinks, moreover, that\nthe Feast of the Assumption was at the commencement of the seventh\ncentury only recently instituted. Though all later writers affirm that\nthe Virgin was buried in the valley of Jehoshaphat, in the garden of\nGethsemane, the same editor says, that this could not have been known to\nJerome, who passed a great part of his life in Bethlehem, and yet\nobserves a total silence on the subject; though in his \"Epitaph on\nPaula,\" [Jerome, Paris, 1706. Vol. iv. p. 670-688, ep. 86.] he\nenumerates all the places in Palestine consecrated by any remarkable\nevent. Neither, he adds, could it have been known to Epiphanius, who,\nthough he lived long in Palestine, yet declares that nothing was known\nas to the death or burial of the Virgin. [Vol. ii, p. 858.]\n\nAgain, in his remarks upon the writings falsely attributed to Melito,\nthe same editor says, that since this Pseudo-Melito speaks many jejune\nthings of the Virgin Mary, (such for example as at the approach of death\nher exceeding fear of being exposed to the wiles of Satan,) he\nconcludes, from that circumstance, that the work was written before the\nCouncil of Ephesus; alleging this very remarkable reason, that \"after\nthat {312} time there BEGAN TO BE ENTERTAINED, as was right, not only in\nthe East, but also in the West, a far better estimate of the parent of\nGod.\" [P. 880.]\n\nMany of the remarks of this editor would appear to savour of prejudice\nhad they come from the pen of one who denied the reality of the\nassumption, or oppugned the honour and worship now paid by members of\nthe Church of Rome to the Virgin. Nor could the suspicion of such\nprejudice be otherwise than increased by the insinuation which the same\neditor throws out against the honesty of Archbishop Juvenal, and on the\npossibility of his having invented the whole story, and so for sinister\npurposes deceived Marcian and Pulcheria; just as he fabricated the\nwritings which he forged for the purpose of securing the primacy of\nPalestine; a crime laid to the charge of Juvenal by Leo the Great, in\nhis letter to Maximus, Bishop of Antioch. [P. 879. See Leo. vol. i. p.\n1215. Epist. cxix.]\n\nIt is moreover much to be regretted that in making the extract from John\nDamascenus those who employ it as evidence of primitive belief, have not\npresented it to their readers whole and entire. In the present case the\nsystem of quoting garbled extracts is particularly to be lamented,\nbecause the paragraphs omitted in the quotation carry in themselves\nclear proof that Juvenal's answer, as it now appears in John Damascenus,\ncould not have been made by Juvenal to Marcian and Pulcheria. For in it\nis quoted from Dionysius the Areopagite by name, a passage still found\nin the works ascribed to him; whereas by the judgment of the most\nlearned Roman Catholic writers, those spurious works did not make their\nappearance in Christendom till the beginning of the sixth century, fifty\nyears after the Council of Chalcedon, to assist at which {313} Juvenal\nis said to have been present in Constantinople when the emperor and\nempress held the alleged conversation with him.\n\nThe remainder of the passage from the history of Euthymius, rehearsed in\nthis oration of John Damascenus, is as follows: \"There were present with\nthe Apostles at that time both the most honoured Timothy the Apostle,\nand first bishop of the Ephesians, and Dionysius the Areopagite,\nhimself, as the great Dionysius testifies in the laboured words\nconcerning the blessed Hierotheus, himself also then being present, to\nthe above-named apostle Timothy, saying thus, Since with the inspired\nhierarchs themselves, when we also as thou knowest, and yourself, and\nmany of our holy brethren had come together to the sight of the body\nwhich gave the principle of life; and there was present too James the\nbrother of the Lord ([Greek: adelphotheos]), and Peter the chief and the\nmost revered head of the apostles ([Greek: theologon]); then it seemed\nright, after the spectacle, that all the hierarchs (as each was able)\nshould sing of the boundless goodness of the divine power. After the\napostles, as you know, he surpassed all the other sacred persons, wholly\ncarried away, and altogether in an ecstasy, and feeling an entire\nsympathy with what was sung; and by all by whom he was heard, and seen,\nand known (and he[117] knew it not), he was considered to be an inspired\nand divine hymnologist. And why should I speak to you about the things\nthere divinely said, for unless I have even forgotten myself, I know\nthat I have often heard from you some portions also of those inspired\ncanticles? And the royal personages having heard this, requested of\nJuvenal the archbishop, that the holy coffin, with the {314} clothes of\nthe glorious and all-holy Mary, mother of God, sealed up, might be sent\nto them. And this, when sent, they deposited in the venerable temple of\nthe Mother of God, built in Blachernae; and these things were so.\"\n\n [Footnote 117: This seems confused in the original ([Greek: kai\n eginosketo, kai ouk eginoske]). The whole passage is involved in\n great obscurity.]\n\nIt is a fact no less lamentable than remarkable, that out of the lessons\nappointed by the Church of Rome for the feast of the Assumption, to be\nread to believers assembled in God's house of prayer, three of those\nlessons are selected and taken entirely from this very oration of John\nDamascenus[118].\n\n [Footnote 118:\n\n The Fourth Lesson begins \"Hodie sacra et animata arca.\"\n The Fifth \" \" \"Hodie virgo immaculata.\"\n The Sixth \" \" \"Eva qu\u00e6 serpentis,\" &c.--\u00c6. 603.\n\n These contain the passages to which we have before referred as\n fixing the belief of the Church of Rome to be in the CORPOREAL\n assumption of Mary. \"Quomodo corruptio invaderet CORPUS ILLUD in\n quo vita suscepta est? [Greek: pos diaphthora tou zoodochon\n katatolmaeseie somatos.]\"]\n\nThis, then, is the account nearest to the time of the supposed event;\nand yet can any thing be more vague, and by way of testimony, more\nworthless? A writer near the middle of the sixth century refers to a\nconversation, said to have taken place in the middle of the fifth\ncentury; in this reported conversation at Constantinople, the Bishop of\nJerusalem is represented to have informed the Emperor and Empress of an\nancient tradition, which was believed, concerning a miraculous event,\nsaid to have taken place nearly four hundred years before, that the body\nwas taken out of a coffin without the knowledge of those who had\ndeposited it there: Whilst the primitive and inspired account, recording\nmost minutely the journeys and proceedings of some of those very\npersons, and the letters of others, makes no mention at all of any\ntransaction of the kind; and of {315} all the intermediate historians\nand ecclesiastical writers not one gives the slightest intimation that\nany rumour of it had reached them[119].\n\n [Footnote 119: Baronius appears not to have referred to this\n history of Euthymius, but he refers to Nicephorus, and also to a\n work ascribed to Melito, c. 4, 5. Nicephorus, Paris, 1630. vol.\n i. p. 168. lib. ii. c. 21. Baronius also refers to lib. 15. c.\n 14. This Nicephorus was Patriarch of Constantinople. He lived\n during the reign of our Edward the First, or Edward the Second,\n and cannot, therefore, be cited in any sense of the word as an\n ancient author writing on the events of the primitive ages;\n though the manner in which his testimony is appealed to would\n imply, that he was a man to whose authority on early\n ecclesiastical affairs we were now expected to defer.]\n\nAnother authority to which the writers on the assumption of the Virgin\nappeal, is that of Nicephorus Callistus, who, at the end of the\nthirteenth or the beginning of the fourteenth century, dedicated his\nwork to Andronicus Pal\u00e6ologus. The account given by Nicephorus is this:\n\nIn the fifth year of Claudius, the Virgin at the age of fifty-nine, was\nmade acquainted with her approaching death. Christ himself then\ndescended from heaven with a countless multitude of angels, to take up\nthe soul of his mother; He summoned his disciples by thunder and storm\nfrom all parts of the world. The Virgin then bade Peter first, and\nafterwards the rest of the Apostles, to come with burning torches[120].\nThe Apostles surrounded her bed, and \"an outpouring of miracles flowed\nforth.\" The blind beheld the sun, the deaf heard, the lame walked, and\nevery disease fled away. The Apostles and others sang, as the coffin was\nborne from Sion to Gethsemane, angels preceding, surrounding, and\nfollowing it. {316} A wonderful thing then took place. The Jews were\nindignant and enraged, and one more desperately bold than the rest\nrushed forward, intending to throw down the holy corpse to the ground.\nVengeance was not tardy; for his hands were cut off from his arms[121].\nThe procession stopped; and at the command of Peter, on the man shedding\ntears of penitence, his hands were joined on again and restored whole.\nAt Gethsemane she was put into a tomb, but her Son transferred her to\nthe divine habitation.\n\n [Footnote 120: This author here quotes the forged work ascribed\n to Dionysius the Areopagite, to which we have before referred.]\n\n [Footnote 121: This tradition seems to have been much referred\n to at a time just preceding our Reformation. In a volume called\n \"The Hours of the most blessed Mary, according to the legitimate\n rite of the Church of Salisbury,\" printed in Paris in 1526, from\n which we have made many extracts in the second part of this\n work, the frontispiece gives an exact representation of the\n story at the moment of the Jew's hands being cut off. They are\n severed at the wrist, and are lying on the coffin, on which his\n arms also are resting. In the sky the Virgin appears between the\n Father and the Son, the Holy Dove being seen above her. The same\n print occurs also in another part of the volume.]\n\nNicephorus then refers to Juvenal, Archbishop of Jerusalem, as the\nauthority on which the tradition was received, that the Apostles opened\nthe coffin to enable St. Thomas (the one stated to have been absent) to\nembrace the body; and then he proceeds to describe the personal\nappearance of the Virgin. [Vol. i. p. 171.]\n\nI am unwilling to trespass upon the patience of my readers by any\ncomment upon such evidence as this. Is it within the verge of\ncredibility that had such an event as Mary's assumption taken place\nunder the extraordinary circumstances which now invest the tradition, or\nunder any circumstances whatever, there would have been a total silence\nrespecting it in the Holy Scriptures? {317} That the writers of the\nfirst four centuries should never have referred to such a fact? That the\nfirst writer who alludes to it, should have lived in the middle of the\nfifth century, or later; and that he should have declared in a letter to\nhis contemporaries that the subject was one on which many doubted; and\nthat he himself would not deny it, not because it rested upon probable\nevidence, but because nothing was impossible with God; and that nothing\nwas known as to the time, the manner, or the persons concerned, even had\nthe assumption taken place? Can we place any confidence in the relation\nof a writer in the middle of the sixth century, as to a tradition of\nwhat an archbishop of Jerusalem attending the council of Chalcedon, had\ntold the sovereigns at Constantinople of a tradition, as to what was\nsaid to have happened nearly four hundred years before, whilst in the\n\"Acts\" of that Council, not the faintest trace is found of any allusion\nto the supposed fact or the alleged tradition, though the transactions\nof that Council in many of its most minute circumstances are recorded,\nand though the discussions of that Council brought the name and\ncircumstances of the Virgin Mary continually before the minds of all who\nattended it?\n\nThis, however, is a point of too great importance to be dismissed\nsummarily; and seems to require us to examine, however briefly, into the\ncircumstances of that Council. {318}\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.--COUNCILS OF CONSTANTINOPLE, EPHESUS, AND THE GENERAL\nCOUNCIL OF CHALCEDON\n\n\nThe legend on which the doctrine of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary is\nfounded professes to trace the tradition to Juvenal, Archbishop of\nJerusalem, when he was sojourning in Constantinople for the purpose of\nattending the General Council of Chalcedon. To the Emperor and Empress,\nwho presided at that council, Juvenal is said to have communicated the\ntradition, as received in Palestine, of the miraculous taking up of\nMary's body into heaven. This circumstance seems, as we have already\nintimated, of itself, to require us to examine the records of that\nCouncil, with the view of ascertaining whether any traces may be found\nconfirmatory of the tradition, or otherwise; and since that Council\ncannot be regarded as an insulated assembly, but as a continuation\nrather or resumption of the preceding minor Councils of Constantinople\nand Ephesus, we must briefly refer to the occasion and nature generally\nof that succession of Christian synods. I am not aware that in the\nprevious Councils any thing had transpired {319} which could be brought\nas evidence on the subject of our inquiry. The questions which had\ndisturbed the peace of Christendom, and which were agitated in these\nCouncils, inseparable from a repeated mention of the Virgin Mary's name,\nafforded an opportunity at every turn for an expression of the\nsentiments of those who composed the Councils, and of all connected with\nthem, including the Bishop of Rome himself, towards her. It would be\naltogether foreign from the purpose of this address to enter in any way\nat large upon the character and history of those or the preceding\nCouncils, yet a few words seem necessary, to enable us to judge of the\nnature and weight of the evidence borne by them on the question\nimmediately before us.\n\nThe source of all the disputes which then rent the Church of HIM who had\nbequeathed peace as his last and best gift to his followers, was the\nanxiety to define and explain the nature of the great Christian mystery,\nthe Incarnation of the Son of God; a point on which it were well for all\nChristians to follow only so far as the Holy Scriptures lead them by the\nhand. All parties appealed to the Nicene Council; though there seems to\nhave been, to say the least, much misunderstanding and unnecessary\nviolence and party spirit on all sides. The celebrated Eutyches of\nConstantinople was charged with having espoused heterodox doctrine, by\nmaintaining that in Christ was only one nature, the incarnate Word. On\nthis charge he was accused before a Council held at Constantinople in\nA.D. 448. His doctrine was considered to involve a denial of the human\nnature of the Son of God. The Council condemned him of heresy, deposed,\nand excommunicated him. From this proceeding Eutyches appealed to a\nGeneral Council. A council (the authority of which, however, {320} has\nbeen solemnly, but with what adequate reason we need not stop to\nexamine, repudiated), was convened at Ephesus in the following year, by\nthe Emperor Theodosius. The proceedings of this assembly were\naccompanied by lamentable unfairness and violence. Eutyches was\nacquitted, and restored by this council[122]; and his accusers were\ncondemned and persecuted; Flavianus, Archbishop of Constantinople, who\nhad summoned the preceding council, being even scourged and exiled. In\nhis distress that patriarch sought the good offices of Leo, Bishop of\nRome, who espoused his cause, but who failed nevertheless of inducing\nTheodosius to convene a General Council. His successor Marcian, however,\nconsented; and in the year 451 the Council of Chalcedon was convened,\nfirst meeting at Nice, and by adjournment being removed to Chalcedon. In\nthis council all the proceedings as well of the Council of\nConstantinople as of Ephesus, were rehearsed at length; and from a close\nexamination of the proceedings of those three councils, only one\ninference seems deducible, namely, that the invocation and worship of\nsaints and of the Virgin Mary had not then obtained that place in the\nChristian {321} Church, which the Church of Rome now assigns to it; a\nplace, however, which the Church of England, among other branches of the\nCatholic Church, maintains that it has usurped, and cannot, without a\nsacrifice of the only sound principle of religious worship, be suffered\nto retain.\n\n [Footnote 122: The sentiments of Eutyches, even as they are\n recorded by the party who charged him with heresy, seem to imply\n so much of soundness in his principles, and of moderation in his\n maintenance of those principles, that one must feel sorrow on\n finding such a man maintaining error at any time. The following\n is among the records of transactions rehearsed at Chalcedon:\n \"He, Eutyches, professed that he followed the expositions of the\n holy and blessed Fathers who formed the Councils of Nic\u00e6a and\n Ephesus, and was ready to subscribe to them. But if any where it\n might chance, as he said, that our fathers were deceived and led\n astray, that as for himself he neither accepted nor accused\n those things, but he only on such points investigated the divine\n Scriptures as more to be depended upon [Greek: os\n bebaioteras].\"]\n\nThe grand question then agitated with too much asperity, and too little\ncharity, was, whether by the incarnation our blessed Saviour became\npossessed of two natures, the divine and human. Subordinate to this, and\nnecessary for its decision, was involved the question, What part of his\nnature, if any, Christ derived from the Virgin Mary? Again and again\ndoes this question bring the name, the office, the circumstances, and\nthe nature of that holy and blessed mother of our Lord before these\nCouncils. The name of Mary is continually in the mouth of the accusers,\nthe accused, the judges, and the witnesses; and had Christian pastors\nthen entertained the same feelings of devotion towards her; had they\nprofessed the same belief as to her assumption into heaven, and her\ninfluence and authority in directing the destinies of man, and in\nprotecting the Church on earth; had they habitually appealed to her with\nthe same prayers for her intercession and good offices, and placed the\nsame confidence in her as we find now exhibited in the authorized\nservices of the Roman Ritual, it is impossible to conceive that no\nsigns, no intimation of such views and feelings, would, either directly\nor incidentally, have shown themselves, somewhere or other, among the\nmanifold and protracted proceedings of these Councils. I have searched\ndiligently, but I can find no expression as to her nature and office, or\nas to our feelings and conduct towards Mary, in which, as a {322}\nCatholic of the Anglican Church, I should not heartily acquiesce. I can\nfind no sentiment implying invocation, or religious worship of any kind,\nor in any degree; I find no allusion to her Assumption.\n\nPope Leo, who is frequently in these documents [Vol. v. p. 1418.] called\nArchbishop of Rome, in a letter to Julianus, Bishop of Cos, speaks of\nChrist as born of \"A Virgin,\" \"The blessed Virgin,\" \"The pure, undefiled\nVirgin;\" and in a letter to the empress Pulcheria, he calls Mary simply\n\"The Virgin Mary.\" In his celebrated letter to Flavianus, not one iota\nof which (according to the decree of the Roman council under Pope\nGelasius) was to be questioned by any man on pain of incurring an\nanathema, Pope Leo says that Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost in\nthe womb of the Virgin Mary his mother, who brought him forth with the\nsame virgin purity as she had conceived him. Flavianus, Archbishop of\nConstantinople, in his Declaration of faith to the Emperor Theodosius,\naffirms, that Christ was born \"of Mary, the Virgin--of the same\nsubstance with the Father according to his Godhead--of the same\nsubstance with his mother according to his manhood.\" [Vol. vi. p. 539.]\nHe speaks of her afterwards as \"The holy Virgin.\"\n\nThere is, indeed, one word used in a quotation from Cyril of Alexandria,\nand adopted in these transactions, which requires a few words of\nespecial observation. The word is _theotocos_[123], which the Latins\nwere accustomed {323} to transfer into their works, substituting only\nRoman instead of Greek characters, but which afterwards the authors of\nthe Church of Rome translated by Deipara, and in more recent ages by Dei\nMater, Dei Genetrix, Creatoris Genetrix, &c. employing those terms not\nin explanation of the twofold nature of Christ's person, as was the case\nin these Councils, but in exaltation of Mary, his Virgin mother. This\nword was adopted by Christians in much earlier times than the Council of\nChalcedon; but it was employed only to express more strongly the\nCatholic belief in the union of the divine and human nature in Him who\nwas Son both of God and man; and by no means for the purpose of raising\nMary into an object of religious adoration. The sense in which it was\nused was explained in the seventh Act of the Council of Constantinople,\n(repeated at Chalcedon) as given by Cyril of Alexandria. \"According to\nthis sense of an unconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be\ntheotocos, because that God the Word was made flesh, and became man, and\nfrom that very conception united with himself the temple received from\nher.\"\n\n [Footnote 123: [Greek: Theotokos]. To those who would depend\n upon this word _theotocos_ as a proof of the exalted honour in\n which the early Christians held the Virgin, and not as\n indicative of an anxiety to preserve whole and entire the\n doctrine of the union of perfect God and perfect man in Christ,\n deriving his manhood through her, I would suggest the necessity\n of weighing well that argument with this fact before them; that\n to the Apostle James, called in Scripture the Lord's brother,\n was assigned the name of Adelphotheos, or God's brother. This\n name was given to James, not to exalt him above his\n fellow-apostles, but to declare the faith of those who gave it\n him in the union of the divine and human nature of Christ.--See\n Joan. Damascenus, Hom. ii. c. 18. In Dormit. Virg. vol. ii. p.\n 881. Le Quien, Paris, 1712. The Latin translation renders it\n Domini frater.]\n\nNothing in our present inquiry turns upon the real {324} meaning of that\nword _theotocos_. Some who have been among the brightest ornaments of\nthe Anglican Church have adopted the translation \"mother of God,\" whilst\nmany others among us believe that the original sense would be more\ncorrectly conveyed by the expression \"mother of Him who was God.\"\n\nI am induced here to lay side by side, with the second Article of our\nAnglican Church, the Confession of Faith from Cyril, first recited at\nConstantinople, then repeated at Ephesus, and afterwards again rehearsed\nat Chalcedon; in its last clause the expression occurs which gave rise\nto these remarks.\n\n _Ancient Confession._\n\n We confess that our Lord Jesus, the Christ, the only begotten\n Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, from a reasonable soul\n and body, begotten from everlasting of the Father according to\n his Godhead, and in these last days, He the same for us and for\n our salvation [was born] of Mary, the Virgin, according to his\n manhood--of the same substance with the Father according to his\n Godhead, of the same substance with us according to his manhood.\n For of two natures there became an union. Wherefore we confess\n one Christ, one Lord. According to this sense of the unconfused\n union, we confess the holy Virgin to be theotocos, because that\n God the Word was made flesh, and became man, and from that very\n conception united with himself the temple received from her.\n\n [Vol. vi. p. 736.]\n\n _Second Article of Anglican Church._\n\n The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from\n everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one\n substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the\n blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect\n natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined\n together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one\n Christ, very God, and very man; who truly suffered, was\n crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and\n to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for\n actual sins of men. {325}\n\nBut there are other points in the course of these important proceedings\nto which I would solicit your especial attention, with the view of\ncomparing the sentiments of the Bishop of Rome at that day, and also the\nexpressions employed by other Chief Pastors of Christ's flock, with the\nlanguage of the appointed authorized services of the Roman Church now,\nand the sentiments of her reigning Pontiff, and of his accredited\nministers.\n\nThe circumstances of the Church Catholic, as represented in Leo's letter\nin the fifth century, and the circumstances of the Church of Rome, as\nlamented by the present Pope in 1832[124], are in many respects very\nsimilar. The end desired by Leo and Flavianus, his brother pastor and\ncontemporary, Bishop of Constantinople, and by Gregory, now Bishop of\nRome, is one and the same, namely, the suppression of heresy, the\nprevalence of the truth, and the unity of the Christian Church. But how\nwidely and how strikingly different are the foundations on which they\nrespectively build their hopes for the attainment of that end!\n\n [Footnote 124: \"The encyclical letter of our most holy Father,\n Pope Gregory, by divine providence, the sixteenth of that name,\n to all patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops.\"]\n\nThe present Roman Pontiff's hopes, and desires, and exhortations are\nthus expressed[125]:--\n\n [Footnote 125: This is the translation circulated in the Roman\n Catholic Annual, p. 15, called, The Laity's Directory for the\n year 1833; on the title page of which is this notice: \"The\n Directory for the Church Service, printed by Messrs. Keating and\n Brown, is the only one which is published with the authority of\n the Vicars Apostolic in England.--London, Nov. 12, 1829.\" Signed\n \"James, Bishop of Usula, Vic. Ap. Lond.\"]\n\n\"That all may have a successful and happy issue, let us raise our eyes\nto the most blessed Virgin Mary, {326} WHO ALONE DESTROYS HERESIES, who\nis our GREATEST HOPE, yea, the ENTIRE GROUND OF OUR HOPE[126]. May she\nexert her patronage to draw down an efficacious blessing on our desires,\nour plans, and proceedings in the present straitened condition of the\nLord's flock. We will also implore, in humble prayer, from Peter, the\nprince of the Apostles, and from his fellow-Apostle Paul, that you may\nall stand as a wall to prevent any other foundation than what hath been\nlaid; and supported by this cheering hope, we have confidence that the\nauthor and finisher of faith, Jesus Christ, will at last console us all\nin the tribulations which have found us exceedingly.\"\n\n [Footnote 126: On this word there is a note of reference to S.\n Bern. Serm. de Nat. B.M.V. 7.]\n\n\"To you, venerable brethren, and the flocks committed to your care, we\nmost lovingly impart, as auspicious of celestial help, the Apostolic\nBenediction. Given at Rome from St. Mary Major's, August 15th, the\nFestival of the Assumption of the same blessed Virgin Mary, the year of\nour Lord 1832, of our Pontificate the Second.\"\n\nHow deplorable a change, how melancholy a degeneracy is here evinced\nfrom the faith, and hopes, and sentiments of Christian bishops in days\nof old! In the expressed hopes of Leo and Flavianus, you will seek in\nvain for any reference or allusion \"to the blessed Virgin Mary, as the\ndestroyer of heresies, the greatest hope, the entire ground of a\nChristian's hope;\" you will in vain seek for any exhortation for the\nfaithful \"to raise their eyes to her in order to obtain a merciful and\nhappy issue.\" Equally vain would be your search for any \"imploring in\nhumble prayer,\" of Peter and Paul, or any even distant allusion to help\nfrom them. {327} To God and God alone are the faithful exhorted to pray;\non God and God alone do those Christians express that their hopes rely;\nGod alone they regard as the destroyer of heresy, the restorer of peace,\nand the protector of the Church's unity. \"Their greatest hope, yea, the\nentire ground of their hope,\" the Being to be \"implored in humble\nprayer,\" is not Mary, nor Peter, nor Paul, but God alone, the Creator,\nthe Redeemer, the Sanctifier of Mary, and of Peter, and of Paul.\n\nThus Flavian writing to Leo says, \"Wherefore (in consequence of those\nerrors, and heresies, and distractions, which he had deplored) we must\nbe sober and watch unto prayer, and draw nigh to God.\" [Vol. v. 1330.]\nAnd again, \"Thus will the heresy which has arisen, and the consequent\ncommotion, be easily destroyed by your holy letters with the assistance\nof God.\" [Vol. v. 1355.] Thus Leo in his turn writing to Julian, Bishop\nof Cos, utters this truly Christian sentiment. \"May the mercy of God, as\nwe trust, grant that without the loss of any soul, against the darts of\nthe devil the sound parts may be entirely preserved, and the wounded\nparts may be healed. May God preserve you safe and sound, most honoured\nbrother!\" [Vol. v. 1423.] Thus the same Bishop of Rome writing to\nFlavian, expresses his hopes in these words: \"Confidently trusting that\nthe help of God will be present, so that one who has been misled,\ncondemning the vanity of his own thoughts, may be saved. May God\npreserve you in health and strength, most beloved brother!\" [Vol. v.\n1390.]\n\nI will detain you by only one more reference to these most interesting\ndocuments. The whole Council of Chalcedon, at the conclusion of all, and\nwhen the {328} triumph was considered to have been secured over\nEutyches, and their gratitude was expressed that the heresies had been\ndestroyed--instead of referring to Mary as the \"sole destroyer of\nheresies,\" shout, as if with the voice of one man, from every side, \"It\nis God alone who hath done this!\" [Vol. vii. p. 174.] Neither\nantecedently did their chief pastors exhort them to raise their eyes to\nMary, and promise to \"implore\" the blessing they needed, \"in humble\nprayer from Peter and Paul.\" Neither \"in the straitened condition of the\nLord's flock\" did they invoke any other than God. And when truth\nprevailed, and the victory was won, whilst they were lavish of their\ngrateful thanks to the emperor and his queen, who were present and had\nsuccoured them; of help from the invisible world they make no mention,\nsave only of the Lord's; they had implored neither angel, nor saints,\nnor Virgin to be their protector and patron; no angel, nor saint, nor\nvirgin, shared their praises;--God alone was exalted in that day.\n\nAnd, let not the answer, ever at hand when reference is thus made to the\nprayers or professions of individuals, whether popes or canonized\nsaints, seduce any now from a pursuit of the very truth. These, it is\nsaid, \"are the prayers and professions of individuals, it is unfair then\nto make the Church responsible for them; we appeal from them to the\nChurch.\" But in this case the words of the Sovereign Pontiff are in good\nfaith the words of the Church of Rome; not because I at all would\nidentify the words of a Pope with the Church, but because the prayers of\nthe Church of Rome in her authorized solemn services and acts of worship\njustify {329} Pope Gregory in every sentiment he utters, and every\nexpression he employs. Does Gregory bid the faithful lift up their eyes\nto Mary the sole destroyer of heresies? The Roman ritual in the Lesser\nOffice of the holy Virgin thus addresses her, \"Rejoice, O Mary Virgin;\nthou alone hast destroyed all heresies in the whole world:\" And again:\n\"Under thy protection we take refuge, holy parent of God; despise not\nthou our prayers in our necessities, but from all dangers ever deliver\nus, O glorious and blessed Virgin.\" Does Gregory assure the faithful\nthat he will implore in humble prayer of Peter and Paul? in doing so he\nis only treading in the very footsteps of the Roman Church itself. In an\naddress, which we have already quoted (see p. 262), Peter is thus\ninvoked. \"Now O good shepherd, merciful Peter, accept the prayers of us\nwho supplicate, and loose the bands of our sins, by the power committed\nto thee, by which thou shuttest heaven against all by a word, and\nopenest it.\"\n\nThese things are now; but from the beginning it was not so. {330}\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nSECTION I.--PRESENT WORSHIP OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN IN THE AUTHORIZED AND\nENJOINED SERVICES OF THE CHURCH OF ROME.\n\n\nWhen from examining the evidence of antiquity we turn to the present\nenjoined services of the Church of Rome, it is impossible not to be\nstruck by the fact repeatedly forced upon our notice, that whereas the\ninvocation of the Virgin seems to have been introduced at a period much\nlater than those addresses to the martyrs which have already invited our\nattention, her worship now assumes so much higher a place, and claims so\nlarge a share in the public worship of the Roman Catholic portions of\nChristendom above martyrs, saints, and angels. The offices of the Virgin\npresent instances of all those various and progressive stages of divine\nworship, which we have already exemplified in the case of the martyrs,\nfrom the first primitive and Christian practice of making the\nanniversary of the Saint a day either of especial praise and prayer to\nGod for the mercies of redemption generally, or of returning thanks to\nGod for the graces manifested in his holy servants now in peace, with\nprayers for light and strength to enable the worshippers to follow them,\nas they followed Christ--down to the last and worst stage, the\nconsummation {331} of all, namely, prayer directly to saints and angels\nfor protection, succour, and spiritual benefits at their hands.\n\nI. Of the first class is the following collect, retained almost word for\nword in our Anglican service.\n\n_On the day of the Purification._\n\n\"Almighty and everlasting God, we humbly beseech thy majesty, that as\nthy only begotten Son was this day presented in the temple in substance\nof our flesh, so Thou wouldest cause us to be presented unto Thee with\npurified minds. Through the same.\"\n\n(Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, majestatem tuam supplices exoramus, ut\nsicut unigenitus Filius tuus hodierna die cum nostr\u00e6 carnis substantia\nest pr\u00e6sentatus, ita nos facias purificatis tibi mentibus pr\u00e6sentari.\nPer eundem Dominum.--H. 536.)\n\nSuch a prayer is founded on the facts of revelation, and is primitive,\ncatholic, apostolic, and evangelical.\n\nII. Of the second progressive stage towards the adoration of the saints,\nthe offices of the Virgin supply us with various instances; the case,\nnamely, of the Christian orator being led by the flow of his eloquence\nto apostrophize the spirit of the Saint, and address him as though he\nwere present, witnessing the celebration of his day, hearing the\npanegyrics uttered for his honour, and partaking with the congregation\nin their religious acts of worship.\n\n\"O holy and spotless virginhood; with what praises to extol thee I know\nnot: because Him, whom the heavens could not contain, thou didst bear in\nthy bosom. {332} Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit\nof thy womb. Thou art blessed, O Virgin Mary, who didst carry the Lord,\nthe Creator of the world. Thou didst give birth to Him who made thee,\nand remainest a virgin for ever. [Beata es Virgo Maria, qu\u00e6 Dominum\nportasti Creatorem mundi: genuisti qui te fecit, et in \u00e6ternum permanes\nvirgo.--Vern. clxii.] Hail, holy parent, who didst in child-birth bring\nforth the King who ruleth heaven and earth for ever and ever. Amen.\"\n[Salve sacra parens enixa puerpera regem, qui coelum terramque regit in\ns\u00e6cula s\u00e6culorum. Amen.--Introit. at the mass on the Nativity of the\nVirgin.]\n\nIn apostrophes like these, the members of the Anglican Church see\nnothing in itself harmful, so long as they are kept within due bounds.\nMany of the passages cited from the ancient writers in proof of their\nhaving espoused the doctrine, and exemplified in themselves the practice\nof invoking saints, are nothing more than these glowing addresses. They\nhave been responded to by one of the brightest ornaments, and sweetest\nminstrels of the Anglican Church, whose apostrophe at the same time by\nits own words would guard us against the abuses and excesses in which in\nthe Roman Catholic Church this practice, followed without restraint and\nindulged in with less and less of caution and soberness, unhappily\nended; abuses against which also we cannot ourselves now be too\nconstantly and carefully on our guard.\n\n \"Ave Maria! Blessed maid,\n Lily of Eden's fragrant shade,\n Who can express the love,\n That nurtured thee so pure and sweet;\n Making thy heart a shelter meet\n For Jesus' holy Dove? {333}\n Ave Maria! mother blest,\n To whom, caressing and caress'd,\n Clings the Eternal Child!\n Favour'd beyond archangel's dream,\n When first on thee with tenderest gleam\n The newborn Saviour smiled.\n Ave Maria! thou whose name,\n ALL BUT ADORING love may claim,\n Yet may we reach thy shrine;\n For HE, thy Son and Saviour, vows,\n To crown all lowly lofty brows\n With love and joy like thine.\n Bless'd is the womb that bare Him,--bless'd\n The bosom where his lips were press'd;\n But rather bless'd are they\n Who hear his word and keep it well,\n The living homes where Christ shall dwell,\n And never pass away.\"\n\n J. Keble's Christian Year. \"The Annunciation.\"\n\nWould that no branch of the Church Catholic had ever passed the boundary\nline drawn here so exquisitely by this Anglican Catholic, from whose\nlips or pen no syllable could ever fall in disparagement of the holy\nVirgin, as blessed among women, and the holy mother of our Lord. To\nbring about the re-union of Christians would in that case have been a\nfar more hopeful task than it is now.\n\nIII. In the third stage, a prayer was offered to God, that He would\npermit the intercessions of the saints to help us; or the prayer\ncontained the expression of a wish,--a desire not addressed either to\nGod or to the saint, merely words expressive of the hope of the\nindividual. The following are some of the many instances now contained\nin the Roman Breviary: {334}\n\n\"May the Virgin of virgins herself intercede for us to the Lord. Amen.\"\n[Ipsa Virgo virginum intercedat pro nobis ad Dominum. Amen.--Vern.\ncxlviii.]\n\nIn the Post-communion, on the day of the Assumption, this prayer is\noffered:--\"Partakers of the heavenly table, we implore thy clemency, O\nLord our God, that we who celebrate the Assumption of the mother of God,\nmay, by her intercession, be freed from all impending evils. Through,\"\n&c. [Mens\u00e6 coelestis participes effecti imploramus clementiam tuam,\nDomine Deus noster, ut qui Assumptionem Dei Genetricis colimus, a\ncunctis malis imminentibus ejus intercessione liberemur. Per.--Miss.\nRom.]\n\n\"We beseech Thee, O Lord, let the glorious intercession of the blessed\nand glorious ever Virgin Mary protect us and bring us to life eternal.\"\n[Beat\u00e6 et glorios\u00e6 semper Virginia Mari\u00e6, qu\u00e6sumus, Domine, intercessio\ngloriosa nos protegat, et ad vitam producat \u00e6ternam.--Vern. clv.]\n\n\"Pardon, we beseech Thee, O Lord, the offences of thy servants, that we,\nwho cannot please Thee of our own act, may be saved by the intercession\nof the mother of thy Son, our Lord, who liveth with Thee.\" [Famulorum\ntuorum qu\u00e6sumus, Domine, delictis ignosce, ut qui tibi placere de\nnostris actibus non valemus, Genetricis Filii tui, Domini nostri,\nintercessione salvemur, qui tecum vivit.--Vern. clxix.]\n\nOn the vigil of the Epiphany, this prayer is offered in the\nPost-communion at the mass,--\"Let this communion, O Lord, purge us from\nguilt, and by the intercession of the blessed Virgin, mother of God, let\nit make us partakers of the heavenly cure. Through the same.\" [H\u00e6c nos\ncommunio, Domine, purget a crimine, et intercedente beata Virgine Dei\ngenetrice coelestis remedii faciat esse consortes. Per eundem.--Miss.\nRom.]\n\n\"Grant, we beseech Thee, O Lord God, that we thy {335} servants may\nenjoy perpetual health of body and mind, and be freed from present\nsorrow, and enjoy eternal gladness, by the glorious intercession of the\nblessed Mary, ever Virgin. Through.\" [Concede nos famulos tuos,\nqu\u00e6sumus, Domine Deus, perpetua mentis et corporis sanitate gaudere, et\ngloriosa beat\u00e6 Mari\u00e6 semper Virginis intercessione a pr\u00e6senti liberari\ntristitia, et \u00e6terna perfrui l\u00e6titia. Per Dominum.--Vern. cxlvi.]\n\nOn the second Sunday after Easter, we find a further and more sad\ndeparture from the simplicity of Christian worship, in which the Church\nof Rome declares that the offerings made to God at the Lord's Supper\nwere made for the honour of the Virgin.--\"Having received, O Lord, the\nhelps of our salvation, grant, we beseech Thee, that by the patronage of\nMary, ever Virgin, we may be every where protected; in veneration of\nwhom we make these offerings to thy Majesty.\" [Sumptis, Domine, salutis\nnostr\u00e6 subsidiis, da, qu\u00e6sumus, beat\u00e6 Mari\u00e6 semper Virginis patrociniis\nubique protegi, _in cujus veneratione_ h\u00e6c tu\u00e6 obtulimus\nMajestati.--Post Commun. Mis. Rom.]\n\nOn the octave of Easter, at the celebration of mass, in the Secret, the\nintercession of the Virgin is made to appear as essential a cause of our\npeace and blessedness as the propitiation of Christ; or rather, the two\nare represented as joint concurrent causes; as though the office of the\nSaviour was confined to propitiation, exclusive altogether of\nintercession, whilst the office of intercession was assigned to the\nVirgin.--\"By thy propitiation, O Lord, and by the intercession of the\nblessed Mary, ever Virgin, may this offering be profitable to us for\nperpetual and present prosperity and peace.\" [Tua, Domine, propitiatione\net beat\u00e6 Maris\u00e6 semper Virginis intercessione ad perpetuam atque\nprsesentem h\u00e6c oblatio nobis profecerit prosperitatem et pacem.] {336}\n\nIV. A fourth station in this lamentable progress was evidenced when\nChristians at the tombs of martyrs implored, yet still in prayer to God,\nthat He would, for the sake of the martyrs, and by their merits and good\noffices, grant to the petitioner some benefit temporal or spiritual. Of\nthat practice, we have an example in this prayer: \"O God, who didst\ndeign to choose the blessed Virgin's womb in which to dwell, vouchsafe,\nwe beseech thee, to make us, defended by her protection, to take\npleasure in her commemoration.\" [Deus qui virginalem aulam beat\u00e6 Mari\u00e6\nin qua habitares eligerere dignatus es, da, qu\u00e6sumus, ut sua nos\ndefensione munitos jucundos facias su\u00e6 interesse commemorationi.--\u00c6st.\nclvi.]\n\n\"By the Virgin mother, may the Lord grant us health and peace. Amen.\"\n[Per Virginem Matrem concedat nobis Dominus salutem et pacem.\nAmen.--Vern. cxliii.]\n\n\"By the prayers and merits of the blessed Mary, ever Virgin, and of all\nsaints, may the Lord bring us to the kingdom of heaven.\" [Precibus et\nmeritis beat\u00e6 Mari\u00e6 Virginis et omnium sanctorum perducat nos Dominus ad\nregna coelorum.--Vern. cxlvii.]\n\n\"May the Virgin Mary bless us, together with a pious offspring.\" [Nos\ncum prole pia benedicat Virgo Maria.--Vern. cxlvii.]\n\nV. The fifth grade involves a still more melancholy departure from\nChristian truth and primitive simplicity, when the prayer is no longer\naddressed to God, but is offered to the Virgin, imploring her to\nintercede with God for the supplicants, yet still asking nothing but her\nprayers.\n\n\"Blessed mother, Virgin undefiled, glorious Queen of the world,\nintercede for us with the Lord.\" [Beata Mater, et intacta Virgo,\ngloriosa regina mundi, intercede pro nobis ad Dominum.--Aut. cxliv.]\n{337}\n\n\"Blessed mother of God, Mary, perpetual Virgin, the temple of the Lord,\nthe holy place of the holy Spirit, thou alone without example hast\npleased our Lord Jesus Christ: Pray for the people, mediate for the\nclergy, intercede for the female sex who are under a vow.\" [Beata Dei\nGenitrix, Maria Virgo perpetua, templum Domini, sacrarium Spiritus\nSancti, sola sine exemplo placuisti Domino nostro Jesu Christo; ora pro\npopulo, interveni pro clero, intercede pro devoto femineo sexu.--Vern.\nclxiii.]\n\n \"Holy Mary, pray for us!\n Holy mother of God, pray for us!\n Holy Virgin of virgins, pray for us!\"\n\nIn the form of prayer called Litani\u00e6 Lauretan\u00e6, between the most solemn\naddresses to the ever blessed Trinity, and to the Lamb of God that\ntaketh away the sins of the world, are inserted more than forty\naddresses to the Virgin, invoking her under as many varieties of title.\nShe is appealed to as--The Mirror of Justice, The Cause of our Joy, The\nmystical Rose, The Tower of David, The Tower of Ivory, The House of\nGold, The Arc of the Covenant, The Gate of Heaven, The Refuge of\nSinners, The Queen of Angels, the Queen of all Saints. [Vern. ccxxxix.]\n\nIn examining the case of the invocation of saints, we placed under this\nhead, as the safer course, a kind of invocation which seemed to\nvacillate between this appeal to them merely for intercession, and the\nlast consummation of all, direct prayer to them for blessings. We\nexemplified it by the hymn to St. Stephen. The following seems very much\nof the same character, addressed to the Virgin:--\n\n \"Hail, O Queen, Mother of mercy, our life, sweetness, and hope,\n Hail! To thee we cry, banished sons {338} of Eve. To thee we\n sigh, groaning and weeping in this valley of tears. Come then,\n our Advocate, turn those compassionate eyes of thine on us, and\n after this exile show to us Jesus, the blessed fruit of thy\n womb. O merciful! O pious! O sweet Virgin Mary! [Salve, Regina,\n Mater Misericordi\u00e6, vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra, salve. Ad te\n clamamus exules filii Ev\u00e6. Ad te suspiramus gementes et flentes\n in hac lachrymarum valle. Eja ergo Advocata nostra, illos tuos\n misericordes oculos ad nos converte, et Jesum benedictum fructum\n ventris tui nobis post hoc exilium ostende. O clemens! O pia! O\n dulcis Virgo Maria!]\n\n \"Pray for us, O holy Mother of God, that we may be made worthy\n of the promises of Christ.\" [Ora pro nobis, Sancta Dei Genetrix,\n ut digni efficiamur promissionibus Christi.--\u00c6st. 151.]\n\nVI. Unhappily, in the appointed religious services of the Roman ritual,\nwe have too many examples of prayer for benefits spiritual and temporal,\naddressed directly to the Virgin. It is in vain to say that all that is\nmeant is to ask her intercession; the people will not, cannot, do not,\nregard it in that light. It is affirmed that when the Church of Rome\nguides and directs her sons and daughters to pray for specific benefits\nat the hands of the Virgin mother, without any mention of her prayers,\nwithout specifying that her petitions are all that they ask; yet they\nare taught only to ask for her intercession, and are not encouraged to\nlook for the blessings as her gift and at her hands. But, can this be\nright and safe? In an act of all human acts the most solemn and holy,\ncan recourse be had to such refinements without great danger?\n\nAmong many others of a similar kind this invocation frequently recurs,\n\"Deem me worthy to praise thee, {339} O sacred Virgin; give to me\nstrength against thy enemies.\" [Dignare me laudare te, Virgo sacrata. Da\nmihi virtutem contra hostes tuos.--\u00c6st. clvi.]\n\nThe following seems to be among the most favourite addresses to the\nVirgin:--\"Hail, Star of the Sea, kind Mother of God, and ever Virgin!\nHappy Gate of Heaven, taking that 'Hail!' from the mouth of Gabriel,\nestablish us in peace,--changing the name of Eve. For the guilty, loose\ntheir bonds; bring forth light for the blind; drive away our evils;\ndemand for us all good things. SHOW THAT THOU ART A MOTHER. Let Him who\nendured for us to be thy Son, through thee receive our prayers. O\nexcellent Virgin, meek among all, us, FREED FROM FAULT, MAKE MEEK AND\nCHASTE; make our life pure; prepare a safe journey; that, beholding\nJesus, we may always rejoice. Praise be to God the Father, glory to\nChrist most high, and to the Holy Spirit; one honour to the three.\nAmen.\"\n\n [Ave Man's Stella,\n Dei Mater alma,\n Atque semper Virgo!\n Felix coeli porta,\n Sumens illud Ave\n Gabrielis ore,\n Funda nos in pace,\n Mutans Ev\u00e6 nomen.\n Solve vincla reis,\n Profer lumen c\u00e6cis,\n Mala nostra pelle,\n Bona cuncta posce.\n MONSTRA TE ESSE MATREM;\n Sumat per te preces,\n Qui pro nobis natus\n Tulit esse tuus.\n Virgo singularis,\n Inter omnes mitis,\n Nos culpa solutos,\n Mites fac et castos,\n Vitam pr\u00e6sta puram,\n Iter para tutum,\n Ut videntes Jesum\n Semper coll\u00e6temur.\n\n Sit laus Deo Patri, summo Christo decus,\n Spiritui Sancto, tribus honor unus. Amen.--\u00c6st. 597.\n ]\n\nIn the body of this hymn, there is undoubtedly reference to an\napplication to be made to the Son, &c.; but can it be fitting that such\nlanguage as is here suggested to the Virgin, for her to use, should be\naddressed by a {340} mortal to God? can such a call upon her to show her\npower and influence over the eternal Son of the eternal Father be\nfitting--\"Show that thou art a mother?\" I confess that against what is\nhere implied, my understanding and my heart entirely revolt.[127]\n\n [Footnote 127: At the present day some versions, contrary to the\n whole drift and plain sense and meaning of the passage, have\n translated it, as though the prayer was, that Mary would, by her\n maternal good offices in our behalf, prove to us that she was\n our mother. An instance of what I mean occurs in a work called\n \"Nouveau Recueil de Cantiques,\" p. 353.\n\n \"Monstra te esse Matrem: Faites voir que vous \u00eates v\u00e9ritablement\n notre m\u00e8re.\" In an English manual, first printed in 1688, and\n then called \"The Prince of Wales's Manual,\" the lines are thus\n rendered--\n\n Shew us a Mother's care,\n To Him convey our prayer,\n Who for our sake put on\n The title of thy Son.\n\n I rejoice to see an indication of a feeling of impropriety in\n the sentiment in its plain, obvious meaning; still the change is\n inadmissible. She is addressed above, in the second line, as the\n mother of God; Jesus is immediately mentioned, in the very next\n line, and through the entire stanza, as her Son; and the prayer\n is, that through her that Being who endured to be her Son would\n hear the prayers of the worshippers.\n\n Since I first prepared this note for the press, I have found a\n proof, that the obvious grammatical and logical meaning, \"show\n thyself to be His mother,\" is the sense in which it was received\n and interpreted before the Reformation. In a work dedicated to\n the \"Youth of England studious of good morals,\" and entitled\n \"Expositio Sequentiarum,\" the only interpretation given to this\n passage is thus expressed: \"Show thyself to be a MOTHER, namely\n BY APPEASING THY SON, and let thy Son take our prayers through\n thee, who (namely, the Son born of the Virgin Mary,) for us\n miserable sinners endured to be thy Son.\" \"Monstra te esse\n MATREM (sc.) placando TILIUM TUUM, et filius tuus sumat precem,\n id est, deprecationes nostras per te qui (sc.) filius natus ex\n Virgine Maria pro nobis (sc.) miseris peccatoribus tulit, id\n est, sustinuit esse tuus filius.\" It must be observed, that this\n work was expressly written for the purpose of explaining these\n parts of the ritual according to the use of Sarum. It was\n printed by the famous W. de Worde, at the sign of the Sun in\n Fleet-street, 1508. The passage occurs in p. 33. b. This is by\n no means the only book of the kind. I have before me one printed\n at Basil, in 1504, and another at Cologne the same year. They\n are evidently all drawn from some common source, but are not\n reprints all of the same work, for there are in each some\n variations. The Cologne edition tells us, that it was the\n reprint of a familiar commentary long ago (jamdudum) published\n on the hymns. All these join in construing the passage so as to\n represent the prayer to the Virgin to be, that she would show\n and prove that she was mother by appeasing her Son, and causing\n him to hear our prayers. Nor can any other meaning be attached\n to the translation of the words as given by Cardinal Du Perron\n (Replique \u00e0 la Rep. du Roy de la G. Bretagne. Paris, 1620, p.\n 970). \"Et pourtant quand l'Eglise dit \u00e0 la saincte Vierge,\n 'Defends nous de l'ennemy, et nous re\u00e7oy \u00e0 l'heure delamort,'\n elle n'entend pas prier la Vierge qu'elle nous re\u00e7oive par sa\n propre virtu, mais par impetration de la grace de son Fils,\n comme l'Eglise le temoigne en ces mots: 'Monstre que tu es m\u00e8re,\n re\u00e7oive par toy nos prieres celuy, qui n\u00e9 pour nous a eu\n agreeable d'\u00eatre tien!'\" This novel interpretation I have not\n found in any one book of former days.] {341}\n\nAnother prayer runs thus: \"Under thy protection we take refuge, Holy\nMother of God. Despise not our supplications in our necessities; but\nfrom all dangers ever deliver us, O glorious and Blessed Virgin.\" [Sub\ntuum pr\u00e6sidium confugimus, sancta Dei Genetrix; nostras deprecationes ne\ndespicias in necessitatibus, sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper,\nVirgo gloriosa et benedicta.--\u00c6st. cxlvi.]\n\nLet us suppose the object of these addresses to be changed; and instead\nof the Virgin let us substitute the name of the ever-blessed God and\nFather of us all. The very words here addressed to the Virgin are\noffered to Him, and spoken of Him in some of the most affecting prayers\nand praises recorded in the Bible[128].\n\n [Footnote 128: The identity of the prayers offered to the Virgin\n with those offered in the Book of inspiration, or in the Roman\n Ritual to the Almighty, becomes very striking, if we lay side by\n side the authorized language of the Roman Liturgy, and the only\n translation of the Scriptures authorized by the Roman Church.\n\n _Roman Ritual in addressing the _Roman Ritual, or Translation\n Virgin_ of the Bible, in addressing\n the Almighty_.\n\n Sub tuum pr\u00e6sidium confugimus. Dominus, firmamentum meum et\n refugium meum. Ad te\n confugi.--Ps. xvii. 1; cxlii.\n 11.\n\n Nostras deprecationes ne despicias Ne despexeris deprecationem\n in necessitatibus. meam.--Ps. liv. 1.\n\n Sed a periculis cunctis libera nos. Libera, Domine, animam servi\n tui ab omnibus periculis\n inferni. Hiem. ccvi.\n\n Libera nos a malo. Orat. Dom.\n\n A periculo mortis libera nos,\n Domine.--Hiem. cciv.\n\n Tu nos ab hoste protege. Eripe me de inimicis meis,\n Domine.--Ps. cxlii. 11.\n\n Et hora mortis SUSPICE. _Suscipe_, Domine, servum\n tuum.--Hiem. ccvi. {342}\n ]\n\nBut another hymn in the office of the Virgin, addressed in part to the\nblessed Saviour himself, and partly to the Virgin Mary, is still more\nrevolting to all my feelings with regard to religious worship. The\nRedeemer is only asked to remember his mortal birth; no blessing is here\nsupplicated for at his hands; his protection is not sought; no\ndeliverance of our souls at the hour of death is implored from Him;\nthese blessings, and these heavenly benefits, and these divine mercies,\nare sought for exclusively at the hands of the Virgin alone. Can such a\nmingled prayer, can such a contrast in prayer, be the genuine fruit of\nthat Gospel which bids us ask for all we need in prayer to God in the\nname and for the sake of his blessed Son?\n\n \"Author of our salvation, remember that once, by {343} being\n born of a spotless virgin, thou didst take the form of our body!\n Mary, mother of grace, mother of mercy, do thou protect us from\n the enemy, and receive us at the hour of death. Glory to thee, O\n Lord, who wast born of a Virgin, with the Father and the Holy\n Spirit, through eternal ages. Amen[129].\"\n\n [Footnote 129:\n\n Memento, Salutis Auctor, Tu nos ab hoste protege,\n Quod nostri quondam corporis, Et hora mortis suscipe.\n Ex illibata Virgine, Gloria tibi, Domine,\n Nascendo formam sumpseris. Qui natus es de Virgine,\n Maria mater grati\u00e6, Cum Patre et Sancto Spiritu,\n Mater misericordi\u00e6, In sempiterna s\u00e6cula. Amen.\n\n In the new version, (referred to in page 260 of the present\n work,) this hymn stands thus:--\n\n Memento, rerum Conctitor, Maria mater grati\u00e6,\n Nostri quod olim corporis, Dulcis parens clementi\u00e6,\n Sacrata ab alvo Virginis, Tu nos ab hoste protege,\n Nascendo forrnam sumpseris. In mortis hora suscipe, &c.\n\n \u00c6st. clv.]\n\nCould the beloved John, to whose kind and tender care our blessed Lord\ngave his mother of especial trust, have offered to her such a prayer as\nthis? To God alone surely would he have prayed for deliverance from all\nevil and mischief. To God alone would he have prayed:--\"In the hour of\ndeath, good Lord, deliver us, and all for Jesus Christ's sake, our only\nSaviour and Mediator.\"\n\nTo one other example of the practice of the Church of Rome I must refer.\nThe rubric in our Book of Common Prayer directs that \"at the end of\nevery Psalm throughout the year, shall be repeated, Glory be to the\nFather, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost: As it was in the\nbeginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.\" In the\nRoman Breviary also we find this rubric: \"This verse, _Gloria_, is\nalways said in the end of all psalms, EXCEPT IT BE OTHERWISE {344}\nNOTED.\" [\u00c6st. 3.] Such notifications occur at the end of various psalms.\nOn the Feast of the Assumption [\u00c6st. 595.], fourteen psalms are\nappointed to be used. At the close of every one of these psalms, without\nhowever any note that the Gloria is not to be said, there is appended an\nanthem to the Virgin. In some cases, so intimately is the anthem\ninterwoven with the closing words of the psalm, as that under other\ncircumstances it would induce us to infer that the Gloria was intended\nto be left out, especially as in the Parvum Officium of the Virgin [\u00c6st.\nclv.], though to the various psalms anthems in the same manner have been\nannexed, yet the words \"Gloria Patri et Filio\" are inserted in each case\nbetween the psalm and the anthem. Be this as it may, the annexation of\nthe anthem has a lamentable tendency to withdraw the thoughts of the\nworshippers from the truths contained in the inspired psalm, and to fix\nthem upon Mary and her Assumption; changing the Church's address from\nthe Eternal Being, alone invoked by the Psalmist, to one, who though a\nvirgin blessed among women, is a creature of God's hand. Thus, at the\nconclusion of the 8th psalm; \"O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy\nname in all the world,\" we find immediately annexed these two anthems,\n\"The holy mother of God is exalted above the choirs of angels to the\nheavenly realms. The gates of paradise are opened to us by thee, [by\nthee, O Virgin [Qu\u00e6 gloriosa]] who glorious triumphest with the angels.\"\nThus again, an anthem is attached to the last verse of the 95th (in the\nHebrew and English versions the 96th). \"He shall judge the earth in\nequity, and the people with his truth. Rejoice, {345} O Virgin Mary;\nthou alone hast destroyed all heresies in the whole world. Deem me\nworthy to praise thee, hallowed Virgin: Give me strength against thy\nenemies.\" To the 96th (97th), the latter clause of that address is\nrepeated, with the addition of the following: \"After the birth thou\ndidst remain a virgin inviolate. Mother of God, intercede for us.\"\n\nAn instance of the anthem being so intimately interwoven with the psalm,\nas to render the insertion of the \"Gloria,\" between the two, to say the\nleast, forced and unnatural, occurs at the close of the 86th (87th)\npsalm. The vulgate translation of the last verse, differing entirely\nfrom the English, is this: \"As the habitation of all who rejoice is in\nthee.\" This sentence of the Psalmist is thus taken up in the Roman\nRitual: \"As the habitation of all us who rejoice is in THEE, Holy Mother\nof God.\"\n\nThe object proposed by the Church from of old in concluding each psalm\nby an ascription of glory to the eternal Trinity, was to lead the\nworshipper to apply the sentiments of the psalm to the work of our\nsalvation accomplished by the three Persons of the Godhead. The\nanalogous end of these anthems in the present service of the Church of\nRome is to fix the thoughts of the worshipper upon Mary. This practice\nunhappily sanctions the excesses into which Bonaventura and others have\nrun in their departures from the purity and integrity of primitive\nworship.\n\nCardinal du Perron informs us, that at the altar in the office of the\nmass, prayer is not made directly to any saint, but only obliquely, the\naddress being always made to God. But if prayers are offered in other\nparts of the service directly to them, it is difficult to see what is\ngained by that announcement. Surely it is trifling {346} to make such\nimmaterial distinctions. If as a priest I could address the following\nprayer to the Virgin in preparing for offering mass, why should I not\noffer a prayer to the same being during its celebration?\n\n\"O mother of pity and mercy, blessed Virgin Mary, I a miserable and\nunworthy sinner, flee to thee with my whole heart and affection, and I\npray thy most sweet pity, that as thou didst stand by thy most sweet Son\nhanging upon the cross, so thou wouldest vouchsafe mercifully to stand\nby me a miserable priest, and by all priests who here and in all the\nholy Church offer Him this day, that, aided by thy grace, we may be\nenabled to offer a worthy and acceptable victim in the sight of the most\nhigh and undivided Trinity. Amen.\" [O Mater pietatis et misericordi\u00e6,\nbeatissima Virgo Maria, ego miser et indignus peccator ad te confugio\ntoto corde et affectu. Et precor dulcissimam pietatem tuam, ut sicut\ndulcissimo Filio tuo in cruce pendenti astitisti, ita et mihi misero\nsacerdoti et sacerdotibus omnibus hic et in tota sancta ecclesia ipsum\nhodie offerentibus, clementer assistere digneris, ut tua gratia adjuti\ndignam et acceptabilem hostiam in conspectu summ\u00e6 et individu\u00e6\nTrinitatis offerre valeamus. Amen.--Rom. Brev. Hus. Hiem. p. ccxxxiii.]\n\nThis is called, in the Roman Breviary, \"A PRAYER to the blessed Virgin\nbefore the celebration of the mass,\" and is immediately followed by\nanother prayer directed to be offered to any saint, male or female,\nwhose feast is on that day celebrated. \"O Holy N. behold I, a miserable\nsinner, DERIVING CONFIDENCE FROM THY MERITS, now offer the most holy\nsacrament of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, FOR THY HONOUR\nAND GLORY. I humbly and devotedly pray thee that thou wouldest deign to\nintercede for me to-day, that I may be enabled to offer so great a\nsacrifice {347} worthily and acceptably, and to praise Him eternally\nwith thee and with all his elect, and that I may live with Him for\never.\" [O sancte N. ecce ego miser peccator de tuis mentis confisus,\noffero nunc sacratissimura sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Domini\nnostri Jesu Christ! PRO TUO HONORE ET GLORIA; precor te humiliter et\ndevote ut pro me hodie intercedere digneris, ut tantum sacrificium digne\net acceptabiliter offerre valeam, ut Eum tecum et cum omnibus electis\nejus \u00e6ternaliter laudare et cum eo semper regnare valeam.--Hiem.\nccxxxiii.]\n\n * * * * *\n\nSuch, Christian brethren, is the result of our inquiries into the real\npractice of the Church of Rome with regard to the worship of the Virgin\nMary at the present day, in every part of the world where allegiance to\nthat Church is acknowledged. Can we wonder that individuals, high in\nhonour with that Church, have carried out the same worship to far\ngreater lengths? I have ever present to my mind the principle of fixing\nupon the Church of Rome herself that only which is to be found in her\ncanons, acknowledged decrees, and formularies. And unhappily of that\nwhich directly contravenes the Gospel-rule and primitive practice, far\nmore than enough is found in her authorized rituals to compel all who\nhold to the Gospel and the integrity of primitive times, to withdraw\ntheir assent and consent from her worship. But with this principle\nbefore us, surely common justice and common prudence require that we\nshould see for ourselves the practical workings of the system. \"By their\nfruits ye shall know them,\" is a principle no less sanctioned by the\nGospel than suggested by common sense and experience And, indeed, the\nshocking lengths to which priests, bishops, cardinals, and canonized\npersons have gone in this particular of the worship of the Virgin, might\nwell {348} cause every upright and enlightened Roman Catholic to look\nanxiously to the foundation; to determine honestly, though with tender\ncaution and pious care, for himself, whether the corruption be not in\nthe well-head, whether the stream do not flow impregnated with the\npoison from the very fountain itself; whether the prayers authorized and\ndirected by the Church of Rome to be offered to the Virgin be not in\nthemselves at variance with the first principles of the Gospel--Faith in\none God, the giver of every good, and in one Mediator and Intercessor\nbetween God and men, the man Christ Jesus, whose blood cleanseth from\nall sin: in a word, to see whether all the aberrations of her children\nin this department of religious duty have not their prototype in the\nlaws and ordinances, the rules and injunctions, the example and practice\nof their mother herself.\n\nIndeed I am compelled here to say, that, however revolting to us as\nbelievers in Jesus, and as worshippers of the one true God, are those\nextravagant excesses into which the votaries of the Virgin Mary have\nrun, I have found few of their most unequivocal ascriptions of divine\nworship to her, for a justification of which they cannot with reason\nappeal to the authorized ritual of the Church of Rome.\n\nIn leaving this point of our inquiry, I would suggest two\nconsiderations: 1st, If it was intended that the invocation of the\nVirgin should be exclusively confined to requests, praying her to pray\nand intercede by prayer for the petitioners, why should language be\naddressed to her which in its plain, obvious, grammatical, and common\nsense interpretation conveys the form of direct prayers to her for\nbenefits believed to be at her disposal? And, 2ndly, If the Church had\n{349} intended that her members, when they suppliantly invoked the\nVirgin Mary, and had recourse to her aid, should have offered to her\ndirect and immediate prayers that she would grant temporal and spiritual\nbenefits, to be dispensed at her own will, and by her own authority and\npower, in that case, what words could the Church have put into the mouth\nof the petitioners which would more explicitly and unequivocally have\nconveyed that idea?\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\nSECTION II.--WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN, CONTINUED.\n\n\nI have no intention of dwelling at any length on the extraordinary\nexcesses to which the adoration of the Virgin Mary has been carried in\nthe Church of Rome, I do not mean by obscure and illiterate or fanatical\nindividuals, but by her celebrated prelates, doctors, and saints. My\nresearches have brought to my knowledge such a mass of error and\ncorruption in the worship of Christians as I never before had any\nconception of; and rather than bring it all forward, and exhibit it to\nothers, I would turn my own eyes from it altogether. Still many reasons\nrender it absolutely necessary that we should not pass over the subject\nentirely in silence. Few in England, I believe, are aware of the real\nfacts of the case; and it well becomes us to guard ourselves and others\nagainst such melancholy results as would appear to be inseparable from\nthe invocation and worship of the Virgin. If indeed we could be\njustified in regarding such palpable instances of her worship in its\nmost objectionable form as the {350} marks of former and less\nenlightened times, most gladly would I draw a veil over them, and hide\nthem from our sight for ever. But when I find the solemn addresses of\nthe present chief authorities in the Church, nay, the epistles of the\npresent sovereign Pontiff himself, cherishing, countenancing, and\nencouraging the selfsame evil departures from primitive truth and\nworship, it becomes a matter not of choice, but of necessity, to give\nexamples at least of the deplorable excesses into which the highest and\nmost honoured in that communion have been betrayed. On the present\nPope's encyclical letter [A.D. 1840] we have already observed; and in\nthis place I propose to examine only one more of those many excesses\nmeeting us on every side, which characterize the public worship of the\nVirgin. The instance to which I refer seems to take a sort of middle\nstation between the authorized enjoined services of the Church of Rome,\nand the devotions of individuals and family worship. It partakes on the\none hand far too much of a public character to be considered in the\nlight of private religious exercises; and on the other it wants that\nauthority which would rank it among the appointed services of the\nChurch. The devotional parts of the services are found neither in the\nMissals nor the Breviaries, and the adoption and celebration of the\nservice seems to be left to the option and care of individuals. But the\nservice is performed in the Churches,--a Priest presides,--the Host is\npresented to the adorations of the people,--and a sermon is preached by\nan appointed minister. The service to which I am referring is performed\nevery evening through the entire month of May, and is celebrated\nexpressly in honour of the Virgin Mary. {351}\n\nThe month of May is dedicated to her, and is called Mary's month.\nTemporary altars are raised to her honour, surrounded by flowers and\nadorned with garlands and drapery; her image usually standing before the\naltar. Societies are formed chiefly for the celebration of the Virgin's\npraises, and in some Churches the effect, both to the eye and to the\near, corresponds with the preparation. One thing only is wanting--the\nproper object of worship. I have now before me a book of hymns published\nprofessedly for the religious fraternities in Paris, and used in the\nChurches there. [Nouveau Recueil de Cantiques \u00e0 l'usage des confr\u00e9ries\ndes Paroisses de Paris. Paris, 1839.] Many of these hymns are addressed\nto the Virgin alone; some without any reference to the Son of God and\nMan, the only Saviour, and without any allusion to the God of\nChristians; indeed, an address to a heathen Goddess more entirely\ndestitute of Christianity can scarcely be conceived. I copy one hymn\nentire.\n\n \"Around the altars of Mary\n Let us, her children, press;\n To that mother so endeared\n Let us address the sweetest prayers.\n Let a lively and holy mirth\n Animate us in this holy day:\n There exists no sadness\n For a heart full of her love.\n Let us adorn this sanctuary with flowers;\n Let us deck her revered altar;\n Let us redouble our efforts to please her.\n Be this month consecrated to her;\n Let the perfume of these crowns\n Form a delicious incense, {352}\n Which ascending even to her throne\n May carry to her both our hearts and our prayers.\n Let the holy name of Mary\n Be for us a name of salvation!\n Let our softened soul\n Ever pay to her a sweet tribute of love.\n Let us join the choirs of angels\n The more to celebrate her beauty;\n And may our songs of praise\n Resound in eternity.\n O holy Virgin! O our mother!\n Watch over us from fhe height of heaven;\n And when from this sojourning of misery,\n We present our prayers to you;\n O sweet, O divine Mary!\n Lend an ear to our sighs,\n And after this life\n Make us to taste of immortal pleasures.\"\n\n [Autour des autels de Marie\n Nous ses enfants, empressons-nous;\n A cette M\u00e8re si ch\u00e9rie,\n Adressons les voeux les plus doux.\n Qu'une vive et sainte all\u00e9gresse\n Nous anime dans ce saint jour;\n Il n'existe point de tristesse\n Pour un coeur plein de son amour.\n Ornons des fleurs ce sanctuaire,\n Parons son autel r\u00e9v\u00e9r\u00e9,\n Redoublons d'efforts pour lui plaire.\n Que ce mois lui soi, consacr\u00e9;\n Que le parfume de ces couronnes\n Forme un encens d\u00e9licieux,\n Qui s'\u00e9levant jusqu'\u00e0 son tr\u00f4ne,\n Lui porte et nos coeurs et nos voeux.\n Que le nom sacr\u00e9 de Marie\n Soit pour nous un nom de salut;\n Que toujours notre \u00e2me attendrie,\n D'amour lui paie un doux tribut.\n Unissons-nous aux choeurs des anges,\n Pour mieux c\u00e9l\u00e9brer sa beaut\u00e9.\n Et puissent nos chants de louanges\n Retentir dans l'\u00e9ternit\u00e9.\n O Vierge sainte! \u00f4 notre M\u00e8re!\n Veillez sur nous du haut des cieux;\n Et de ce s\u00e9jour de mis\u00e8re,\n Quand nous vous pr\u00e9sentons nos voeux,\n O douce, \u00f4 divine Marie!\n Pr\u00eatez l'oreille \u00e0 nos soupirs;--\n Et faites qu'apr\u00e8s cette vie,\n Nous go\u00fbtions d'immortels plaisirs.\n\n --\"Cantiques \u00e0 l'usage des Confr\u00e9ries.\" Paris, 1839, p. 175.]\n\nIn the course of the present work I have already suggested the propriety\nof trying the real import, {353} the true intent, and meaning and force\nof an address to a Saint, by substituting the holiest name ever uttered\non earth, for the name of the Saint to whom such address is offered; and\nif the same words, without any change, form a prayer fit to be offered\nby us sinners to the Saviour of the world, then to ask ourselves, Can\nthis be right? I would earnestly recommend the application of the same\ntest here; and in many other of the prayers now offered (for many such\nthere are now offered) by Roman Catholics to the Virgin. Suppose,\ninstead of offering these songs of praise and prayer, and self-devotion\nto Mary in the month of May, we were to offer them, on the day of his\nnativity, to our blessed Lord, would they not form an act of faith in\nHim as our Saviour and our God?\n\n \"Around the altar of Jesus,\n Let us, his children, press;\n To that Saviour so endeared\n Let us address the sweetest prayers. {354}\n Let a lively and holy mirth\n Animate us in this holy day:\n There exists no sadness\n For a heart full of his love.\n Let the holy name of Jesus\n Be for us a name of salvation!\n Let our softened soul\n Ever pay to HIM a sweet tribute of love.\n O holy Jesus! O our Saviour!\n Watch over us from the height of heaven;\n And when from this sojourning of misery,\n We present our prayers to Thee;\n O sweet, O divine Redeemer,\n Lend an ear to our sighs; and after this life,\n Make Thou us to taste of immortal pleasures.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\nSECTION III.--BONAVENTURA.\n\n\nI will now briefly call your attention to the devotional works of the\ncelebrated Bonaventura. He is no ordinary man; and the circumstances\nunder which his works were commended to the world are indeed remarkable.\nI know not how a Church can give the impress of its own name and\napproval in a more full or unequivocal manner to the works of any human\nbeing, than the Church of Rome has stamped her authority on the works of\nthis her saint.\n\nIn the \"Acta Sanctorum\", [Antwerp, 1723, July 14, p. 811-823.] it is\nstated, that this celebrated man was born in 1221, and died in 1274. He\npassed through all degrees of ecclesiastical dignities, {355} short only\nof the pontifical throne itself. He was of the order of St. Francis, and\nrefused the archbishopric of York, when it was offered to him by Pope\nClement the Fourth, in 1265; whose successor, Gregory the Tenth,\nelevated him to the dignity of cardinal bishop. His biographer expresses\nhis astonishment, that such a man's memory should have been so long\nburied with his body; but adds, that the tardiness of his honours was\ncompensated by their splendour.\n\nMore than two centuries after his death, his claims to canonization were\nurged upon Sixtus the Fourth; and that Pope raised him to the dignity of\nsaint; the diploma of his canonization bearing date 18 kalends of May,\n1482, the eleventh year of that pope's reign.\n\nBefore a saint is canonized by the Pope, it is usually required, that\nmiracles wrought by him, or upon him, or at his tomb, be proved to the\nsatisfaction of the Roman court[130]. We need not dwell on the nature of\nan inquiry into a matter-of-fact, alleged to have been done by an\nindividual two hundred years before; and whose memory is said to have\nlain buried with his corpse. Among the miracles specified, it is\nrecorded, that on one occasion, when he was filled with solemn awe and\nfear at the celebration of the Lord's Supper, God, by an angel, took a\nparticle of the consecrated host from the hands of the priest, and\ngently placed it in the holy man's mouth. But, with these transactions,\nI am not anxious to interfere, except so far as to ascertain the degree\nof authority with which any pious Roman Catholic must be induced to\ninvest Bonaventura as a teacher and instructor in the doctrines of\nChristianity, authorized and appointed by his Church. The case stands\nthus:--Pope Sixtus IV. states in his {356} diploma, that the proctor of\nthe order of Minors, proved by a dissertation on the passage of St.\nJohn, \"There are three that bear record in heaven,\" that the blessed\nTrinity had borne testimony to the fact of Bonaventura being a saint in\nheaven: the Father proving it by the attested miracles; the Son, in the\nWISDOM OF HIS DOCTRINE; the Holy Spirit, by the goodness of his life.\nThe pontiff then adds, in his own words, \"He so wrote on divine\nsubjects, THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT SEEMS TO HAVE SPOKEN IN HIM.\" [Page 831.\n\"Ea de divinis rebus scripsit, ut in eo Spiritus Sanctus locutus\nvideatur.\"] A testimony referred to by Pope Sixtus the Fifth.\n\n [Footnote 130: See the canonization of St. Bonaventura in the\n Acta Sanctorum.]\n\nThis latter pontiff was crowned May 1, 1585, more than a century after\nthe canonization of Bonaventura, and more than three centuries after his\ndeath. By his order, the works of Bonaventura were \"most carefully\nemendated.\" The decretal letters, A.D. 1588, pronounced him to be an\nacknowledged doctor of Holy Church, directing his authority to be cited\nand employed in all places of education, and in all ecclesiastical\ndiscussions and studies. The same act offers plenary indulgence to all\nwho assist at the mass on his feast, in certain specified places, with\nother minor immunities on the conditions annexed. [Page 837.]\n\nIn these documents Bonaventura[131] is called the Seraphic Doctor; and I\nrepeat my doubt, whether it is possible for any human authority to give\na more full, entire, and unreserved sanction to the works of any human\nbeing than the Church of Rome has given to {357} the writings of\nBonaventura. And what do those works present to us, on the subject of\nthe Invocation and worship of the Virgin Mary?\n\n [Footnote 131: The edition of his works which I have used was\n published at Mentz in 1609; and the passages referred to are in\n vol. vi. between pp. 400 and 500.]\n\nTaking every one of the one hundred and fifty psalms[132], Bonaventura\nso changes the commencement of each, as to address them not as the\ninspired Psalmist did, to the Lord Jehovah, the One only Lord God\nAlmighty, but to the Virgin Mary; inserting much of his own composition,\nand then adding the Gloria Patri to each. It is very painful to refer to\nthese prostitutions of any part of the Holy Book of revealed truth; but\nwe must not be deterred from looking this evil in the face. A few\nexamples, however, will suffice.\n\n [Footnote 132: It is curious to find the Cardinal Du Perron, in\n his answer to our King James, declaring that he had never seen\n nor met with this Psalter in his life, and he was sure it was\n never written by Bonaventura; alleging that it was not mentioned\n by Trithemius or Gesner. The Vatican editors, however, have set\n that question at rest. They assure us that they have thrown into\n the appendix all the works about the genuineness of which there\n was any doubt, and that Bonaventura wrote many works not\n mentioned by Trithemius, which they have published from the\n Vatican press. Of this Psalter there is no doubt. See Cardinal\n Du Perron, Replique \u00e0 la Rep. du Roi de Grand Bretagne. Paris,\n 1620, p. 974.]\n\nIn the 30th psalm. \"In thee, O Lord, have I trusted; let me not be\nconfounded for ever,\" &c., the Psalter of the Virgin substitutes these\nwords: [In te, Domina, speravi; non confundar in \u00e6ternum, &c. &c. In\nmanus tuas, Domina, commendo spiritum meum, totam vitam meam, et diem\nultimum meum.--P. 480.]\n\n\"In thee, O Lady, have I trusted; let me not be confounded for ever: in\nthy grace take me.\n\n\"Thou art my fortitude and my refuge; my consolation and my protection.\n{358}\n\n\"To thee, O Lady, have I cried, while my heart was in heaviness; and\nthou didst hear me from the top of the eternal hills.\n\n\"Bring thou me out of the snare which they have hid for me; for thou art\nmy succour.\n\n\"Into thy hands, O Lady, I commend my spirit, my whole life, and my last\nday.--Gloria Patri,\" &c.\n\nIn the 31st psalm we read, \"Blessed are they whose hearts love thee, O\nVirgin Mary; their sins shall be mercifully blotted out BY THEE....\"\n[Beati quorum corda te diligunt, Virgo Maria; peccata ipsorum A TE\nmisericorditer diluentur.--P. 481.]\n\nIn the 35th, v. 2. \"Incline thou the countenance of God upon us; COMPEL\nHIM to have mercy upon sinners. O Lady, thy mercy is in the heaven, and\nthy grace is spread over the whole earth.\" [Inclina vultum Dei super\nnos. COGE illum peccatoribus misereri; Domina, in coelo misericordia\ntua, et gratia diffusa est super terram.]\n\nIn the 67th, instead of, \"Let God arise, and let his enemies be\nscattered,\" the Psalter of the Virgin has,\n\n\"Let Mary arise, and let her enemies be scattered.\" [Exurgat Maria, et\ndissipentur inimici ejus.--P. 483.]\n\nIn the opening of the 93rd psalm there is a most extraordinary, rather,\nas it sounds to me, a most impious and blasphemous comparison of the\nSupreme God with the Virgin Mary, in reference to the very Attribute,\nwhich shines first, last, and brightest in HIM,--His eternal mercy. Nay,\nit draws the contrast in favour of the Virgin, and against God. Most\nglad should I be, to find that I had misunderstood this passage; and\nthat it admits of another acceptation[133]. But I fear its real meaning\nis beyond controversy.\n\n [Footnote 133: A similar idea indeed pervades some addresses to\n the Virgin of the present day, representing the great and only\n potentate as her heavenly husband, in himself full of rage, but\n softened into tenderness towards her votaries by her influence.\n See a hymn, in the Paris collection already referred to, p. 353,\n &c. of this work (Nouveau Recueil de Cantiques, p. 183).\n\n Daignez, Marie, en ce jour Vouchsafe, Mary, on this day\n Ecouter nos soupirs, To hear our sighs,\n Et seconder nos d\u00e9sirs. And to second our desires.\n Daignez, Marie, en ce jour Vouchsafe, Mary, on this day\n Recevoir notre encens, notre amour. To receive our incense, our\n love.\n Du c\u00e9leste \u00e9poux Calm the rage\n Calmez le courroux, Of thy heavenly husband,\n Qu'il se montre doux Let HIM show himself kind\n A tous qui sont \u00e0 vous. To all those who are thine.\n Du c\u00e9leste \u00e9poux Of thy heavenly husband\n Calmez le courroux, Calm the rage,\n Que son coeur s'attendrisse sur nous. Let his heart be softened\n towards us. {359}\n ]\n\n\"The Lord is a God of vengeance; but thou, O Mother of Mercy, bendest to\nbe merciful.\" [Deus ultionum Dominus; sed tu, Mater Misericordi\u00e6, ad\nmiserandum inflectis.--P. 485.]\n\nThe well known and dearly valued penitentiary psalm (129th) \"De\nprofundis,\" is thus addressed to Mary:--\n\n\"Out of the depths have I called to thee, O Lady:\n\n\"O Lady, hear my voice. Let thine ears be attent to the voice of thy\npraise and glorifying: deliver me from the hand of my enemies: confound\ntheir imaginations and attempts against me. Rescue me in the evil day;\nand, in the day of death, forget not my soul. Carry me into the haven of\nsafety: let my name be enrolled among the just.\" [De profundis clamavi\nad te, Domina: Domina, exaudi vocem meam. Fiant aures tu\u00e6 intendentes in\nvocem laudis et glorificationis tu\u00e6. Libera me de manu adversariorum\nmeorum: confunde ingenia et conatus eorum contra me. Erue me in die\nmala: et in die mortis ne obliviscaris anim\u00e6 me\u00e6. Deduc me ad portum\nsalutis: inter justos scribatur nomen meum.--P. 489.] {360}\n\nBut, as the penitential psalms are thus turned, from Him to whom the\nPsalmist addressed them, so his hymns of praise to Jehovah, are made to\nflow through the same channel to the Virgin. And all nature in the sea,\non the earth, in the heavens, and heaven of heavens, is called upon to\npraise and glorify Mary. Thus, in the 148th psalm, we read,--\n\n\"Praise our Lady of heaven, glorify her in the highest. Praise her, all\nye men and cattle, ye birds of the heaven, and fishes of the sea. Praise\nher, sun and moon; ye stars and circles of the planets. Praise her,\ncherubim and seraphim, thrones and dominions, and powers. Praise her,\nall ye legions of angels. Praise her, all ye orders of spirits above.\"\n[Laudate Dominam nostram de coelis: glorificate eam in excelsis. Laudate\neam omnes homines et jumenta: volucres coeli et pisces maris. Laudate\neam sol et luna: stell\u00e6, et circuli planetarum. Laudate eam cherubim et\nseraphim: throni et dominationes, et potestates. Laudate eam omnes\nlegiones angelorum. Laudate eam omnes ordines spirituum supernorum.--P.\n491.]\n\nThe last sentence of the psalms is thus rendered,--\"Let every spirit\n[_or_ every thing that hath breath] praise our Lady.\"\n\nTo this Psalter are added many hymns changed in the same manner. One,\nentitled, \"A Canticle, like that of Habakkuk iii.\" presents to us an\naddress to the Virgin Mary, of the very words which our blessed Saviour\nmost solemnly addressed to his heavenly Father.\n\nO Lord, I have heard thy O Lady, I have heard thy report,\nspeech, and was afraid, &c. &c. and was astonished; I considered\n thy works, O Lady, and\n I was afraid at thy work. In the\n midst of the years thou hast revived\n it. {361}\n\n I will confess to thee, O Lady,\n because thou hast hid these things\n from the wise, and hast revealed\n them to babes.\n\n Thy glory hath covered the\n heavens, and the earth is full of\n thy mercy.\n\n Thou, O Virgin, wentest forth\n for the salvation of thy people,\n for salvation with thy Christ [thy\n anointed].\n\n O thou Blessed, our salvation\n rests in thy hands. Remember\n our poverty, O thou pious One.\n\n WHOM THOU WILLEST, HE\n SHALL BE SAVED; AND HE FROM\n WHOM THOU TURNEST AWAY THY\n COUNTENANCE, GOETH INTO DESTRUCTION.\n\n[Domina, audivi auditionem tuam, et obstupui: consideravi opera tua, et\nexpavi, Domina, opus tuum: circa medium annorum vivificasti illud.\n\nConfitebor tibi, Domina: quia abscondisti h\u00e6c a sapientibus: et\nrevelasti ea parvulis. Operuit coelos gloria tua, et misericordia tua\nplena est terra.\n\nEgressa es, Virgo, in salutem populi tui: in salutem cum Christo tuo. O\nBenedicta, in manibus tuis est reposita nostra salus; recordare, pia,\npaupertatis nostr\u00e6.\n\nQuem vis, ipse salvus erit, et a quo avertis vultum tuum, vadit in\ninteritum.--G.P., &c.]\n\nThe song of the Three Children is altered in the same manner. In it as\nwell as in the Canticle of Zacharias, these prayers are introduced;\n\n\"O Mother of Mercy, have mercy upon us miserable sinners; who neglect to\nrepent of our past sins, and commit every day many to be repented of.\"\n[Miserere, misericordi\u00e6 Mater, nobis miseris peccatoribus, qui retroacta\npeccata poenitere negligimus, ac multa quotidie poenitenda committimus.]\n{362}\n\nThe Te Deum is thus lamentably perverted:\n\n\"We praise thee, Mother of God; we acknowledge thee, Mary the Virgin.\n[Te Matrem Dei laudamus; Te Mariam Virginem profitemur.]\n\n\"All the earth doth worship thee, spouse of the eternal Father.\n\n\"To thee all Angels and Archangels, Thrones and Principalities,\nfaithfully do service....\n\n\"To thee the whole angelic creation with incessant voice proclaim,\n\n\"Holy! Holy! Holy! Mary, parent, mother of God, and virgin!...\n\n\"... Thou with thy Son sittest at the right hand of the Father....\n\n\"O Lady, SAVE THY PEOPLE, that we may partake of the inheritance of thy\nSon.\n\n\"And rule us and guard us for ever....\n\n\"Day by day we salute thee, O pious One; and we desire to praise thee in\nmind and voice even for ever.\n\n\"Vouchsafe, O sweet Mary, now and for ever, to keep us without sin.\n\n\"Have mercy upon us, O pious One; have mercy upon us.\n\n\"Let thy great mercy be with us, because we put our trust in thee, O\nVirgin Mary.\n\n\"In thee, sweet Mary, do we hope, defend thou us eternally. {363}\n\n\"Praise becomes thee, empire becomes thee; to thee be virtue and glory\nfor ever and ever. Amen.\"\n\n[SALVUM FAC POPULUM tuum, Domina, ut simus participes h\u00e6reditatis Filii\ntui,\n\nEt rege nos et custodi nos in \u00e6ternum.\n\nDignare, Dulcis Maria, mine et semper nos sine delicto conservare.\nMiserere, Pia, nobis! miserere nobis! Fiat misericordia tua magna\nnobiscum, quia in te, Virgo Maria, confidimus. In te, Dulcis Maria,\nsperamus, nos defendas in \u00e6ternum. Te decet laus, te decet imperium,\ntibi virtus et gloria in s\u00e6cula s\u00e6culorum, Amen.]\n\nCan this by any the most subtle refinement be understood to be a mere\nrequest to her to pray for us?\n\nThe Athanasian Creed is employed in the same manner; and it is very\nremarkable that the Assumption itself of the Virgin into heaven is there\nspecified as one of the points to be believed on pain of losing all\nhopes of salvation.\n\n\"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold\nfirm the faith concerning the Virgin Mary: which except a man keep whole\nand undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly....\n[Quicunque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est ut teneat de Maria\nfirmam fidem.]\n\n\"Whom at length He took up (assumpsit) unto heaven, and she sitteth at\nthe right hand of her Son, not ceasing to pray to her Son for us. [Quam\ndemum ipse in coelum assumpsit, et sedit ad dexteram Filii, non cessans\npro nobis Filium exorare.]\n\n\"This is the faith concerning Mary the Virgin, which except every one\nbelieve faithfully and firmly he cannot be saved.\" [H\u00e6c est fides de\nMaria Virgine: quam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque crediderit,\nsalvus esse non poterit.]\n\nIn the Litany addressed to her, these sentences are found.\n\n\"Holy Mary, whom all things praise and venerate, pray for us,--be\npropitious,--spare us, O Lady.\n\n\"From all evil deliver us, O Lady.\n\n\"In the devastating hour of death, deliver us, O Lady.\n\n\"From the horrible torments of hell, deliver us, O Lady.\n\n\"We sinners do beseech thee to hear us.\n\n\"That thou wouldest vouchsafe to give eternal rest {364} to all the\nfaithful departed, we beseech thee to hear us. &c. &c.\"\n\n [Sancta Maria, quam omnia laudant\n Et venerantur, ora pro nobis.\n Propitia esto. Parce nobis, Domina.\n Ab omni malo libera nos, Domina.\n In hora mortis devastante libera nos, Domina.\n Ab inferni horribili cruciamine libera nos, Domina.\n Peccatores te rogamus, audi nos.\n Ut cunctis fidelibus defunctis requiem\n \u00c6ternam donare digneris, te rogamus, audi nos.]\n\nI will add to this catalogue of prayers and praises to the Virgin, only\nthe translation of one prayer more from the same canonized Saint; it\ncontains a passage often referred to, but the existence of which has\nbeen denied. It stands, however, in his works, vol. vi. page 466.\n\n\"Therefore, O Empress, and our most benign Lady, by THY RIGHT OF MOTHER\nCOMMAND thy most beloved Son [JURE MATRIS IMPERA tuo dilectissimo\nFilio], our Lord, Jesus Christ, that He vouchsafe to raise our minds\nfrom the love of earthly things to heavenly desires, who liveth and\nreigneth.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nNow let any man of common understanding and straightforward principles\nsay, whether any, the most ingenious refinement can interpret all this\nto mean merely that Bonaventura invoked the Virgin Mary to pray for him,\nor for his fellow-creatures. It looks as though he were resolved on set\npurpose to exalt her to an equality with the Almighty, when we find him\nnot once, not casually, not in the fervent rapture of momentary\nexcitement, but deliberately, through one hundred and fifty Psalms,\napplying to Mary the very words dictated by the Holy Spirit to the\nPsalmist, and consecrated {365} to the worship of the one supreme God;\nand then selecting the most solemn expressions by which the Christian\nChurch approaches the Lord of heaven and earth, our Father, our Saviour,\nour Sanctifier: employing too the very words of her most solemn form of\nbelief in the ever-blessed Trinity, and substituting Mary's name for the\nGod of Christians. On the words, \"By thy right of mother command thy\nSon,\" beyond the assertion of the fact that there they are to this day,\nI wish to add nothing, because the very denial of their existence often\nrepeated shows, that many Roman Catholics themselves regard them as\nobjectionable.\n\nBut, if such a man as Bonaventura, one of the most learned and\ncelebrated men of his age, could be tempted by the views cherished by\nthe Church of Rome, to indulge in such language, what can be fairly\nexpected of the large mass of persons who find that language published\nto the world with the highest sanction which their religion can give, as\nthe work of a man whom the Almighty declared when on earth, by miracles,\nto be a chosen vessel, and to be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit;\nand of whom they are taught by the infallible testimony[134] of his\ncanonization, that he is now reigning with Christ in heaven, and is\nhimself the lawful and appointed object of religious invocation. I\nprofess to you that I see no way by which Christians can hold and\nencourage this doctrine of the Invocation of Saints, without at the same\ntime countenancing and cherishing what, were I to join in such\ninvocation, would stain my soul with the guilt of idolatry. If the\ndoctrine were confessedly Scriptural, come what would come, our duty\nwould be to maintain it at all hazards, {366} and to brave every danger\nrather than from fear of consequences to renounce what we believe to\nhave come from God; securing the doctrine at all events, and then\nputting forth our very best to guard against its perversion and abuse.\nBut surely, it well becomes our brethren of the Church of Rome, to\nexamine with most rigid and unsparing scrutiny into the very foundation\nof such a doctrine as this; a doctrine which in its mildest and most\nguarded form is considered by a very large number of their fellow\nChristians, as a dishonouring of God and of his Son, our Saviour; and\nwhich in its excess, an excess witnessed in the books of learned and\nsainted authors, and in the every day practice of worshippers, seems to\nbe in no wise distinguishable from the practices of acknowledged\npolytheism, and pagan worship. If that foundation, after honest and\npersevering examination, approves itself as based sure and deep on the\nword of God, and the faith and practice of the apostles and the Church\nfounded by them from the first, I have not another word to say, beyond a\nfervent prayer that the God in whom we trust would pour the bright beams\nof his Gospel abundantly into the hearts of all who receive that Gospel\nas the word of life. But were they my dying words to my dearest friend\nwho had espoused that doctrine, I would say to him, Look well yourself\nto the foundation, because I am, after long examination, convinced,\nbeyond a shadow of doubt that the doctrine and practice of the\nInvocation of Saints and Angels is as contrary to the doctrine and\npractice of the primitive Church, as it is in direct opposition to the\nexpress words of Scripture, and totally abhorrent from the spirit which\npervades the whole of the Old, and the whole of the New Testament of\nGod's eternal truth.\n\n [Footnote 134: Bellarmin, in his Church Triumphant, maintains\n that in the act of Canonization, the Church is infallible. Vol.\n ii. p. 871.] {367}\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\nSECTION IV.--BIEL, DAMIANUS, BERNARDINUS DE BUSTIS, BERNARDINUS\nSENENSIS, &c.\n\n\nUnhappily these excesses in the worship of the Virgin Mary are not\nconfined to Bonaventura, or to his age. We have too many examples of the\nsame extravagant exaltation of her as an object of adoration and praise\nin men, whose station and abilities seemed to hold them forth to the\nworld as burning and shining lights. Again, let me repeat, that in thus\nsoliciting your attention to the doctrines and expressed feelings of a\nfew from among the host of the Virgin's worshippers, I am far from\nbelieving that the enlightened Roman Catholics in England now are ready\nto respond to such sentiments. My desire is that all persons should be\nmade aware of the excesses into which even celebrated teachers have been\ntempted to run, when they once admitted the least inroad to be made upon\nthe integrity of God's worship; and I am anxious also, without offence,\nbut with all openness, to caution my countrymen against encouraging that\nrevival of the worship of the Virgin in England, to promote which the\nhighest authorities in the Church of Rome have lately expressed their\nsolicitude, intimating, at the same time, their regret that the worship\nof the Virgin at the present time has, in England, degenerated from its\nexaltation in former ages, and that England is now far behind her\ncontinental neighbours in her worship. Though these excessive departures\nfrom Gospel truth and the primitive worship of one God by one Mediator\nmay not be the doctrines of all who belong to the Church of Rome, yet\nthey are the tenets of some of her most {368} celebrated doctors, of men\nwho were raised to her highest dignities in their lifetime, and solemnly\nenrolled by her among the saints of glory after their death. Their words\nand their actions are appealed to now in support of similar tenets and\ndoctrines, though few, in this country at least, are found to put them\nforth in all their magnitude and fulness. But even in their mildest and\nleast startling form these doctrines are awfully dangerous.\n\nThe fact is, that the direct tendency of the worship of the Virgin, as\npractically illustrated in the Church of Rome, is to make GOD himself an\nobject of FEAR, and the VIRGIN an object of LOVE; to invest Him, who is\nthe Father of mercy and God of all comfort, with awfulness, and majesty,\nand with the terrors of eternal justice, and in direct and striking\ncontrast to array the Virgin mother with mercy and benignity, and\ncompassionate tenderness. Christians cannot be too constantly and too\ncarefully on their guard against doing this wrong to our heavenly\nFather. His own inspired word invites us to regard Him not only as the\nGod of love, but as Love itself. \"God is love;\" [1 John iv. 8.] and so\nfar from terrifying us by representations of his tremendous majesty, and\nby declarations that we cannot ourselves draw nigh to God; so far from\nbidding us to approach Him with our suits and supplications through\nmediators whom we should regard as having, more than our blessed\nRedeemer, a fellow-feeling with us, and at the same time resistless\ninfluence with Him; his own invitation and assurance is, \"Come unto me,\nand I will give you rest:\" [Matt. xi. 28.] \"No one cometh unto the\nFather but by me:\" [John xiv. 6.] \"Him that cometh to me I will {369} in\nno wise cast out:\" [John vi. 37.] \"Let us come boldly unto the throne of\ngrace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of\nneed.\" [Heb. iv. 16.]\n\nHow entirely opposed to such passages as these, breathing the spirit\nthat pervades the whole Bible, are those doctrines which represent the\nVirgin Mary as the Mediatrix by whom we must sue for the divine\nclemency; as the dispenser of all God's mercies and graces; as the\nsharer of God's kingdom, as the fountain of pity, as the moderator of\nGod's justice, and the appeaser of his wrath. \"Show thyself a mother.\"\n\"Compel thy Son to have pity.\" \"By thy right of mother command thy Son.\"\n\"God is a God of vengeance; but thou, Mary, dost incline to mercy;\" such\nexpressions convey sentiments and associations shocking to our feelings,\nand from which our reason turns away, when we think of God's\nperfections, and the full atonement and omnipotent intercession of his\nSon Christ our Redeemer. But it must not be disguised, that these are\nthe very sentiments in which the most celebrated defenders of the\nworship of the Virgin, in the Church of Rome, teach their disciples to\nacquiesce, and in which they must have themselves fully acquiesced, if\nthey practised what they taught. It is very painful to make such\nextracts as leave us no alternative in forming our opinions on this\npoint; but it is necessary to do so, otherwise we may injure the cause\nof truth by suppressing the reality; a reality over which there seems to\nbe a strong disposition, in the present day, in part at least, to draw a\nveil; an expedient which can only increase the danger.\n\nThe first author, whose sentiments I would request you to weigh, is\nGabriel Biel, a schoolman of great celebrity[135]. {370} In his\nthirty-second lecture, on the Canon of the Mass, he thus expresses\nhimself, referring to a sermon of St. Bernard, \"The will of God was,\nthat we should have all through Mary.... You were afraid to approach the\nFather, frightened by only hearing of Him.... He gave you Jesus for a\nMediator. What could not such a Son obtain with such a Father? He will\nsurely be heard for his own reverence-sake; for the Father loveth the\nSon. But, are you afraid to approach even Him? He is your brother and\nyour flesh; tempted through all, that He might become merciful. THIS\nBROTHER MARY GAVE TO YOU. But, perhaps, even in Him you fear the divine\nMajesty, because, although He was made man, yet He remained God. You\nwish to have an advocate even to Him. Betake yourself to Mary. For, in\nMary is pure humanity, not only pure from all contamination, but pure\nalso by the singleness of her nature[136]. Nor should I, with any doubt\nsay, she too will be heard for her own reverence-sake. The Son, surely,\nwill hear the Mother, and the Father will hear the Son.\"\n\n [Footnote 135: Tubingen, 1499. Gabriel Biel, born at Spires\n about A.D. 1425, was in A.D. 1484 appointed the first Professor\n of Theology in the then newly founded University of Tubingen. He\n afterwards retired to a monastery, and died A.D. 1495.]\n\n [Footnote 136: This is a very favourite argument in the present\n day, often heard in the pulpits on the Continent.]\n\nIn his 80th lecture, the same author comments on this prayer, which is\nstill offered in the service of the Mass:\n\n\"Deliver us, we beseech thee, O Lord, from all evils past, present, and\nfuture; and by the intercession of the blessed and glorious ever-virgin\nmother of God, Mary, with thy blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, and\nAndrew, and all saints, mercifully grant peace in our days, that, aided\nby the help of thy mercy, we may be both ever {371} free from sin, and\nfree from all disquietude. Through the same our Lord, &c.\"\n\nOn this prayer Biel observes, \"Again we ask, in this prayer, the defence\nof peace; and since we cannot, nor do we presume to obtain this by our\nown merit, ... therefore, in order to obtain this, we have recourse, in\nthe second part of this prayer, to the suffrages of all his saints, whom\nHe hath constituted, in the court of his kingdom, as our mediators, most\nacceptable to himself, whose prayers his love does not reject. But, of\nthem, we fly, in the first place, to the most blessed Virgin, the Queen\nof Heaven, to whom the King of kings, the heavenly Father, has given the\nhalf of his kingdom; which was signified in Hester, the queen, to whom,\nwhen she approached to appease king Asuerus, the king said to her, Even\nif thou shalt ask the half of my kingdom, it shall be given thee. So the\nheavenly Father, inasmuch as He has justice and mercy as the more valued\npossessions of his kingdom, RETAINING JUSTICE TO HIMSELF, GRANTED MERCY\nto the Virgin Mother. We, therefore, ask for peace, by the intercession\nof the blessed and glorious Virgin.\" [Cum habeat justitiam et\nmisericordiam tanquam potiora regni sui bona, justitia sibi retenta,\nmisericordiam Matri Virgini concessit.]\n\nThe very same partition of the kingdom of heaven, is declared to have\nbeen made between God himself and the Virgin by one who was dignified by\nthe name of the \"venerable and most Christian Doctor,\" John Gerson[137],\nwho died in 1429; excepting that, instead of justice and mercy, Gerson\nmentions power and mercy as the two parts of which God's kingdom\nconsists, and that, whilst power remained with the Lord, the part of\nmercy ceded \"to the mother of Christ, and the reigning {372} spouse;\nhence, by the whole Church, she is saluted as Queen of Mercy.\"\n\n [Footnote 137: Paris, 1606. Tract iv. Super \"Magnificat,\" part\n iii. p. 754. See Fabricius, vol. iii. p. 49. Patav. 1754.]\n\nI would next refer to a writer who lived four centuries before Biel, but\nwhose works received the papal sanction so late as the commencement of\nthe seventeenth century, Petrus Damianus, Cardinal and Bishop. His works\nwere published at the command of Pope Clement VIII., who died A.D. 1604,\nand were dedicated to his successor, Paul V., who gave the copyright for\nfifteen years to the Editor, Constantine Cajetan, A.D. 1606. I will\nquote only one passage from this author. It is found in his sermon on\nthe nativity of the Virgin, whom he thus addresses: \"Nothing is\nimpossible with thee, with whom it is possible to restore those in\ndespair to the hope of blessedness. For how could that authority, which\nderived its flesh from thy flesh, oppose thy power? For thou approachest\nbefore that golden altar of human reconciliation not only asking, but\ncommanding; a mistress, not a handmaid.\" [Accedis enim ante illud aureum\nhuman\u00e6 reconciliationis altare, non solum rogans, sed imperans; Domina,\nnon ancilla. Paris, 1743. vol. ii. p. 107. Serm. 44.]\n\nI must now solicit your attention to the sentiments of two writers,\nwhose partial identity of name has naturally led, in some instances, to\nthe one being mistaken for the other, Bernardinus de Bustis, and\nBernardinus Senensis. Bernardinus de Bustis, [Fabricius, vol. i. 215.]\nin the country of Milan, was the celebrated author of the \"Office of the\nImmaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin,\" which was confirmed by the\nbull of Sixtus the Fourth, and has since been celebrated on the 8th of\nDecember.\n\nHe composed different works in honour of the Virgin, {373} to one of\nwhich he gave the title \"Mariale.\" In this work, with a great variety of\nsentiments of a similar tendency, he thus expresses himself:--\n\n\"Of so great authority in the heavenly palace is that empress, that,\nomitting all other intermediate saints, we may appeal to her from every\ngrievance.... With confidence, then, let every one appeal to her,\nwhether he be aggrieved by the devil, or by any tyrant, or by his own\nbody, or by divine justice;\" [Cologne, 1607. Part iii. Serm. ii. p.\n176.] and then, having specified and illustrated the three other sources\nof grievance, he thus proceeds: \"In the fourth place, he may APPEAL TO\nHER, if any one feels himself AGGRIEVED BY THE JUSTICE OF GOD [Licet ad\nipsam appellare, si quis a Dei justitia se gravari sentit.] ... That\nempress, therefore, Hester, was a figure of this empress of the heavens,\nwith whom God divided his kingdom. For, whereas God has justice and\nmercy, He retained justice to himself to be exercised in this world, and\ngranted mercy to his mother; and thus, if any one feels himself to be\naggrieved in the court of God's justice, let him appeal to the court of\nmercy of his mother.\" [Ideo si quis sentit se gravari in foro justiti\u00e6\nDei, appellet ad forum misericordi\u00e6 matris ejus.]\n\nFor one moment, let us calmly weigh the import of these words:--Is it\nany thing short of robbing the Eternal Father of the brightest jewel in\nhis crown, and sharing his glory with another? Is it not encouraging us\nto turn our eyes from the God of mercy as a stern and ruthless judge,\nand habitually to fix them upon Mary as the dispenser of all we want for\nthe comfort and happiness of our souls?\n\nIn another place, this same author thus exalts Mary:\n\n\"Since the Virgin Mary is mother of God, and God is her Son; and every\nson is naturally inferior to his {374} mother, and subject to her; and\nthe mother is preferred above, and is superior to her son, it follows\nthat the blessed Virgin is herself superior to God, and God himself is\nher subject, by reason of the humanity derived from her;\" [Part ix.\nSerm. ii. p. 605.] and again. \"O the unspeakable dignity of Mary, who\nwas worthy to command the Commander of all.\" [Part xii. Serm, ii. p.\n816.]\n\nI will detain you by only one more quotation from this famed Doctor. It\nappears to rob God of his justice and power, as well as of his mercy;\nand to turn our eyes to Mary for the enjoyment of all we can desire, and\nfor safety from all we can dread. Would that Bernardine stood alone in\nthe propagation of such doctrines. \"We may say, that the blessed Virgin\nis chancellor in the court of heaven. For we see, that in the chancery\nof our lord the pope, three kinds of letters are granted: some are of\nsimple justice, others are of pure grace, and the third mixed,\ncontaining justice and grace.... The third chancellor is he to whom it\nappertains to give letters of pure grace and mercy. And this office hath\nthe blessed Virgin; and therefore she is called the mother of grace and\nmercy: but those letters of mercy she gives only in the present life.\nFor, to some souls, as they are departing, she gives letters of pure\ngrace; to others, of simple justice; and to others, mixed, namely, of\njustice and grace. For some were very much devoted to her, and to them\nshe gives letters of pure grace, by which she COMMANDS, that glory be\ngiven to them without any pain of purgatory: others were miserable\nsinners, and not devoted to her, and to them she gives letters of simple\njustice, by which she COMMANDS that condign vengeance be done upon them;\nothers were lukewarm and remiss in devotion, and to them she gives\nletters of justice and grace, by which {375} she COMMANDS that grace be\ngiven to them, and yet, on account of their negligence and sloth, some\npain of purgatory be also inflicted on them.\" [Part xii. Serm. ii. On\nthe twenty-second excellence, p. 825.]\n\nThe only remaining author, to whom I will at present refer you, is a\ncanonized saint, Bernardinus Senensis. A full account of his life, his\nmiracles, and his enrolment among the saints in heaven, is found in the\nActa Sanctorum, vol. v. under the 20th of May, the day especially\ndedicated to his honour. Eugenius IV. died before the canonization of\nBernardine could be completed: the next pope, Nicholas V. on Whitsunday\n1450, in full conclave, enrolled him among the saints, to the joy, we\nare told, of all Italy. In 1461, Pius the Second said that Bernardine\nwas taken for a saint even in his lifetime; and, in 1472, Sixtus IV.\nissued a bull, in which he extols the saint, and authorizes the\ntranslation of his body into a new church, dedicated, as others had\nbeen, to his honour.\n\nThis Bernardine is equally explicit with others, in maintaining, that\nall the blessings which Christians can receive on earth are dispensed by\nMary; that her princedom equals the princedom of the Eternal Father;\nthat all are her servants and subjects, who are the subjects and\nservants of the Most High; that all who adore the Son of God should\nadore his virgin-mother, and that the Virgin has repaid the Almighty for\nall that He has done for the human race. Some of these doctrines were to\nme quite startling; I was not prepared for them; but I have been assured\nthey find an echo in the pulpits in many parts of the continent. Very\nfew quotations will suffice. [Opera, per John de la Haye. Paris, 1636.\nFive volumes bound in two.] {376}\n\n\"As many creatures do service to the glorious Mary, as do service to the\nTrinity.... For he who is the Son of God, and of the blessed Virgin,\nwishing (so to speak) to make, in a manner, the princedom of his mother\nequal to the princedom of his father, he who was God, served his mother\non earth. Moreover, this is true, all things, even the Virgin, are\nservants of the divine empire; and again, this is true, all things, even\nGod, are servants of the empire of the Virgin.\" [Vol. iv. Serm. v. c.\nvi. p. 118.]\n\n\"Therefore, all the angelic spirits are the ministers and servants of\nthis glorious Virgin.\" [Serm. iii. c. iii. p. 104.]\n\n\"To comprise all in a brief sentence, I do not doubt that God made all\nthe liberations and pardons in the Old Testament on account of the\nreverence and love of this blessed maid, by which God preordained from\neternity, that she should be, by predestination, honoured above all his\nworks. On account of the immense love of the Virgin, as well Christ\nhimself, as the whole most blessed Trinity, frequently grants pardon to\nthe most wicked sinners.\" [Serm. v. c. ii. p. 116.]\n\n\"By the law of succession, and the right of inheritance, the primacy and\nkingdom of the whole universe is due to the blessed Virgin. Nay, when\nher only Son died on the cross, since He had no one on earth to succeed\nHim of right, his mother, by the laws of all, succeeded, and by this\nacquired the principality of all. [Serm. v. c. vii. p. 118.] ... But, of\nthe monarchy of the universe, Christ never made any testamentary\nbequest, because that could never be done without prejudice to his\nmother. Moreover, HE KNEW THAT A MOTHER CAN ANNUL THE {377} WILL OF HER\nSON, IF IT BE MADE TO THE PREJUDICE OF HERSELF.\" [Insuper noverat quod\npotest mater irritare Filii testamentum si in sui pr\u00e6judicium sit\nconfectum.--P. 118.]\n\n\"The Virgin Mother[138], from the time she conceived God, obtained a\ncertain jurisdiction and authority in every temporal procession of the\nHoly Spirit, so that no creature could obtain any grace of virtue from\nGod except according to the dispensation of his Virgin mother[139]. As\nthrough the neck the vital breathings descend from the head into the\nbody, so the vital graces are transfused from the head Christ into his\nmystical body, through the Virgin. I fear not to say, that this Virgin\nhas a certain jurisdiction over the flowing of all graces. And, because\nshe is the mother of such a Son of God, who produces the Holy Spirit;\nTHEREFORE, ALL THE GIFTS, VIRTUES, AND GRACES OF THE HOLY SPIRIT ARE\nADMINISTERED BY THE HANDS OF HERSELF, TO WHOM SHE WILL, WHEN SHE WILL,\nHOW SHE WILL, AND IN WHAT QUANTITY SHE WILL.\" [Serm. v. p. 119.]\n\n [Footnote 138: Serm. v. c. viii. and Serm. vi. c. ii. p. 120 and\n 122. There is an omission (probably by an error of the press) in\n the first passage, which the second enables us to supply.]\n\n [Footnote 139: This writer is constantly referring to St.\n Bernard's doctrine, \"No grace comes from heaven upon the earth,\n but what passes through the hands of Mary.\"]\n\n\"She is the queen of mercy, the temple of God, the habitation of the\nHoly Spirit, always sitting at the right hand of Christ in eternal\nglory. Therefore she is to be venerated, to be saluted, and to be adored\nwith the adoration of hyperdulia. And therefore she sits at the right\nhand of the King, that as often as you adore Christ the king you may\nadore also the mother of Christ.\" [Serm. vi. p. 121.]\n\n\"The blessed Virgin Mary alone has done more for {378} God; or as much\n(so to speak) as God hath done for the whole human race. For I verily\nbelieve that God will grant me indulgence if I now speak for the Virgin.\nLet us gather together into one what things God hath done for man, and\nlet us consider what satisfaction the Virgin Mary hath rendered to the\nLord.\" Bernardine here enumerates many particulars, placing one against\nthe other, which for many reasons I cannot induce myself to transfer\ninto these pages, and then he sums up the whole thus: \"Therefore,\nsetting each individual thing one against another, namely, what things\nGod had done for man, and what things the blessed Virgin has done for\nGod, you will see that Mary has done more for God, than God has for man;\nso that thus, on account of the blessed Virgin, (whom, nevertheless, He\nhimself made,) God is in a certain manner under greater obligations to\nus than we are to Him.\" [Serm. vi. p. 120.]\n\nThe whole treatise he finishes with this address to the Virgin:--\n\n\"Truly by mere babbling are we uttering these thy praises and\nexcellences; but we suppliantly pray thy immense sweetness. Do thou, by\nthy benignity, supply our insufficiencies, that we may worthily praise\nthee through the endless ages of ages. Amen.\"\n\nIn closing these brief extracts I would observe, that by almost every\nwriter in support of the worship of the Virgin, an appeal is made to St.\nBernard[140] as their chief authority. Especially is the following\npassage quoted by many, either whole or in part, at almost every turn of\ntheir argument:--\n\n [Footnote 140: The present Pope, in the same manner, refers to\n him in his Encyclical Letter.--A.D. 1840.]\n\n\"If thou art disturbed by the heinousness of thy crimes, and confounded\nby the foulness of thy conscience, {379} if terrified by the horror of\njudgment thou begin to be swallowed up in the gulf of despair, think of\nMary, invoke Mary; let her not depart from thy heart, let her not depart\nfrom thy mouth. For whilst thinking of her, thou dost not err; imploring\nher, thou dost not despair; following her, thou dost not lose thy way;\nwhilst she holds thee, thou dost not fall; whilst she protects thee,\nthou dost not fear; whilst she is thy leader, thou art not wearied;\nwhilst she is favourable, thou reachest thy end[141].\"\n\n [Footnote 141: See Bern. Sen. vol. iv. p. 124. The passage is\n found in Bernard, Paris, 1640. p. 25.]\n\nIf the Virgin Mary is thus regarded as the source and well-head of all\nsafety and blessing, we cannot wonder, that glory and praise are\nascribed in the selfsame terms to her as to the Almighty. Cardinal\nBellarmin closes the several portions of his writings with \"Praise to\nGod and the blessed Virgin Mary[142].\" It is painful to reflect, that\neither the highest glory, due to that God who will not share his glory\nwith another, is here ascribed to one of the creatures of his hand\n(however highly favoured and full of grace), or else that to the most\nhigh God is ascribed an inferior glory and praise, such as it is lawful\nfor us to address to an exalted fellow-creature. Surely the only\nascription fitting the lips and the heart of those who have been\nenlightened by the bright beams of Gospel truth, is Glory to God alone\nthrough Christ his Son.\n\n [Footnote 142: Such ascriptions are very common. Joannes de\n Carthagena, a most voluminous writer of homilies, adopts this as\n the close of his sections: \"Praise and glory to the Triune God,\n to the Humanity of Christ, to the Blessed Virgin Mary his\n mother, and to St. Joseph her dearest spouse.\"--Catholic\n Homilies on the Sacred Secrets of the Mother of God, and Joseph,\n p. 921. Paris, 1615.] {380}\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\nSECTION V.--MODERN WORKS OF DEVOTION AMONG ROMAN CATHOLICS.\n\n\nIt may perhaps be surmised, that the authors referred to in the last\nsection lived many years ago, and that the sentiments of the faithful\nmembers of the Church of Rome have undergone material changes on these\npoints. Assurances are given on every side, that the invocation of the\nsaints and of the Virgin is nothing more than a request, that they would\nintercede with God, and implore his mercy for the suppliants. But\nwhatever implicit reliance we may place on the good faith with which\nthese declarations are made, we can discover no new key by which to\ninterpret the forms of prayer and praise satisfactorily. Confessedly\nthere are no changes in the authorized services. We discover no traces\nof change in the worship of private devotion. The Breviary and Missal\ncontain the same offices of the Virgin Mary as in former days. The same\nsentiments are expressed towards her in public; the same forms of\ndevotion[143], both in prayer and praise, are prepared for the use of\nindividuals in their daily exercises. Whatever meaning is to be attached\nto the expressions employed, the prevailing expressions themselves\nremain the same as we found them to have been in past ages.\n\n [Footnote 143: Works of this character abound in every place,\n where Catholic books may be purchased.]\n\nSince I made these extracts from the learned and celebrated doctors and\ncanonized saints of former ages, my attention has been invited to the\nlanguage now {381} used in forms of devotion, the spirit of which\nimplies similar views of the power and love of the Virgin Mary, as the\nfountain of mercies to mankind, and the dispenser of every heavenly\nblessing.\n\nAt the head of these modern works, I was led to read over again the\nencyclical letter of the present sovereign pontiff, from the closing\nsentences of which I have already made extracts. And referring his words\nto a test which we have more than once applied in a similar case--that\nof changing the name of the person, and substituting the name of God, or\nhis blessed Son, I cannot see how the spirit of his sentiments falls in\nthe least below the highest degree of religious worship. His words, in\nthe third paragraph of his letter, as they appear in the Laity's\nDirectory for 1833, are these:--\n\n\"But having at length taken possession of our see in the Lateran Basilic\naccording to the custom and institution of our predecessors, we turn to\nyou without delay, venerable brethren, and in testimony of our feelings\ntowards you, we select for the date of our letter this most joyful day\non which we celebrate the solemn festival of the most blessed Virgin's\ntriumphant assumption into heaven, that she who has been through every\ngreat calamity our patroness and protectress, may WATCH OVER US WRITING\nTO YOU, AND LEAD OUR MIND BY HER HEAVENLY INFLUENCE to those counsels\nwhich may prove most salutary to Christ's flock.\"\n\nLet us substitute for the name of Mary, the holiest of all, The Eternal\nSpirit of Jehovah Himself; and will not these words be a proper vehicle\nof the sentiments of a Christian pastor? Let us fix upon Christmas-day,\nor Easter, or Holy Thursday, and what word expressive {382} of gratitude\nfor past mercies to the supreme Giver of all good things, or of hope and\ntrust in the guidance of the Spirit of counsel, and wisdom, and\nstrength--of the most High God, who alone can order the wills and ways\nof men--might not a bishop of Christ's flock take from this declaration\nof the Sovereign Pontiff, and use in its first and natural sense, when\nspeaking of the Lord Jehovah Himself? \"We select for the date of our\nletter this most joyful day on which we celebrate the solemn festival of\nthe most blessed Redeemer's nativity, (or glorious resurrection, or\nascension,) that He who has been through every great calamity our patron\nand protector, may watch over us writing to you, and lead our mind by\nhis heavenly influence to those counsels which may prove most salutary\nto Christ's flock.\"\n\nIn these sentiments of the present Pope there is no allusion (as there\nis in the other clause) to Mary's prayers and intercessions. Looking to\nand weighing the words employed, and as far as words can be relied upon\nas interpreters of the thoughts, looking to the spirit of his\nprofession, only one inference can be fairly drawn. However direct and\nimmediate the prayers of the suppliants may be to the Virgin for her\nprotection and defence from all dangers, spiritual and bodily, and for\nthe guidance of the inmost thoughts in the right way, (blessings which\nwe of the Anglican Catholic Church, following the footsteps of the\nprimitive flock of Christ, have always looked for at the hand of God\nAlmighty only, to be granted by Him for the sake of his blessed Son,)\nsuch petitioners to Mary would be sanctioned to the utmost by the\nprinciples and example of the present Roman Pontiff.\n\nWe have already, when examining the records of {383} the Council of\nChalcedon, compared the closing words of this encyclical letter with the\nmore holy and primitive aspirations of the Bishops of Rome and\nConstantinople in those earlier days; and the comparison is striking\nbetween the sentiments now expressed in the opening parts of the same\nletter, and the spirit of the collects which were adopted for the use of\nthe faithful, before the invocation of saints and of the Virgin had\ngained its present strong hold in the Church of Rome. For example, a\ncollect at Vespers teaches us to pray to God as the source from whom all\nholy desires and all good counsels proceed [Hiem. 149.]; and on the\nfifth Sunday after Easter this prayer is offered: \"O God, from whom all\ngood things do come, grant, we pray Thee, that by thy inspiration we may\nthink those things that be good; and by thy guidance may perform the\nsame;\" whilst on the fifth Sunday after the Epiphany, in a collect, the\nspirit of which is strongly contrasted with the sentiments in both parts\nof this encyclical letter, God is thus addressed: \"We beseech thee, O\nLord, with thy continual pity, guard thy family, that, leaning on the\nsole hope of heavenly grace, it may ever be defended by thy protection.\"\n[Ut qu\u00e6 in _sola_ spe grati\u00e6 coelestis innititur, tua semper protectione\nmuniatur.--Hiem, 364. \"Let us raise our eyes to the Blessed Virgin, who\nis our greatest hope, yea, the entire ground of our hope.\"]\n\nSimilar materials are abundant. A whole volume, indeed, might readily be\ncomposed consisting solely of rules and instructions, confessions and\nforms of prayer, appertaining to the Virgin and the Saints, published by\nauthority at the present day, both in our country and on the Continent,\nfor the use of our Roman Catholic {384} brethren; but to which the word\nof God, and the doctrine and practice of the primitive Church, are in\nour estimation as much opposed as to the prayers of Bonaventura, or to\nthe doctrine of either of the Bernardins. It would, however, be\nunprofitable to dwell on this subject at any great length. I will,\ntherefore, only briefly refer to two publications of this sort, to which\nmy own attention has been accidentally drawn: \"The Imitation of the\nBlessed Virgin,\"[144] and \"The Little Testament of the Holy\nVirgin.\"[145]\n\n [Footnote 144: \"The Imitation of the Blessed Virgin, composed on\n the plan of the Imitation of Christ. London, 1816. Approved by\n T.R. Asselini, Doctor of Sorbonne, last Bishop of Boulogne. From\n the French.\"]\n\n [Footnote 145: \"The Little Testament of the Holy Virgin,\n translated from the French, and revised by a Catholic Priest.\n Third Edition. Dublin, 1836.\"]\n\nThe first professes to be \"composed on the plan of the 'Imitation of\nChrist.'\" This is, in itself, highly objectionable; its tendency is to\nexalt Mary, by association, to the same place in our hearts and minds,\nwhich Thomas \u00e0 Kempis had laboured, in his \"Imitation of Christ,\" to\nsecure for the Saviour; and it reminds us of the proceedings of\nBonaventura, who wrote psalms to the honour of the Virgin after the\nmanner which David used in his hymns to the Lord of Glory. In this work\nwe read the following prayer to the Virgin, which seems to be stained\nwith the error, the existence of which elsewhere we have already\nnoticed, of contrasting the justice and the stern dealings even of the\nSaviour, with the mercy, and loving-kindness, and fellow-feeling of\nMary; making God an object of fear, Mary an object of love.\n\n\"Mother of my Redeemer, O Mary, in the last moments {385} of my life, I\nimplore thy assistance with more earnestness than ever. I find myself,\nas it were, placed between heaven and hell. Alas! what will become of\nme, if thou do not exert, in my behalf, thy powerful influence with\nJesus?... I die with SUBMISSION since JESUS has ORDAINED it; but\nnotwithstanding the natural horror which I have of death, I die with\nPLEASURE, because I die under THY protection.\" [Chap. xiii. p. 344.]\n\nIn the fourteenth chapter the following passage occurs: \"It is giving to\nthe blessed Virgin a testimony of love particularly dear and precious to\nher, to make her holy spouse Joseph the first object of our devotion,\nnext to that which consecrates us to her service.... The name of Joseph\nis invoked with singular devotion by all the true faithful. They\nfrequently join it with the sacred names of Jesus and Mary. Whilst Jesus\nand Mary lived at Nazareth, if we had wished to obtain some favour from\nthem, could we have employed a more powerful protector than St. Joseph?\nWill he now have less power and credit? GO THEREFORE TO JOSEPH, (Gen.\nxli. 55.) that he may intercede for you. Whatever favour you ask, God\nwill grant it you at his request.... Go to Joseph in all your\nnecessities; but especially to obtain the grace of a happy death. The\ngeneral opinion that he died in the arms of Jesus and Mary has inspired\nthe faithful with great confidence, that, through his intercession, they\nwill have an end as happy and consoling as his. In effect, it has been\nremarked, that it is particularly at the hour of death that those who\nhave been during their life careful to honour this great saint, reap the\nfruit of their devotion.\" [P. 347.]\n\nIn this passage the unworthy idea, itself formed on a groundless\ntradition, is introduced of paying reverence {386} to one saint, in\norder to gratify and conciliate another. Joseph must be especially\nhonoured in order to do what is most acceptable to Mary. Surely this\ntends to withdraw the mind from that habitual reference of all our\nactions immediately to God, which the primitive teachers were so anxious\nto cultivate in all Christians.\n\nIn the \"Little Testament of the Holy Virgin,\" the following (p. 46) is\ncalled, \"A Prayer to the blessed Virgin.\" Can any words place more on an\nentire level with each other, the eternal Son of God and the Virgin?\n\"Jesus and Mary?!\"\n\n\"O Mary! what would be our poverty and misery if the Father of Mercies\nhad not drawn you from his treasury to give you to earth! Oh! my Life\nand Consolation, I trust and confide in your holy name. My heart wishes\nto love you; my mouth to praise you; my mind to contemplate you; my soul\nsighs to be yours. Receive me, defend me, preserve me; I cannot perish\nin your hands. Let the demons tremble when I pronounce your holy name,\nsince you have ruined their empire; but we shall say with Saint Anselm,\nthat he does not know God, who has not an idea sufficiently high of your\ngreatness and glory. We shall esteem it the greatest honour to be of the\nnumber of your servants. Let your glory, blessed Mother, be equal to the\nextent of your name; reign, after God, over all that is beneath God;\nbut, above all, reign in my heart; you will be my consolation in\nsuffering, my strength in weakness, my counsel in doubt. At the name of\nMary my hope shall be enlightened, my love inflamed. Oh! that I could\ndeeply engrave the dear name on every heart, suggest it to every tongue,\nand make all celebrate it with me. Mary! sacred name, under which no one\n{387} should despair. Mary! sacred name, often assaulted, but always\nvictorious. Mary! it shall be my life, my strength, my comfort! Every\nday shall I envoke IT AND THE DIVINE NAME OF JESUS. The Son will awake\nthe recollection of the mother, and the mother that of the Son. JESUS\nAND MARY! this is what my heart shall say at the last hour, if my tongue\ncannot; I shall hear them on my death bed,--they shall be wafted on my\nexpiring breath, and I with them, to see THEM, know THEM, bless and love\nTHEM for eternity. Amen.\"\n\nThere may, perhaps, be a reasonable ground for our hoping that these are\nnot the sentiments entertained by the enlightened Roman Catholics of our\ncountry and age. Any one has a full right to say, \"These are productions\nof individuals for which we and the Church to which we belong are not\nresponsible, any more than the Church of England is responsible for all\ndoctrines and sentiments expressed by writers in her communion! Even the\nsentiments above referred to of the present reigning pope, you have no\nright to allege as the doctrines of the Church!\" But I would again\nventure to suggest to every one, who would thus speak, the duty of\nascertaining for himself, whether the sentiments of those who at present\nfill the highest places, and which fully justify these devotional\nexercises and prayers to the Virgin and the Saints, be not themselves\nfully justified by the authorized ritual of the Roman Church. On this\npoint are supplied, even in this volume, materials sufficiently\ndiversified and abundant in quantity to enable any one to form a correct\njudgment.\n\nBy two brief extracts I will now bring this branch of our inquiry to a\nclose. The first is from the concluding paragraphs of a discourse lately\ndelivered and {388} published. In principle, the sentiments here\nprofessed apparently admit not only of being identified with those of\nthe authorized services of the Church of Rome, but also, though not so\nnaked and revolting in appearance as the doctrines of Bonaventura, Biel,\nand the two Bernardins, yet in reality they equally depart from the\nsimplicity of the Gospel, and are equally at direct variance with that,\nits first and its last principle, ONE GOD AND ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD\nAND MEN, THE MAN CHRIST JESUS.\n\n\"Remember that this day you have put yourselves and your families under\nthe protection of the ever-blessed Mother of God, and Her chaste Spouse,\nSt. Joseph; of those who were chosen of God to protect the infancy of\nJesus from the danger by a persecuting world. ENTREAT THEM TO PROTECT\nYOU AND YOURS FROM THE PERILS of a seducing and ensnaring world; to\nplead your interests in heaven, and secure by their intercession your\neverlasting crown. Loudly proclaim the praises of your heavenly Queen,\nbut at the same time turn Her power to your everlasting advantage by\nyour earnest supplications to HER.\" (See Appendix.)\n\nThe other extract, which sanctions to the full whatever offerings of\npraise and ascriptions of glory we have found individuals making to the\nVirgin and to Saints, is from an announcement in, I believe, the last\nEnglish edition of the Roman Breviary published, in its present form,\nunder the sanction of the Pope himself.\n\n\"To those who devoutly recite the following prayer after the office,\nPope Leo the Tenth hath granted pardon (indulsit) for the defects and\nfaults in celebrating it, contracted by human frailty.\n\n\"To the most holy and undivided Trinity; to the manhood {389} of our\ncrucified Lord Jesus Christ; to the fruitful spotlessness of the most\nblessed and most glorious and ever-Virgin Mary; and to the entire body\nof all the Saints, be eternal praise, honour, virtue, and glory, from\nevery creature, and to us remission of all sins, through endless ages of\nages. Amen.\" [Norwich, 1830. \u00c6st.]\n\nOn the indulgence for pardon given by Pope Leo the Tenth, more than 300\nyears ago, for such defects and faults in celebrating a religious\nservice as may be contracted by human frailty; and on the fact of the\nnotification of that indulgence being retained, and set forth so\nprominently in the service books at the present day, I will say nothing.\nWhatever associations may be raised in our minds by these circumstances,\nthe subject does not fall within our present field of inquiry. But to\njoin the Holy Trinity with the Virgin Mother, and all the Saints in one\nand the same ascription of ETERNAL PRAISE, HONOUR, and GLORY, is as\nutterly subversive of the integrity of primitive Christian Worship, as\nit is repugnant to the plainest sense of holy Scripture, and derogatory\nto the dignity of that Supreme Being, who declares Himself to be a\njealous God.\n\nIt has, indeed, been maintained that such ascriptions of glory and\npraise jointly to God and his Saints, is sanctioned by the language of\nour blessed Saviour Himself when He speaks of his having given his glory\nto his disciples [John xvii. 22.], and of his second advent, when He\nshall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy\nangels. [Luke ix. 26.] But between the two cases there is no analogy\nwhatever; the inference is utterly fallacious. We know that the Lord of\nHosts is the King of glory, and that his eternal Son shared the glory of\nhis Father before the foundations {390} of the world were laid. We know,\ntoo, that the Almighty has been pleased to create beings of various\ndegrees and orders, differing from each other in kind or in excellence\naccording to his supreme will. Among those creatures of his hand are the\nangels whom we reverence and love, as his faithful servants and his\nministers to us for good. But when we speak and think of religious\nadoration; of giving thanks; and ascribing eternal glory and honour, we\nhave only one object in our minds,--the supreme Sovereign Lord of all.\n\nWith regard to the gracious words of our Saviour in his prayer to the\nFather, on the eve of his death, St. Peter's acts and words supply us\nwith a plain and conclusive comment. He was himself one of those to whom\nChrist had declared that He had given the glory which his Father had\ngiven to Him; and yet when Cornelius fell down at his feet to worship\nhim, he took him up, saying, \"Stand up; I myself also am a man.\" [Acts\nx. 26.] The Saviour was pleased to impart his glory to his Apostles,\ndividing to them his heavenly gifts severally as He willed. We praise\nHim for those graces which shone so brightly in them, and we pray to Him\nto enable us by his grace to follow them, as they followed his blessed\nsteps. We reverence their memory, but we give God alone the praise.\n\nAs to the other instance, the words of our Lord (assuring us that the\nangels should accompany Him at his second advent in their glory, the\nglory which He assigned to them in the order of creation,) no more\nauthorize us to ascribe praise and glory by a religious act to them,\nwhen we praise the God of angels and men, than would {391} the assurance\nof an inspired apostle, that \"there is one glory of the sun, another\nglory of the moon, and another glory of the stars,\" sanction us in\njoining those luminaries in the same ascription of glory with their\nAlmighty Creator and ours. Just as reasonably would a pagan justify his\nworship of the sun, the moon, and the stars, by this passage of\nScripture, as our Roman Catholic brethren would justify themselves by\nthe former passage in their ascription of praise and glory to the holy\nangels, and saints, and the blessed Virgin. We honour the holy angels,\nwe praise God for the glory which He has imparted to them, and for the\nshare which He has been pleased to assign to them in executing his\ndecrees of mercy in the heavenly work of our salvation; and we pray to\nHIM to grant that they may by his appointment succour and defend us on\nearth, through Jesus Christ our Lord. But we address no invocation to\nthem; we ascribe no glory to them as an act of religious worship. By\noffering thanks and praise to God He declares that we honour HIM; by\noffering thanks and praise, and by ascribing glory and honour to angel,\nsaint, or virgin, we make them gods. {392}\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nCONCLUSION.\n\n\nWe have now, my fellow Christians, arrived at the conclusion of the task\nwhich I proposed to undertake. I have laid before you, to the utmost of\nmy abilities and means, the result of my inquiry into the evidence of\nholy Scripture and primitive antiquity, on the invocation of saints and\nangels, and the blessed Virgin Mary. In this inquiry, excepting so far\nas was necessary to elucidate the origin and history of the Roman\nCatholic tenet of the Assumption of the Virgin, we have limited our\nresearches to the writers who lived before the Nicene Council. That\nCouncil has always been considered a cardinal point,--a sort of\nclimacteric in the history of the early Church. It was the first Council\nto which all the bishops of Christendom were summoned; and the influence\nof its decrees is felt beneficially in the Catholic Church to this very\nday. In fixing upon this Council as our present boundary line, I was\ninfluenced by a conviction, that the large body of Christians, whether\nof the Roman, the Anglican, or any other branch of the Church Catholic,\nwould consent to this as an indisputable axiom,--that what the Church\nCatholic did not believe or practise up to {393} that date of her\nexistence upon earth, cannot be regarded as either Catholic or\nprimitive, or apostolical. Ending with St. Athanasius, (who, though he\nwas present at that Council, yet brings his testimony down through\nalmost another half century, his death not having taken place till A.D.\n873, on the verge of his eightieth year,) we have examined the remains\nof Christian antiquity, reckoning forward to that Council from the times\nof the Apostles. We have searched diligently into the writings, the\nsentiments, and the conduct of those first disciples of our Lord. We\nhave contemplated the words of our blessed Saviour himself, and the\ninspired narrative of his life and teaching. With the same object in\nview we have studied the prophets of the Old Testament, and the works of\nMoses; and we have endeavoured, at the fountainhead, to ascertain what\nis the mind and will of God, as revealed to the world from the day when\nHe made man, on the question of our invoking the angels and saints to\nintercede with Him in our behalf, or to assist and succour us on the\nearth. And the result is this:--From first to last, the voice of God\nHimself, and the voices of the inspired messengers of heaven, whether\nunder the patriarchal, the Mosaic, or the Christian dispensations, the\nvoices too of those maintainers of our common faith in Christ, who\nprayed, and taught, in the Church, before the corruptions of a\ndegenerate world had mingled themselves with the purity of Christian\nworship, combine all, in publishing, throughout the earth, one and the\nself-same principle, \"Pray only to God; draw nigh to Him alone; invoke\nno other; seek no other in the world of spirits, neither angel, nor\nbeatified saint; seek Him, and He will favourably, with mercy, hear your\nprayers.\" To this one {394} principle, when the Gospel announced the\nwhole counsel of God in the salvation of man, our Lord himself, his\nApostles, and his Church, unite in adding another principle of eternal\nobligation,--There is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ\nJesus; whatsoever the faithful shall ask the Father in the name of that\nMediator, He will grant it to them: He is ever living to make\nintercession for those who believe in Him: Invoke we no other\nintercessor, apply we neither to saint nor angel, plead we the merits of\nno other. Let us lift up our hearts to God Almighty himself, and make\nour requests known to Him in the name, and through the mediation of\nChrist, and He will fulfil our desires and petitions as may be most\nexpedient for us; He will grant to us, in this world, a knowledge of his\ntruth, and in the world to come life everlasting!\n\nWatching the tide of evidence through its whole progress, we find it to\nflow all in this one direction. Here and there indeed attempts have been\nmade to raise some mounds and barriers of human structure, in order to\narrest its progress, and turn it from its straight course, but in vain;\nunchecked by any such endeavours, it rolls on in one full, steady,\nstrong, and resistless current. Until we have long passed the Nicene\nCouncil, we find no one writer of the Christian Church, whose remains\ntell us, that he either himself invoked saints and angels, and the\nVirgin Mary, or was at all aware of any such practice prevailing in\nChristendom. Suppose, for one moment, that our doctrine is right; and\nthen we find the whole tenour of the Old and New Testaments, and the\nancient writers, in their plain meaning, agreeably to the interpretation\nof the most learned and unbiassed critics, fully coinciding in every\nrespect with our view of God being the sole object of invocation, {395}\nand of the exclusive character of Christ's intercession, mediation, and\nadvocacy. Suppose, for another moment, the Roman Catholic theory to be\ncorrect, then the whole general tenour and drift of Scripture must be\nevaded; the clearest statements and announcements must be explained away\nby subtle distinctions, gratuitous definitions, and casuistical\nrefinements, altogether foreign from the broad and simple truths of\nRevelation; then, too, in ascertaining the sentiments of an author, not\nhis general and pervading principles, evidenced throughout his writings,\nmust be appealed to; but casual and insulated expressions must be\ncontracted or expanded as may best seem to counteract the impression\nmade by the testimony of those principles. We may safely ask, Is there\nsuch evidence, that the primitive Church offered invocations to saints\nand angels, and the Virgin, as would satisfy us in the case of any\nsecular dispute with regard to ancient usage? On the contrary, is not\nthe evidence clear to a moral demonstration, that the offering of such\naddresses is an innovation of later days, unknown to the primitive\nChristians till after the middle of the fourth century, and never\npronounced to be an article of faith, until the Council of Trent, more\nthan a thousand years after its first appearance in Christendom, so\ndecreed it.\n\nThe tendency, indeed, of some Roman Catholic writings, especially of\nlate years, is to draw off our minds on these points from the written\nword of God, and the testimony of the earliest Church, and to dwell upon\nthe possibility, the reasonableness of the doctrines of the Church of\nRome in this respect, their accordance with our natural feelings, and\ntheir charitableness. But in points of such vast moment, in things\nconcerning the soul's salvation, we can depend with satisfaction and\n{396} without misgiving, only on the sure word of promise; nothing short\nof God's own pledge of his own eternal truth can assure us, that all is\nsafe. Such substitution of what may appear to us reasonable, and\nagreeable to our natural sentiments, and desirable if true, in place of\nthe assurances of God's revealed Will, may correspond with the arguments\nof a heathen philosopher unacquainted with the truth as it is in Jesus,\nbut cannot satisfy disciples of Him who brought life and immortality to\nlight by his Gospel. Such questions as these, \"Is there any thing\nunreasonable in this? Would not this be a welcome tenet, if true?\" well\nbecame the lips of Socrates in his defence before his judges, but are in\nthe strict sense of the word preposterous in a Christian. With the\nChristian the first question is, What is the truth? What is revealed?\nWhat has God promised? What has He taught man to hope for? What has He\ncommanded man to do? By his own words, by the words and by the example\nof his inspired messengers, by the doctrine and practice of his Church,\nthe witness and interpreter of the truth, how has He directed us to sue\nfor his mercy and all its blessings? On what foundation, sure and\ncertain, can we build our hopes that \"He will favourably with mercy hear\nour prayers?\" For in this matter, a matter of spiritual life and death,\nwe can anchor our hope on no other rock than his sure word of promise.\n\nThat sure word of promise, if I am a faithful believer, I have; but it\nis exclusive of any invocation by me of saint, or angel, or virgin. The\npledge of heaven is most solemnly and repeatedly given; God, who cannot\nlie, has, in language so plain, that he may run who readeth it, assured\nme that if I come to HIMSELF by HIS SON, my prayer shall not be cast\nout, my suit shall {397} not be denied, I shall not be sent empty away.\nIn every variety of form which language can assume, this assurance is\nratified and confirmed. His own revealed will directs me to pray for my\nfellow-creatures, and to expect a beneficial effect from the prayers of\nthe faithful upon earth in my behalf. To pray for them, therefore, and\nto seek their prayers, and to wait patiently for an answer to both, are\nacts of faith and of duty. And were it also appointed by God's will to\nbe an act of faith and duty in a Christian to seek the prayers, and aid,\nand assistance, of saints and angels by supplicatingly invoking them,\nsurely the same word of truth would have revealed that also. Whereas the\nreverse shows itself under every diversified state of things, from the\nopening of the sacred book to its very last page. The subtle distinction\nof religious worship into latria, dulia, and hyperdulia, the refined\nclassification of prayer under the two heads of direct, absolute, final,\nsovereign, on the one hand, and of oblique, relative, transitory,\nsubaltern, on the other, swell indeed many elaborate works of casuistry,\nbut are not discoverable in the remains of primitive Christians, nor in\nthe writings of God's word have they any place. I cannot find in the\ninspired Apostles any reference to the necessity, the duty, the\nlawfulness, the expediency of our seeking by prayer the good offices of\nthe holy dead, or of the angels of light. In their successors the\nearliest inspired teachers and pastors of Christ's fold, I seek in vain\nfor any precept, or example, or suggestion, or incidental allusion\nlooking that way. Why then should a Christian wish to add to that which\nGod has been pleased to appoint and to reveal? Why should I attempt to\nenter heaven through any other gate than {398} that gate which the Lord\nof heaven has opened for me? or why should I seek to reach that gate by\nany other way than the way which He has made for me; which He has\nHimself plainly prescribed to me; in which He has promised that his word\nshall be a lantern unto my feet; and along which those saints and\nservants of his, who received the truth from his own lips, and sealed it\nby their blood, have gone before?\n\nWhenever a maintainer of the doctrine and practice of invoking the\nSaints asks me, as we have lately been asked in these words, \"May I not\nreasonably hope that their prayers will be more efficacious than my own\nand those of my friends? And, under this persuasion, I say to them, as I\njust now said to you, holy Mary, holy Peter, holy Paul, pray for me.\nWhat is there in reason or revelation to forbid me to do so?\" To this\nand similar questions and suggestions, I answer at once, God has\nsolemnly covenanted to grant the petitions of those who ask HIM for his\nmercy, in the name and for the sake of his Son; and in his holy word\nhas, both by precept and example, taught us in this life to pray for\neach other, and to ask each other's prayers [James v. 16; I Tim. ii.\n1.]; but that He will favourably answer the prayers which we supplicate\nangels to offer, or which we offer to Himself through the merits and by\nthe intercession of departed mortals, is no where in the covenant.\nMoreover, when God invites me and commands me to approach Him myself, in\nthe name of his Son, and trusting to his merits, it is not Christian\nhumility, rather it savours of presumption, and intruding into those\nthings which we have not seen [Coloss. ii. 18.], to seek to prevail with\nHim by {399} pleading other merits, and petitioning creatures, however\nglorious, to interest themselves with Him in our behalf, angels and\nsaints, of whose power even to hear us we have no evidence. When Jesus\nHimself, who knows both the deep counsels of the Eternal Spirit, and\nman's wants and weaknesses and unworthiness, and who loveth his own to\nthe end, pledges his never-failing word, that whatsoever we ask the\nFather in his name, He will give it us, can it be less than an unworthy\ndistrust of his truth and faithfulness to ask the Father for the merits\nand by the intercession of another? and as though in fear lest God\nshould fail of his promise, or be unmindful of us Himself, to invoke\nangels and the good departed to make our wants known unto HIM, and\nprevail with HIM to relieve us?\n\nSurely it were wiser and safer to adhere religiously to that one way\nwhich cannot fail, than to adopt for ourselves methods and systems, for\nthe success of which we have no guarantee; which may be unacceptable in\nhis sight; and the tendency of which may be to bring down a curse and\nnot a blessing.\n\nMay the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls pour down upon his Church the\nabundance of his mercy, preserving those in the truth who now possess\nit, restoring it to those by whom it has been lost, and imparting it to\nall who are yet in darkness. And, whilst we speak the truth in love, and\nendeavour to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, may HE,\nfor his own glory, and for the safety and comfort of his people, shed\nthis truth abroad in our hearts, and enlighten us to receive it in all\nits fulness and integrity, and in the very sense in which the Holy\nSpirit, when He guided {400} the pen of St. Paul, willed the Church to\ninterpret it, \"There is one God and one Mediator between God and men,\nthe man Christ Jesus.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nO everlasting God, who hast ordained and constituted the services of\nAngels and men in a wonderful order; Mercifully grant, that as thy holy\nAngels alway do Thee service in heaven, so by thy appointment they may\nsuccour and defend us on earth, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.\n\nO Almighty God, who hast built thy Church upon the foundation of the\nApostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the head corner-stone;\nGrant us so to be joined together in unity of spirit by their doctrine,\nthat we may be made an holy temple, acceptable unto Thee, through Jesus\nChrist our Lord. Amen.\n\nO Almighty God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and\nfellowship, in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord; Grant us\ngrace, so to follow thy blessed Saints in all virtuous and godly living,\nthat we may come to those unspeakable joys, which Thou hast prepared for\nthem that unfeignedly love Thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.\n{401}\n\n * * * * *\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n\n * * * * *\n\nNote.--Pages 107 and 110.\n\nThe following is the original of the passages discussed in the text.\nJustin Martyr, Apol. I. p. 47. \u00a7 vi. Benedictine Edition by P. Maran.\nParis, A.D. 1742.\n\n[Greek: Enthende kai atheoi keklaemetha; kai homologoumen ton toiouton\nnomizomenon theon atheoi einai, all' ouchi tou alaethestatou, kai patros\ndikaiosunaes kai sophrosunaes, kai ton allon areton, anepimiktou te\nkakias Theou; all' ekeinon te, kai ton par' autou huion elthonta kai\ndidaxanta haemas tauta, kai ton ton allon hepomenon kai exomoioumenon\nagathon angelon straton, pneuma te to prophaetikon sebometha, kai\nproskunoumen, logoi kai alaetheiai timontes, kai panti boulomenoi\nmathein, hos edidachthaemen, aphthonos paradidontes.]\n\nIbid. page 50, 51. sect. xiii.--[Greek: 'Atheoi men oun hos ouk esmen,\nton daemiourgon toude tou pantos sebomenoi, ... ton didaskalon te touton\ngenomenon haemin, kai eis touto genaethenta Iaesoun Christon ton\nstaurothenta epi Pontiou Pilatou, tou genomenou en Ioudaiai epi chronois\nTiberiou Kaisaros epitropou, huion autou tou ontos Theou mathontes, kai\nen deuterai chorai echontes, pneuma te prophaetikon en tritaei taxei,\nhoti meta logou timomen, apodeixomen....]\n\nNote.--Page 134.\n\nIn the text it has been observed, that \"Coccius in his elaborate work\nquotes the two following passages as Origen's, without expressing {402}\nany hesitation or doubt respecting their genuineness; in which he is\nfollowed by writers of the present day.\"\n\nThe modern works, to which reference is here made, are chiefly the\nLectures delivered by Dr. Wiseman, in the Roman Catholic Chapel in\nMoorfields in the year 1836, and the compilation of Messrs. Berington\nand Kirk [Berington and Kirk. London, 1830, p. 403.], from which Dr.\nWiseman in his preface to his Lectures (p. ix.) informs us, that in\ngeneral he had drawn his quotations of the Fathers. In citing the\ntestimony of Origen in support of the invocation of saints, it is\nevident that Dr. Wiseman has drawn from that source; for whereas the two\nconfessedly spurious passages, from the Lament, and from the Book on\nJob, are in that compilation quoted in the same page, Dr. Wiseman cites\nonly the passage from the Lament, as from a work on the Lamentations,\nbut gives his reference to the Book on Job. His words are these:--\"Again\nhe (Origen) thus writes on the Lamentations: 'I will fall down on my\nknees, and not presuming, on account of my crimes, to present my prayer\nto God, I will invoke all the saints to my assistance. O ye saints of\nheaven, I beseech you with a sorrow full of sighs and tears; fall at the\nfeet of the Lord of mercies for me, a miserable sinner,'--Lib. ii. De\nJob.\" [Lectures on the Principal Doctrines and Practices of the Catholic\nChurch, by Nicholas Wiseman, D.D. London, 1836. Vol. i. preface, p. ix.\nand vol. ii. p. 107.]\n\nWhen we find such passages as these, which have been so long ago and so\nrepeatedly pronounced to be utterly spurious, yet cited in evidence at\nthe present time, and represented as conveying the genuine testimony of\nOrigen, we shall be pardoned for repeating the sentiments expressed so\nmany years ago by the learned Bishop of Avranches with regard to the\nvery work here cited, \"It is wonderful that, WITHOUT ANY MARK OF THEIR\nBEING FORGERIES, they should be sometimes cited in evidence by some\ntheologians.\"\n\nNote.--Page 151.\n\nThe whole passage cited as Origen's comment on the words of Ezekiel,\n\"The heavens are opened,\" is in the Latin version as follows. The Greek\noriginal, if it ever existed, is lost. The portion between brackets is\nthe part suspected of being an interpolation.\n\n6. _Et aperti sunt coeli_. Clausi erant coeli, et ad adventum Christi\naperti sunt, ut reseratis illis veniret super eum Spiritus Sanctus in\nspecie columb\u00e6. Neque enirn poterat ad nos commeare nisi primum {403} ad\nsu\u00e6 natur\u00e6 consortem descendisset. _Ascendit Jesus in altum, captivam\nduxit captivitatem, accepit dona in hominibus. Qui descendit, ipse est\nqui ascendit super omnes coelos ut impleret omnia. Et ipse dedit alios\napostolos, alios prophetas, alios evangelistas, alios pastores et\nmagistros in perfectionem sanctorum_.\n\n[7. _Aperti sunt coeli_. Non sufficit unum coelum aperiri: aperiuntur\nplurimi, ut descendant non ab uno, sed ab omnibus coelis angeli ad eos\nqui salvandi sunt. Angeli qui ascendebant et descendebant super Filium\nhominis, et accesserunt as eum, et ministrabant ei. Descenderunt autem\nangeli, quia prior descenderat Christus, metuentes descendere priusquam\nDominus virtutum omnium rerumque pr\u00e6ciperet. Quando autem viderunt\nprincipem militi\u00e6 coelestis in terrestribus locis commorari, tunc per\napertam viam ingressi sunt sequentes Dominum suum, et parentes voluntati\nejus qui distribuit eos custodes credentium nomini suo. Tu heri sub\nd\u00e6monio eras, hodie sub angelo. _Nolite_, inquit Dominus, _contemnere\nunum de minimis istis_ qui sunt in ecclesia. _Amen enim dico vobis, quia\nangeli eorum per omnia vident faciem Patris qui est in coelis_.\nObsequuntur saluti tu\u00e6 angeli, concessi sunt ad ministerium Filii Dei,\net dicuntinter se: si ille descendit, et descendit in corpus; si mortali\nindutus est carne, et sustinuit crucem, et pro hominibus mortuus est,\nquit nos quiescimus? quid parcimus nobis? Eja omnes angeli descendamus e\ncoelo. Ideo et multitudo militi\u00e6 coelestis erat laudantium et\nglorificantium Deum, quando natus est Christus. Omnia angelis plena\nsunt: veni, angeli, suscipe sermone conversum ab errore pristino, a\ndoctrina d\u00e6moniorum, ab iniquitate in altum loquente: et suscipiens eum\nquasi medicus bonus confove atque institue, parvulus est, hodie nascitur\nsenex repuerascens: et suscipe tribuens ei baptismum secund\u00e6\nregenerationis, et advoca tibi alios socios ministerii tui, ut concti\npariter eos qui aliquando decepti sunt, erudiatis ad fidem. _Gaudium\nenim est majus in coelis super unum peccatorem poenitentiam agentem,\nquam supra nonaginta novem justos quibus non opus est poenitentia_.\nExultat omnis creatura, coll\u00e6tatur et applaudit his qui salvandi sunt.\nNam _expectatio creatur\u00e6 revelationem filiorum Dei expectat_. Et licet\nnolint ii qui scripturas apostolicas interpolaverunt istiusmodi sermones\ninesse libris eorum quibus possit Creator Christus approbari, expectat\ntamen omnis creatura filios Dei, quando liberentur a delicto, quando\nauferentur de Zabuli manu, quando regenerentur a Christo. Verum jam\ntempus est, ut de pr\u00e6senti loco aliqua tangamus. Vidit Propheta non\nvisionem, sed visiones Dei. {404} Quare non vidat unam, sed plurimas\nvisiones? Audi Dominum pollicentem atque dicentem: _Ego visiones\nmultiplicavi_. 8. _Quinta mensis_. Hic annus quinta captivitatis regis\nJoachim. Trigesimo anno \u00e6tatis Ezekielis, et quinto captivitatis\nJoachim, Propheta mittiur ad Jud\u00e6os. Non despexit clementissimus pater,\nnec longo tempore incommonitum populum dereliquit. Quintus est annus.\nQuantum temporis intercessit? Quinque anni interfluxerunt ex quo captivi\nserviunt.]\n\nStatim descendit Spiritus Sanctus,--aperuit coelos, ut hi qui\ncaptivitatis jugo premebantur, viderent ea qu\u00e6 videbantur a Propheta.\nDicente quippe eo, _Et aperti sunt coeli_, quodam modo et ipsi\nintuebantur oculis cordis qu\u00e6 ille etiam oculis carnis aspexerat.--Vol.\niii. p. 358.\n\nNote.--Page 165.\n\nIn a note on the Epistle of St. Cyprian to his brother, reference was\nmade to the Appendix for a closer comparison of Cyprian's original\nletter with the modern translation of the passage under consideration.\nBy placing the two versions in parallel columns side by side, we shall\nimmediately see, that the mode of citing the testimony of St. Cyprian\nadopted in Dr. Wiseman's Lectures, from the compilation of Messrs.\nBerington and Kirk, is rather to substitute his own comment and\ninference, than to allow the witness to speak for himself in his own\nwords. The whole paragraph, as it appears in Dr. Wiseman's Lectures, is\nthis:--\n\n\"St. Cyprian in the same century: 'Let us be mindful of one another in\nour prayers; with one mind and with one heart, in this world and in the\nnext, let us always pray with mutual charity relieving our sufferings\nand afflictions. And may the charity of him, who, by the divine favour,\nshall first depart hence, still persevere before the Lord; may his\nprayer, for our brethren and sisters, not cease.' Therefore, after\nhaving departed this life, the same offices of charity are to continue,\nby praying for those who remain on earth.\" [Lect. xiii. vol. ii. p. 107,\nand Berington and Kirk, p. 430.]\n\n_St. Cyprian's words_. _Epist._ lvii. _p._ 96.\n\n_Translation adopted by Dr. Wiseman from Berington and Kirk._\n\n\n1. Memories nostri invicem simus,\n\n1. Let us be mindful of one\nanother IN OUR PRAYERS; {405}\n\n2. Concordes atque unanimes, 2. With one mind and with\n one heart.\n\n3. Utrobique. 3. In this world and in the next,\n\n4. PRO NOBIS semper oremus, 4. Let us always pray,\n\n5. Pressuras et angustias mutua 5. With mutual charity RELIEVING out\ncaritate relevemus, sufferings and afflictions.\n\n6. Et si quis istinc nostrum 6. And may the CHARITY OF HIM,\nprior divin\u00e6 dignationis celeritate who, by the divine facour, shall\npr\u00e6cesserit, perseveret apud Dominum first depart hence, still persevere\nNOSTRA DILECTIO, before the Lord;\n\n7. Pro fratribus et sororibus 7. May HIS prayer, for our brethren\nnostris apud misericordiam patris and sisters, not cease.\nnon cesset oratio.\n\nIn this translation, by inserting the words, _in our prayers_, which are\nnot in the original in the first clause; by rendering the adverb\n_utrobique_, IN THIS WORLD AND IN THE NEXT, in the third clause; by\nomitting the words _pro nobis, for each other_, which are in the\noriginal, in the fourth clause; by changing in the fifth the verb\n_relevemus, let us relieve_, implying another branch of their mutual\nkindness, into the participle _relieving_, which may imply, that the\nrelief alluded to was also to be conveyed by the medium of their\nprayers; by substituting _the charity of him_, in place of _nostra\ndilectio, our charity_, in the sixth; and by inserting the word _his_,\nwhich is not in the original, before _prayer_, where the grammar of the\nsentence requires _our_, in the seventh clause;--by these means the\ntranslator makes Cyprian express a sentiment far removed from what the\nwords of Cyprian, in their plain and natural sense, convey. It must,\nhowever, be borne in mind, as we have shown in our examination of the\npassage, that the sentiment of Cyprian, even as it is thus unduly\nextracted from his words, would not in the remotest degree countenance\nthe invocation of saints. It would do no more than imply his belief,\nthat the faithful departed may take an interest in the welfare of their\nsurviving friends on earth, and promote that welfare by their prayers; a\npoint which, in the preface, is mentioned as one of those topics, the\ndiscussion of which would be avoided in this inquiry, as quite distinct\nfrom the invocation of saints. {406}\n\nNote.--Page 176.\n\nAn extract from Eusebius, unnoticed in the text of this work, has\nrecently been cited as conveying his testimony in favour of the\ninvocation of saints. I have judged it better to defer the consideration\nof it to the appendix. It has been cited in these terms: \"In the fourth\ncentury Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea thus writes: 'May we be found worthy by the\nprayers and intercessions of all the saints.'\" [Dr. Wiseman's Lectures,\nvol. ii. p. 107. Lect. xiii. Berington and Kirk, p. 431.] To form a just\nestimate of this alleged testimony, it is requisite that we have before\nus not only that incomplete clause, but the whole passage purporting to\ncontain, in these words, the closing sentences of a commentary on\nIsaiah: [Tom. ii. p. 593, ed. Paris, 1707. Dr. Wiseman's reference is\n\"Com. in Isai. Tom. ii. p. 593, ed. Paris, 1706.\"]\n\n\"'And they shall be for a spectacle to all flesh.' To what flesh?\nAltogether to that which shall be somewhere punished? Nay, to that which\nshall of the heavenly vision be deemed worthy, concerning which it was\nsaid before, All flesh shall come to worship before me, of which may we\nalso be deemed worthy by the prayers and intercessions of all the\nsaints. Amen.\"\n\nIn examining this passage I am willing for the present that all its\nclauses should be accepted as the genuine words of Eusebius, and\naccepted too in the meaning attached to them by those who have cited\nthem. And to what do they amount? If these are indeed his expressions,\nEusebius believed that the saints departed can forward our spiritual\nwelfare by their prayers and ministering offices; and he uttered his\ndesire that we might thus be benefited. Now whether we agree with him or\nnot in that belief; whether we consider the faithful departed as able to\ntake an interest in our welfare and to promote it, or regard such an\nopinion as without foundation in the word of God and in primitive\ndoctrine; the belief implied and the wish expressed here by Eusebius,\nare widely indeed removed from the act of suppliantly invoking the\nsaints departed, and resorting to them with entreaties for their prayers\nand intercessions in our behalf. These two things, although often\nconfounded, are far from being equivalent; and by all who would\ninvestigate with fairness the subject of our inquiry, they must be\ncarefully kept distinct. The invocation of saints being the single point\nin question, our business is to ascertain, not what opinions Eusebius\nmay have {407} entertained as to the condition, and power, and offices\nof the saints departed, but whether he invoked them; whether he had\nrecourse to them with supplications for their prayers, or aid and\nsuccour. And keeping this closely in view, even if we admit this passage\nto be genuine, and interpret it as those who have cited it wish it to be\ninterpreted, we find in it no authority for the invocation of saints. A\nChristian would be no more countenanced by this language of Eusebius in\nsuppliantly invoking departed saints, than he would in praying to the\nangels for their help and mediation be countenanced by the terms of the\nprayer in regard to them, addressed by the Anglican Church to God, \"O\neverlasting God, who hast ordained and constituted the services of\nangels and men in a wonderful order; Mercifully grant, that as thy holy\nangels alway do Thee service in heaven, so by THY appointment they may\nsuccour and defend us on earth; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.\"\nWhoever petitions them, makes them Gods--Deos qui rogat ille facit.\n\nBut whilst, for the sake of the argument, I have admitted this passage\nto be genuine, and correctly translated, and have shown that whether\ngenuine or not, and even if it be thus correctly translated, it affects\nnot in the least the issue of our inquiry, I do not feel at liberty to\nwithhold the acknowledgment of my persuasion that in this concession I\ngrant too much. For, in the first place, I am assured, that if the\npassage came from the pen of Eusebius, no one is justified in confining\nthe desire and wish contained in it to the intercessions and prayers of\nthe saints in heaven; and, secondly, I see reasons for inferring that\nthe last clause was framed and attached to this work, not by Eusebius\nhimself, but by some editor or scribe.\n\nIn support of my first persuasion, I would observe that the very\nlanguage of the writer of these comments on Isaiah and the Psalms\nprecludes us from regarding the Saints departed as exclusively\nconstituting those \"holy ones\" by whose intercessions and prayers he\nexpresses his desire that our spiritual welfare may be promoted. In this\nvery comment on Isaiah (ch. vi. 2. p. 376), when he is speaking of the\nheavenly inhabitants, and illustrates his views by God's dealings\ntowards the children of men in this world, he employs this expression:\n\"For as among men the Saints of God partake of more excellent graces.\"\nOn the 67th (68th) Ps. v. 34, having interpreted the words, \"his\nstrength is in the clouds,\" as referring to the {408} prophets and\nteachers of divine wisdom, under the guidance of the Spirit, pouring\nheavenly truths upon the souls of men as the clouds drop rain on fertile\nlands, he proceeds thus to comment on the expression, \"God is wonderful\namong his Saints.\" [Vol. i. p. 364. The English translation refers the\nword \"holy\" to places, not persons.] \"These Saints are different from\nthose before called Apostles and prophets. And who can they be, except\nthose who out of all nations are deemed worthy of purity and holiness,\namong whom God is wonderful, giving to them power and strength?\" Thus in\nperfect accordance with the language of this writer, the Saints, from\nwhose prayers and intercessions he desires to derive spiritual benefits,\nmay be the Saints of God on earth--in the same state with those saints\nstill living in the flesh, whose prayers St. Paul desired to be offered\nup for himself, that by them a door of utterance to speak the mystery of\nChrist might be opened unto him [Coloss. i. 2; iv. 2, 3.]--and with\nthose saints to whom the same Apostle wrote at Philippi: \"To all the\nsaints in Christ Jesus:\" and to whom he sent the greetings of the saints\nwho then surrounded him: \"ALL the SAINTS salute you.\" [Phil i. 1; iv.\n22.]\n\nBut before the closing words of this paragraph, whatever be its meaning,\nbe acknowledged as the genuine and undoubted production of Eusebius, I\nwould suggest the careful weighing of some considerations, which appear\nto me to involve serious difficulties.\n\n1. First, through all the voluminous works of Eusebius, I have found in\nno single passage any allusion to the prayers of saints departed, or to\ntheir ministering offices in our behalf, though numberless openings show\nthemselves for the natural introduction of such a subject.\n\n2. Secondly, among all the various works and treatises of Eusebius, I\nhave not found one which is closed by any termination of the kind; on\nthe contrary, they all end with remarkable suddenness and abruptness,\nprecisely as this comment would end, were the sentence under\nconsideration removed. Each, indeed, of the books of his Ecclesiastical\nHistory, is followed by a notice of the close of the book, in some cases\ntoo that notice involving a religious sentiment: for example, at the\nclose of the 10th book we read: \"With the help of God, the end of the\ntenth book.\" But that these are appendages made by an editor or scribe\nis evident in itself, and moreover {409} in many instances is shown by\nsuch sentences as these, \"And this we have found in a certain copy in\nthe 8th volume:\" \"This is in some copies, as if omitted from the 8th\nbook.\" I find no one instance of Eusebius bringing a chapter or a\ntreatise to its close by any religious sentiment, or any termination of\nthe nature here contemplated.\n\nIt is also difficult to conceive that any author, having the flow and\nconnexion of the whole passage present to his mind, would himself have\nappended this ejaculation as we now find it. We know that editors and\nscribes often attached a sentiment of their own to the closing words of\nan author. And it seems far more probable, that a scribe not having the\nfull drift of the argument mainly before him, but catching the\nexpression, \"heavenly vision,\" appended such an ejaculation. That the\nwriter himself should introduce such a sentence by the connecting link\nof a relative pronoun feminine, which must of necessity be referred, not\nas the grammatical construction would suggest to the feminine noun\npreceding it,--not to any word expressed or understood in the\nintervening clause preceding it,--not to the last word in the sentence\neven before that intervening clause, nor yet to the principal and\nleading subject immediately under discussion and thrice repeated,--but\nto a noun incidentally introduced, seems, to say the least, strange and\nunnatural. \"And they shall be for a spectacle to all flesh. To what\nflesh? Altogether to that which shall be somewhere punished? Nay, to\nthat which shall of the heavenly vision be deemed worthy, concerning\nWHICH it was said before, All FLESH shall come to worship before me, of\nwhich may we also be deemed worthy by the prayers and intercessions of\nall the saints. Amen.\" But the classical reader will appreciate these\nremarks more satisfactorily by examining them with reference to the\npassage in the original language.\n\n[Greek: Kai esontai eis orasin pasaei sarki. poiai de sarki; ae pantos\npou taei kolasthaesomenaei; taes de epouraniou theas kataxiothaesomenaei\nperi HAES anotero elegeto aexei pasa sarx tou proskunaesai enopion mou,\nHAES kai haemeis axiotheiaemen euchais kai presbeiais panton ton hagion,\namaen.]\n\nNote.--Page 181.\n\nATHANASIUS.\n\nIn the text I observed that some Roman Catholic writers of the present\nday had cited the homily there shown to be utterly spurious, {410} as\nthe genuine work of St. Athanasius, and as recording his testimony in\ndefence of the invocation of Saints. The passage there referred to Dr.\nWiseman thus introduces, and comments upon.\n\n\"St. Athanasius, the most zealous and strenuous supporter that the\nChurch ever possessed of the divinity of Jesus Christ, and consequently\nof his infinite superiority over all the saints, thus enthusiastically\naddresses his ever-blessed Mother: 'Hear now, O daughter of David;\nincline thine ear to our prayers. We raise our cry to thee. Remember us,\nO most holy Virgin, and for the feeble eulogiums we give thee, grant us\ngreat gifts from the treasures of thy graces, thou who art full of\ngrace. Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Queen and\nmother of God, intercede for us.' Mark well,\" continues Dr. Wiseman,\n\"these words; 'grant us great gifts, from the treasures of thy graces;'\nas if he hoped directly to receive them from her. Do Catholics use\nstronger words than these? Or did St. Athanasius think or speak with us,\nor with Protestants?\"\n\nIn answer to these questions I reply with sure and certain confidence,\nfirst, that the genuine words of St. Athanasius himself prove him to\nhave spoken and thought with the Anglican Church, and not with the Roman\nChurch on the invocation of saints and angels, and the blessed Virgin\nMary; and secondly, that whatever words Roman Catholics use, whether\nstronger or not than these, these words on which the above questions are\nput, never came forth from the pen of St. Athanasius. Their spuriousness\nis not a question of doubt or difficulty. It has been shown in the text\nthat the whole homily has been for ages utterly repudiated, as a work\nfalsely attributed to St. Athanasius. It is indeed very disheartening to\nthose, whose object is the discovery and the establishment of the truth,\nto find works cited in evidence as the genuine productions of primitive\nChristian teachers, which have been so long ago, and so repeatedly, and\nthat not by members of another communion, but by the most learned men of\nthe Church of Rome, adjudged to be spurious. I do not mean that I think\nit not fully competent for a writer of the present day to call in\nquestion, and overrule and set aside the decisions of former editors, as\nto the genuine or the spurious character of any work. On the contrary I\nam persuaded that a field is open in that department of theology, which\nwould richly repay all the time and labour and expense, which persons\nwell qualified for the task could bestow upon its culture. What I lament\nis this, that after a work has been deliberately condemned as\nunquestionably {411} spurious, by competent and accredited judges for\ntwo centuries and a half at the least, that very work should be now\ncited as genuine and conclusive evidence, without any the most distant\nallusion to the judgment which had condemned it, or even to any\nsuspicion of its being a forgery. In this instance, also, Dr. Wiseman\nhas implicitly followed the compilation of Messrs. Berington and Kirk.\nThis is evident, because the extract, as it stands word for word the\nsame in his Lectures and their compilation, is not found as one passage\nin the spurious homily, but is made up of sentences selected from\ndifferent clauses, and put together so as to make one paragraph. It is\nworthy of notice, that in quoting their authority, both Dr. Wiseman, and\nthose whom he follows, refer us to the very volume in which the\nBenedictine editors declare that there was no learned man, who did not\npronounce the work to be spurious; and in which also they quote at\nlength the letter of Baronius which had proved it to be a forgery. [Dr.\nWiseman's Lectures, vol. ii. p. 108, from Berington and Kirk, p. 430,\n431.]\n\nNote.--Page 231. (Decree of the Council of Trent.) [Canones et Decreta\nSacros. OEcumen. et Genera. Concilii Tridentini, &c. Rom. fol. A.D.\n1564.]\n\nMandat sancta Synodus omnibus Episcopis, et ceteris docendi munus\ncuramque sustinentibus, ut juxta Catholic\u00e6, et Apostolic\u00e6 Ecclesi\u00e6 usum,\na prim\u00e6vis Christian\u00e6 religionis temporibus receptum, sanctorumque\nPatrum consensionem, et sacrorum Conciliorum decreta, inprimis de\nSanctorum intercessione, invocatione, Reliquiarum honore, et legitimo\nimaginum usu, fideles diligenter instruant, docentes eos, Sanctos, una\ncum Christo regnantes, orationes suas pro hominibus Deo offerre; bonum\natque utile esse suppliciter eos invocare; et ob beneficia impetranda a\nDeo per Filium ejus Jesum Christum, Dominum nostrum, qui solus noster\nRedemptor et Salvator est, ad eorum orationes, opem, auxiliumque\nconfugere: illos vero, qui negant sanctos \u00e6tern\u00e2 felicitate in coelo\nfruentes, invocandos esse; aut qui asserunt, vel illos pro hominibus non\norare, vel eorum, ut pro nobis etiam singulis orent, invocationem esse\nidololatriam, vel pugnare cum verbo Dei, adversarique honori unius\nMediatoris Dei et hominum, Jesu Christi, vel stultum esse, in coelo\nregnantibus voce, vel mente supplicare, impie sentire. Sanctorum quoque\nMartyrum, et aliorum cum Christo viventium Sancta corpora, {412} qu\u00e6\nviva membra fuerunt Christi, et templum Spiritus Sancti, ab ipso ad\n\u00e6ternam vitam suscitanda et glorificanda, a fidelibus veneranda esse;\nper qu\u00e6 multa beneficia a Deo hominibus pr\u00e6stantur: ita ut affirmantes,\nSanctorum Reliquiis venerationem, atque honorem non deberi; vel eas,\naliaque sacra monumenta a fidelibus inutiliter honorari; atque eorum\nopis impetrand\u00e6 causa sanctorum memorias frustra frequentari; omnino\ndamnandos esse, prout jampridem eos damnavit, et nunc etiam damnat\nEcclesia. [De Invocatione, Veneratione, et Reliquiis Sanctorum, et\nSacris Imaginibus, p. 202.]\n\nNote.--Pages 369 and 390.\n\nIn a prefatory epistle, addressed to the \"Chaplains, Wardens, and\nBrethren of the Holy Catholic Gild,\" in Huddersfield, Dr. Wiseman (p. 4)\nexpresses himself thus: \"Yesterday I laid the badge of your association\nat the feet of the sovereign pontiff, and it was most condescendingly\nand graciously received. But this is not all. As I had foretold, I found\nHis Holiness fully informed of your establishment and public\nmanifestation; and I had the satisfaction of hearing him express his\nWISH THAT SIMILAR INSTITUTIONS SHOULD REVIVE ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.\"\n\nTowards the close of the sermon, to which this preface is prefixed, and\nwhich was preached at St. Patrick's Chapel, Huddersfield, Sept. 26th,\n1839, and was printed at York in the present year [A.D. 1840], the\npreacher draws the comparison, referred to in page 370 of this work,\nbetween England and the continent, and between England as it is, and\nEngland as it once was, and as, in his view, it ought to be again. After\ndescribing the scenes which you may witness in Roman Catholic countries,\n\"where you might see the poor and the afflicted crowding round some\naltar, where their pious confidence or experience of past favours leads\nthem to hope that their prayers will best be heard through the\nintercession of our dear Lady,\" he thus proceeds: \"Oh that the time had\ncome, when a similar expression of our devout feelings towards her\nshould publicly be made, and all should unite to show her that honour,\nthat reverence, and love which she deserves from all Christians, and\nwhich has so long been denied her amongst us. There was a time when\nEngland was second to {413} no other country upon earth in the discharge\nof this holy duty; and it will be only PART OF THE RESTORATION OF OUR\nGOOD AND GLORIOUS DAYS OF OLD to revive to the utmost this part of\nancient piety. Therefore do I feel sincere joy at witnessing the\nestablishment of this excellent brotherhood, and its public\nmanifestation in this town this day, both as a means of encouraging\ndevotion and virtue, and as a return to one of the venerable\ninstitutions of our forefathers. Enter then fully into its spirit.\"\n\n[\"A Sermon delivered at St. Patrick's, Huddersfield, Sept. 26th, 1839,\non occasion of the Holy Catholic Gild there established, by the Rev. N.\nWiseman, D.D., Professor in the University of Rome. York, 1840,\" p. 22,\n23. The first quotation made in p. 390, is from this Sermon.]","title":"Primitive Christian Worship: Or, The Evidence of Holy Scripture and the Church, Against the Invocation of Saints and Angels, and the Blessed Virgin Mary","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":122984}