SECTION I.--THE EVIDENCE OF JUSTIN MARTYR.

PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN WORSHIP

OR,

THE EVIDENCE

OF

HOLY SCRIPTURE AND THE CHURCH,

AGAINST THE

INVOCATION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS, AND THE

BLESSED VIRGIN MARY.

* * * * *

BY

J. ENDELL TYLER, B.D.

RECTOR OF ST. GILES-IN-THE-FIELDS,

AND CANON RESIDENTIARY OF ST. PAUL'S.

* * * * *

Speaking the truth in love.--EPH. iv. 15

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.--1 THESS. v. 21.

SECOND EDITION

LONDON

Printed for the

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE;

SOLD AT THE DEPOSITORY,

GREAT QUEEN STREET, LINCOLN'S INN FIELDS,

NO. 4, ROYAL EXCHANGE;

AND BY ALL BOOKSELLERS.

* * * * *

1847.

TO

THE ONE

HOLY, CATHOLIC, AND APOSTOLIC

CHURCH,

AS A TRIBUTE OF VENERATION AND LOVE,

THIS WORK IS DEDICATED,

BY HER DEVOTED SERVANT AND SON.

Nov. 25, 1840.

* * * * *

PREFACE.

Members of the Church of Rome, and members of the Church of England,

have too long entertained towards each other feelings of hostility.

Instead of being drawn together as brethren by the cords of that one

faith which all Catholics hold dear, their sentiments of sympathy and

affection have been absorbed by the abhorrence with which each body has

regarded the characteristic tenets of its adversary; whilst the terms

"heretic" on the one side, and "idolater" on the opposite, have rendered

any attempt to bring about a free and friendly discussion of each

other's views almost hopeless.

Every Christian must wish that such animosities, always ill-becoming the

servants and children of the God of love, should cease for ever. Truth

indeed must never be sacrificed to secure peace; nor must we be tempted

by the seductiveness of a liberality, falsely so called, to soften down

and make light of those differences which keep the Churches of England

and Rome asunder. But surely the points at issue may be examined without

exasperation and rancour; and the results of inquiries carried on with a

singleness of mind, in search only for the truth, may be offered on the

one side without insult or offence, and should be received and examined

without contempt and scorn on the other.

The writer of this address is not one in whom early associations would

foster sentiments of evil will against members of the Church of Rome; or

encourage any feeling, incompatible with regard and kindness, towards

the conscientious defenders of her creed. From his boyhood he has lived

on terms of friendly intercourse and intimacy with individuals among her

laity and of her priesthood. In his theological pursuits, he has often

studied her ritual, consulted her commentators, and perused the homilies

of her divines; and, withal, he has mourned over her errors and

misdoings, as he would have sighed over the faults of a friend, who,

with many good qualities still to endear him, had unhappily swerved from

the straight path of rectitude and integrity.

In preparing these pages, the author is not conscious of having been

influenced by any motive in the least degree inconsistent with

sentiments of charity and respect; at all events, he would hope that no

single expression may have escaped from his pen tending to hurt

unnecessarily the feelings of any sincere Christian. He has been

prompted by a hope that he may perhaps induce some individuals to

investigate with candour, and freedom, and with a genuine desire of

arriving at the truth, the subjects here discussed; and that whilst

some, even of those who may have hitherto acquiesced in erroneous

doctrines and practices, may be convinced of their departure from

Christian verity; others, if tempted to desert the straight path of

primitive worship, may be somewhat strengthened and armed by the views

presented to them here, against the captivating allurements of religious

error.

Whether the present work may, by the Divine favour, be made in some

degree instrumental in forwarding these results, or in effecting any

good, the author presumes not to anticipate; but he will hope for the

best. He believes that the honest pursuit of the truth, undertaken with

an humble zeal for God's glory, and in dependence on his guidance and

light, is often made successful beyond our own sanguine expectations.

With these views the following pages are offered, as the result of an

inquiry into the doctrine and practice of the Invocation of Saints and

Angels, and of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

To prevent misconception as to the nature of this work, the author would

observe, that since the single subject here proposed to be investigated

is, "The Invocation of Saints and Angels and the Blessed Virgin Mary,"

he has scrupulously avoided the discussion of many important and

interesting questions usually considered to be connected with it. He has

not, for example, discussed the practice of praying for the dead; he has

investigated no theory relating to the soul's intermediate state between

our dissolution and the final judgment; he has canvassed no opinion as

to any power in the saints and the faithful departed to succour either

by their prayers or by any other offices, those who are still on earth,

and on their way to God. From these and such like topics he has

abstained, not because he thinks lightly of their importance, nor

because his own mind is perplexed by doubts concerning them; but because

the introduction of such points would tend to distract the thoughts from

the exclusive contemplation of the one distinct question to be

investigated.

He is also induced to apprise the reader, that in his work, as he

originally prepared it, a far wider field, even on the single subject of

the present inquiry, was contemplated than this volume now embraces. His

intention was to present an historical survey of the doctrine and

practice of the invocation of Saints and Angels, and the Virgin, tracing

it from the first intimation of any thing of the kind through its

various progressive stages, till it had reached its widest prevalence in

Christendom. When, however, he had arranged and filled up the results of

the inquiries which he made into the sentiments and habits of those

later writers of the Church, whose works he considered it necessary to

examine with this specific object in view, he found that the bulk of the

work would be swollen far beyond the limits which he had prescribed to

himself; he felt also that the protracted investigation would materially

interfere with the solution of that one independent question which he

trusts now is kept unmixed with any other. He has, consequently, in the

present address limited the range of his researches on the nature of

Primitive Christian Worship, to the writers of the Church Catholic who

lived before the Nicene Council, or were members of it.

In one department, however, he has been under the necessity of making,

to a certain extent, an exception to this rule. Having found no allusion

to the doctrine of the Assumption of the Virgin, on which much of the

religious worship now paid to her seems to be founded, in any work

written before the middle of the fifth century, he has been induced, in

his examination of the grounds on which that doctrine professes to be

built, to cite authors who flourished subsequently to the Nicene

Council.

The author would also mention, that although in substance he has

prepared this work for the examination of all Christians equally, and

trusts that it will be found not less interesting or profitable to the

members of his own Church than to any other, yet he has throughout

adopted the form of an address to his Roman Catholic countrymen. Such a

mode of conveying his sentiments he considered to be less controversial,

while the facts and the arguments would remain the same. His object is

not to condemn, but to convince: not to hold up to obloquy those who are

in error, but, as far as he may be allowed, to diminish an evil where it

already exists, and to check its further prevalence.

* * * * *

CONTENTS.

PART I.--CHAPTER I.

Introduction--The duty of examining the grounds of our Faith--Principles

of conducting that examination--Errors to be avoided--Proposed plan of

the present work.

CHAPTER II.

§ 1. Evidence of Holy Scripture, how to be ascertained

2. Direct Evidence of the Old Testament

3. Evidence of the Old Testament, continued

4. ------ New Testament

CHAPTER III.

§ 1. Evidence of Primitive Writers

2. ------ Apostolic Fathers

CHAPTER IV.

§ 1. Evidence of Justin Martyr

See also Appendix

2. Evidence of Irenæus

3. ------ Clement of Alexandria

4. ------ Tertullian

------ Methodius

5. ------ Origen

See also Appendix

6. Supplementary Section on Origen

See also Appendix

7. Evidence of St. Cyprian

See also Appendix

8. Evidence of Lactantius

9. ------ Eusebius

See also Appendix

10. Apostolical Canons and Constitutions

11. Evidence of St. Athanasius

See also Appendix

PART II.--CHAPTER I.

State of Worship at the time of the Reformation

§ 1. "Hours of the Virgin"

2. Service of Thomas Becket

CHAPTER II.

Council of Trent

See also Appendix

CHAPTER III.

Present Service in the Church of Rome

PART III.

WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN MARY.

CHAPTER I.

§ 1. Introductory Remarks

2. Evidence of Holy Scripture

CHAPTER II.

Evidence of Primitive Writers

CHAPTER III.

Assumption of the Virgin Mary

CHAPTER IV.

Councils of Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon

CHAPTER V.

§ 1. Present authorized Worship of the Virgin

2. Worship of the Virgin, continued

3. Bonaventura

4. Biel, Damianus, Bernardinus de Bustis, Bernardinus Senensis,&c.

See also Appendix

5. Modern Works of Devotion

See also Appendix

CONCLUSION

* * * * * {1}

PART I.

CHAPTER I.

THE DUTY OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT.

Fellow Christians,

Whilst I invite you to accompany me in a free and full investigation of

one of those tenets and practices which keep asunder the Roman and the

Anglican Church, I am conscious in how thankless an undertaking I have

engaged, and how unwelcome to some is the task in which I call upon you

to join. Many among the celebrated doctors of the Roman Church have

taught their disciples to acquiesce in a view of their religious

obligation widely different from the laborious and delicate office of

ascertaining for themselves the soundness of the principles in which

they have been brought up. It has been with many accredited teachers a

favourite maxim, that individuals will most acceptably fulfil their duty

by abstaining {2} from active and personal inquiries into the

foundations of their faith; and by giving an implicit credence to

whatever the Roman Church pronounces to be the truth[1]. Should this

book fall into the hands of any who have adopted that maxim for the rule

of their own conduct as believers, its pages will of course afford them

no help; nor can they take any interest in our pursuit, or its results.

Whilst, however, I am aware, that until the previous question (involving

the grounds on which the Church of Rome builds her claim to be the sole,

exclusive, and infallible teacher of Christians in all the doctrines of

religion,) shall have been solved, many members of her body would throw

aside, as preposterous, any treatise which professed to review the

soundness of her instructions; I have been at the same time assured,

that with many of her communion the case is far otherwise; and that

instead of their being averse to all investigation, a calm, candid, and

friendly, but still a free and unreserved inquiry into the disputed

articles of their creed, is an object of their sincere desire. On this

ground I trust some preliminary reflections upon the duty of proving all

things, with a view of holding the more fast {3} and sure what is good,

may be considered as neither superfluous nor out of place.

[Footnote 1: It is sometimes curious to observe the language in

which the teachers and doctors themselves profess their entire,

unlimited, and implicit submission of all their doctrines, even

in the most minute particulars, to the judgment and will of the

authorities of Rome. Instances are of very frequent occurrence.

Thus Joannes de Carthagena, a very voluminous writer of

homilies, closes different parts of his work in these words,

"These and all mine I willingly subject to the judgment of the

Catholic Roman Church, ready, if there be written any thing in

any way in the very least point contrary to her doctrine, to

correct, amend, erase, and utterly abolish it." Hom. Cath. De

Sacris Arcanis Deiparæ et Josephi. Paris, 1615. page 921.]

But just as it would belong to another and a separate province to

examine, at such length as its importance demands, the claims of the

Church of Rome to be acknowledged as that universal interpreter of the

word and will of God, from whose decisions there is no appeal; so would

it evidently be incompatible with the nature of the present address, to

dwell in any way corresponding with the magnitude and delicacy of the

subject, on the duty, the responsibility, and the privilege of private

judgment; on the dangers to which an unchastened exercise of it may

expose both an individual, and the cause of Christian truth; or on the

rules which sound wisdom and the analogy of faith may prescribe to us in

the government of ourselves with respect to it. My remarks, therefore,

on this subject will be as few and brief as I believe to be consistent

with an acknowledgment of the principles upon which this work has been

conducted.

The foundation, then, on which, to be safe and beneficial, the duty of

private judgment, as we maintain, must be built, is very far indeed

removed from that common and mischievous notion of it which would

encourage us to draw immediate and crude deductions from Holy Scripture,

subject only to the control and the colouring of our own minds,

responsible for nothing further than our own consciousness of an honest

intention. Whilst we claim a release from that degrading yoke which

neither are we nor were our fathers able to bear, we deprecate for

ourselves and for our fellow-believers that licentiousness which in

doctrine and practice tempts a man to follow merely what is right in his

own eyes, uninfluenced by the example, the precepts, {4} and the

authority of others, and owning no submissive allegiance to those laws

which the wise and good have established for the benefit of the whole

body. The freedom which we ask for ourselves, and desire to see imparted

to all, is a rational liberty, tending to the good, not operating to the

bane of its possessors; ministering to the general welfare, not to

disorder and confusion. In the enjoyment of this liberty, or rather in

the discharge of the duties and trusts which this liberty brings with

it, we feel ourselves under an obligation to examine the foundations of

our faith, to the very best of our abilities, according to our

opportunities, and with the most faithful use of all the means afforded

to us by its divine Author and finisher. Among those means, whilst we

regard the Holy Scriptures as paramount and supreme, we appeal to the

witness and mind of the Church as secondary and subsidiary; a witness

not at all competing with Scripture, never to be balanced against it;

but competing with our own less able and less pure apprehension of

Scripture. In ascertaining the testimony of this witness, we examine the

sentiments and practice of the ancient teachers of the Church; not as

infallible guides, not as uniformly holding all of them the same

opinions, but as most valuable helps in our examination of the evidence

of the Church, who is, after all, our appointed instructor in the truths

of the Gospel,--fallible in her individual members and branches, yet the

sure witness and keeper of Holy Writ, and our safest guide on earth to

the mind and will of God. When we have once satisfied ourselves that a

doctrine is founded on Scripture, we receive it with implicit faith, and

maintain it as a sacred deposit, entrusted to our keeping, to be

delivered down whole and entire without our adding {5} thereto what to

us may seem needful, or taking away what we may think superfluous.

The state of the Christian thus employed, in acting for himself in a

work peculiarly his own, is very far removed from the condition of one

who labours in bondage, without any sense of liberty and responsibility,

unconscious of the dignity of a free and accountable agent, and

surrendering himself wholly to the control of a task-master. Equally is

it distant from the conduct of one who indignantly casting off all

regard for authority, and all deference to the opinions of others,

boldly and proudly sets up his own will and pleasure as the only

standard to which he will submit. For the model which we would adopt, as

members of the Church, in our pursuit of Christian truth, we find a

parallel and analogous case in a well-principled and well-disciplined

son, with his way of life before him, exercising a large and liberal

discretion in the choice of his pursuits; not fettered by peremptory

paternal mandates, but ever voluntarily referring to those principles of

moral obligation and of practical wisdom with which his mind has been

imbued; shaping his course with modest diffidence in himself, and

habitual deference to others older and wiser than himself, yet acting

with the firmness and intrepidity of conscious rectitude of principle,

and integrity of purpose; and under a constant sense of his

responsibility, as well for his principles as for his conduct.

Against the cogency of these maxims various objections have been urged

from time to time. We have been told, that the exercise of private

judgment in matters of religion, tends to foster errors of every

diversity of character, and leads to heresy, scepticism, and infidelity:

it is represented as rending the Church of Christ, and totally {6}

subverting Christian unity, and snapping asunder at once the bond of

peace. So also it has been often maintained, that the same cause robs

individual Christians of that freedom from all disquietude and

perplexity and anxious responsibility, that peace of mind, satisfaction,

and content, which those personally enjoy, who surrender themselves

implicitly to a guide, whom they believe to be unerring and infallible.

For a moment let us pause to ascertain the soundness of such objections.

And here anticipating, for argument's sake, the worst result, let us

suppose that the exercise of individual inquiry and judgment (such as

the best teachers in the Anglican Church are wont to inculcate) may lead

in some cases even to professed infidelity; is it right and wise and

justifiable to be driven by an abuse of God's gifts to denounce the

legitimate and faithful employment of them? What human faculty--which

among the most precious of the Almighty's blessings is not liable to

perversion? What unquestionable moral duty can be found, which has not

been transformed by man's waywardness into an instrument of evil? Nay,

what doctrine of our holy faith has not the wickedness or the folly of

unworthy men employed as a cloke for unrighteousness, and a vehicle for

blasphemy? But by a consciousness of this liability in all things human,

must we be tempted to suppress the truth? to disparage those moral

duties? or to discountenance the cultivation of those gifts and

faculties? Rather would not sound philosophy and Christian wisdom

jointly enforce the necessity of improving the gifts zealously, of

discharging the moral obligation to the full, and of maintaining the

doctrine in all its integrity; but guarding withal, to the utmost of our

power and watchfulness, against the abuses to which {7} any of these

things may be exposed? And we may trust in humble but assured

confidence, that as it is the duty of a rational being, alive to his own

responsibility, to inquire and judge for himself in things concerning

the soul, with the most faithful exercise of his abilities and means; so

the wise and merciful Ruler of our destinies will provide us with a sure

way of escaping from all evils incident to the discharge of that duty,

if, in reliance on his blessing, we honestly seek the truth, and

perseveringly adhere to that way in which He will be our guide.

It is a question very generally and very reasonably entertained among

us, whether the implicit submission and unreserved surrender of

ourselves to any human authority in matters of faith, (though whilst it

lasts, it of course affords an effectual check to open scepticism,) does

not ultimately and in very deed prove a far more prolific source of

disguised infidelity. Doubts repressed as they arise, but not solved,

silenced but not satisfied, gradually accumulate in spite of all

external precaution; and at length (like streams pent back by some

temporary barrier) break forth at once to an utter discarding of all

authority, and an irrecoverable rejection of the Christian faith. From

unlimited acquiescence in a guide whom our associations have invested

with infallibility, the step is very short, and frequently taken, to

entire apostasy and the renunciation of all belief.

The state of undisturbed tranquillity and repose in one, who has

divested himself of all responsibility in matters of religious belief

and practice, enjoying an entire immunity from the anxious and painful

labour of trying for himself the purity and soundness of his faith, is

often painted in strong contrast with the {8} lamentable condition of

those who are driven about by every wind of novelty. The condition of

such a man may doubtless be far more enviable than theirs, who have no

settled fixed principles, and who wander from creed to creed, and from

sect to sect, just as their fickle and roving minds suggest some

transitory preference. But the believer must not be driven by the evils

of one extreme to take refuge in the opposite. The whirlpool may be the

more perilous, but the Christian mariner must avoid the rock also, or he

will equally make shipwreck of his faith. He must with all his skill,

and all his might, keep to the middle course, shunning that presumptuous

confidence which scorns all authority, and boldly constitutes itself

sole judge and legislator; but equally rescuing his mind from the

thraldom which prostrates his reason, and paralyzes all the faculties of

his judgment in a matter of indefeasible and awful responsibility.

Here, too, it is questioned, and not without cause, whether the

satisfaction and comfort so often represented in warm and fascinating

colours, be really a spiritual blessing; or whether it be not a

deception and fallacy, frequently ending in lamentable perplexity and

confusion; like guarantees in secular concerns, which as long as they

maintain unsuspected credit afford a most pleasing and happy security to

any one who depends upon them; but which, when adverse fortune puts

their responsibility to the test, may prove utterly worthless, and be

traced only by losses and disappointments. Such a blind reliance on

authority may doubtless be more easy and more free from care, than it is

to gird up the loins of our mind, and engage in toilsome spiritual

labour. But with a view to our own ultimate safety, wisdom bids us look

to our foundations in time, and assure ourselves {9} of them;

admonishing us that if they are unsound, the spiritual edifice reared

upon them, however pleasing to the eye, or abounding in present

enjoyments, will at length fall, and bury our hopes in its ruin.

On these and similar principles, we maintain that it well becomes

Christians, when the soundness of their faith, and the rectitude of

their acts of worship, are called in question, "to prove all things, and

hold fast that which is good." Thus, when the unbeliever charges us with

credulity in receiving as a divine revelation what he scornfully

rejects, it behoves us all (every one to the extent of his means and

opportunities) to possess ourselves of the accumulated evidences of our

holy faith, so that we may be able to give to our own minds, and to

those who ask it of us, a reason for our hope. The result can assuredly

be only the comfort of a still more unshaken conviction. Thus, too, when

the misbeliever charges us with an undue and an unauthorized ascription

of the Divine attributes to our Redeemer and to our Sanctifier, which he

would confine to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, exclusively of the

Eternal Son and the Blessed Spirit, it well becomes every Catholic

Christian to assure himself of the evidence borne by the Scriptures to

the divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, together with the

inseparable doctrines of redemption by the blood of Christ, and

sanctification by the Spirit of grace; appealing also in this

investigation to the tradition of the Church, and the testimony of her

individual members from the earliest times, as under God his surest and

best guides. In both these cases, I can say for myself that I have acted

upon my own principles, and to the very utmost of my faculties have

scrutinized the foundations {10} of my faith, and from each of those

inquiries and researches I have risen with a satisfaction increased far

beyond my first anticipations. What I had taken up in my youth on

authority, I have been long assured of by a moral demonstration, which

nothing can shake; and I cling to it with an affection, which, guarded

by God's good providence, nothing in this world can dissolve or weaken.

It is to engage in a similar investigation that I now most earnestly but

affectionately invite the members of the Church of Rome, in order to

ascertain for themselves the ground of their faith and practice in a

matter of vast moment, and which, with other points, involves the

principle of separation between the Roman and Anglican branches of the

universal Church. Were the subjects of minor importance, or what the

ancient writers were wont to call "things indifferent," reason and

charity would prescribe that we should bear with each other, allowing a

free and large discretion in any body of Christians, and not severing

ourselves from them because we deemed our views preferable to theirs. In

such a case we might well walk in the house of God as friends, without

any interruption of the harmony which should exist between those who

worship the true God with one heart and one mind, ever striving to keep

the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. But when the points at

issue are of so vast moment; when two persons agreeing in the general

principles of belief in the Gospel and its chief characteristic

doctrines, yet find it impossible to join conscientiously in the same

prayer, or the same acts of faith and worship, then the necessity is

imperative on all who would not be parties to the utter breaking up of

Christian unity, nor assist in propagating error, to make sure of their

{11} foundations; and satisfy themselves by an honest inquiry and

upright judgment, that the fault does not rest with them.

Such appear to me both the doctrine and the practice of the INVOCATION

OF SAINTS. I have endeavoured to conjecture in what light this doctrine

and this practice would have presented itself to my mind, after a full

and free inquiry into the nature and history and circumstances of the

case, had I been brought up in communion with the Church of Rome; the

question to be solved being, "Could I continue in her communion?" And

the result of my inquiry is, that I must have either discarded that

doctrine at once and for ever, or have joined with my lips and my knees

in a worship which my reason condemned, and from which my heart shrunk.

I must have either left the communion of Rome, or have continued to

offer prayers to angels, and the spirits of departed mortals. Unless I

had resolved at once to shut my eyes upon my own personal

responsibility, and to surrender myself, mind and reason, soul and body,

to the sovereign and undisputed control of others, never presuming to

inquire into the foundation of what the Church of Rome taught; I must

have sought some purer portion of the Catholic Church, in which her

members addressed the One Supreme Being exclusively, without

contemplating any other in the act of religious invocation. The

distinction invented in comparatively late years, of the three kinds of

worship; one for God, the second for the Virgin Mary, the third for

Angels and Saints;--the distinction, too, between praying to a saint to

give us good things, and praying to that saint to procure them for us at

God's hand, (or, as the distinction {12} is sometimes made, into prayer

direct, absolute, final, sovereign, confined to the Supreme Being on the

one hand; and prayer oblique, relative, transitory, subordinate, offered

to saints on the other,) would have appeared to me the ingenious and

finely-drawn inventions of an advocate, not such a sound process of

Christian simplicity as the mind could rest upon, with an undoubting

persuasion that all was right.

This, however, involves the very point at issue; and I now invite you,

my Christian Brethren, to join with me, step by step, in a review of

those several positions which have left on my mind the indelible

conviction that I could never have passed my life in communion with that

Church whose articles of fellowship maintained the duty of invoking

saints and angels; and whose public offices were inseparably interwoven

with addresses in prayer to other beings, than the Holy and undivided

Trinity, the one only God.

In pursuing this inquiry I have thought the most convenient and

satisfactory division of our work would be--

First, to ascertain what inference an unprejudiced study of the revealed

will of God would lead us to make; both in the times of the elder

covenant, when "holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy

Ghost," and in that "fulness of time" when God spoke to us by his Son.

Secondly, to examine into the belief and practice of the Primitive

Church, beginning with the inspired Apostles of our Lord.

Thirdly, to compare the results of those inquiries with the tenets and

practice of the Church of Rome, with reference to three periods; the

first immediately {13} preceding the Reformation; the second comprising

the Reformation, and the proceedings of the Council of Trent; the third

embracing the belief and practice of the present day.

In this investigation, I purpose to reserve the worship of the Virgin

Mary, called by Roman Catholic writers "Hyperdulia," and for various

reasons the most important and interesting portion of the whole inquiry,

for separate and distinct examination; except only so far as our review

of any of the primitive writers may occasion some incidental departure

from that rule.

May God guide us to his truth! {14}

* * * * *

CHAPTER II.

SECTION I.--THE EVIDENCE OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.

Here, Christian Brethren, bear with me if I briefly, but freely, recall

to our thoughts on this first entrance upon a review of the inspired

volume, the principles, and tone of mind, the temper and feelings, in a

word, the frame both of the understanding and of the heart, with which

we should study the sacred pages, on whatever subject we would try all

things, and hold fast what should prove itself to be most in accordance

with the will of God. Whether we would regard the two great parts into

which the Holy Scriptures are divided, as the Old and the New Covenants;

or whether we would prefer to call them the Old and the New Testaments,

it matters not. Although different ideas and associations are suggested

by those different names, yet, under either view, the same honest and

good heart, the same patience of investigation, the same upright and

unprejudiced judgment, the same exercise of our mental faculties, and

the same enlightened conscience, must be brought to the investigation.

In the one case we must endeavour to ascertain for ourselves the true

intent and {15} meaning of the inspired word of God, on the very same

principles with those on which we would interpret a covenant between

ourselves, and a person who had made it in full and unreserved reliance

on our integrity, and on our high sense of equity, justice, and honour.

In the other case we must bring the selfsame principles and feelings to

bear on our inquiry, as we should apply in the interpretation of the

last will and testament of a kind father, who with implicit confidence

in our uprightness and straightforward dealing and affectionate anxiety

to fulfil his intentions to the very utmost, had assigned to us the

sacred duty of executor or trustee.

Under the former supposition, our sincere solicitude would be to

ascertain the true intent and meaning of the contracting parties, not to

seek out plausible excuses for departing from it; not to cull out and

exaggerate beyond their simple and natural bearing, such expressions in

the deed of agreement, as might seem to justify us in adopting the view

of the contract most agreeable to our present wishes and most favourable

to our own interests. Rather it would be our fixed and hearty

resolution, at whatever cost of time, or labour, or pecuniary sacrifice,

or personal discomfort, to apply to the instrument our unbiassed powers

of upright and honest interpretation.

Or adopting the latter analogy, we should sincerely strive to ascertain

the chief and leading objects of our parent's will; what were his

intentions generally; what ruling principles seemed to pervade his views

in framing the testament; and in all cases of obscurity and doubt, in

every thing approaching an appearance of inconsistency, we should refer

to that paramount principle as our test and guide. We should not for a

moment {16} suffer ourselves to be tempted to seek for ambiguous

expressions, which ingenuity might interpret so as to countenance our

departure from the general drift of our parent's will, in cases where it

was at variance with our own inclination, and where we could have wished

that he had made another disposition of his property, or given to us a

different direction, or trusted us with larger discretion. Moreover, in

any points of difficulty, we should apply for assistance, in solving our

doubts, to such persons as were most likely to have the power of judging

correctly, and whose judgment would be least biassed by partiality and

prejudice;--not to those whose credit was staked on the maintenance of

those principles which best accorded with our own inclination.

Especially if in either case some strong feeling should have been raised

and spread abroad on any point, we should seek the judgment and counsel

of those who had been familiar with the testator's intentions, or with

the views of the covenanting party, before such points had become matter

of discussion.

Now only let us act upon these principles in the interpretation of THAT

COVENANT in which the Almighty has vouchsafed to make Himself one of the

contracting parties, and man, the creature of his hand, is the other:

only let us act on these principles in the interpretation of THAT

TESTAMENT of which the Saviour of the world is the Testator; and with

God's blessing on our labours (a blessing never denied to sincere prayer

and faithful exertions) we need not fear the result. Any other principle

of interpretation will only confirm us in our prejudices, and involve us

more inextricably in error. {17}

* * * * *

SECTION II.--DIRECT EVIDENCE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

The first step in our proposed inquiry is to ascertain what evidence on

the doctrine and practice of the Invocation of Saints and Angels can be

fairly drawn from the revealed word of God in the Old Testament.

Now, let us suppose that a person of a cultivated and enlightened mind,

and of a sound and clear judgment, but hitherto a stranger to

revelation, were required to study the ancient Scriptures with the

single view of ascertaining what one object more than any other,

subordinate to the great end of preparing the world for the advent of

Messiah, seemed to be proposed by the wisdom of the Almighty in

imparting to mankind that revelation; could he fix upon any other point

as the one paramount and pervading principle with so much reason, as

upon this, the preservation in the world of a practical belief in the

perfect unity of God, and the fencing of his worship against the

admixture of any other, of whatever character or form; The announcement

that the Creator and Governor of the universe is the sole Giver of every

temporal and spiritual blessing; the one only Being to whom, his

rational creatures on earth should pay any religious service whatever;

the one only Being to whom mortals must seek by prayer and invocation

for the supply of any of their wants? Through the entire volume the

inquirer would find that the unity of God is announced in every variety

of expression; and that the exclusive worship {18} of HIM alone is

insisted upon and guarded with the utmost jealousy by assurances, by

threats, and by promises, as the God who heareth prayer, alone to be

called upon, alone to be invoked, alone to be adored. So to speak, he

would find that recourse was had to every expedient for the express

purpose of protecting God's people from the fatal error of embracing in

their worship any other being or name whatever; not reserving supreme

adoration for the Supreme Being, and admitting a sort of secondary

honour and inferior mode of invocation to his exalted saints and

servants; but banishing at once and for ever the most distant

approximation towards religious honour--the veriest shadow of spiritual

invocation to any other Being than Jehovah HIMSELF ALONE.

In process of time, the heathen began to deify those mortals who had

conferred signal benefits on the human race, or had distinguished

themselves by their power and skill above their fellow-countrymen. Male

and female divinities were multiplying on every side. Together with

Jupiter, the fabled father of gods and men, worshipped under different

names among the various tribes, were associated those "gods many and

lords many," which ignorance and superstition, or policy and craft, had

invented; and which shared some a greater, some a less portion of

popular veneration and religious worship. To the people of God, the

worshippers of Jehovah, it was again and again most solemnly and awfully

denounced, that no such thing should be. "Thou shalt worship the Lord

thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve," is a mandate repeated in every

variety of language, and under every diversity of circumstance. In some

passages, indeed, together with the most clear assurances, {19} that

mankind need apply to no other dispenser of good, and can want no other

as Saviour, advocate, or intercessor, that same truth is announced with

such superabundance of repetition, that in the productions of any human

writer the style would be chargeable with tautology. In the Bible, this

repetition only the more forces upon the mind, and fixes there, that

same principle as an eternal verity never to be questioned; never to be

dispensed with; never to be diluted or qualified; never to be invaded by

any service, worship, prayer, invocation, or adoration of any other

being whatever. Let us take, for example, the forty-fifth chapter of

Isaiah, in which the principle is most strongly and clearly illustrated.

"I am the LORD, and there is none else: there is no God beside me; I

girded thee, though thou hast not known me; that they may know from the

rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none beside me: I am

the Lord, and there is none else. They shall be ashamed, and also

confounded, all of them; they shall go to confusion together, that are

makers of idols. But Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an

everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world

without end: I am the Lord, and there is none else. I said not unto the

seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain. They have no knowledge that set up

the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.

There is no god beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none

beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for

I am God, and there is none else."

But it is needless to multiply these passages; and members of the Church

of Rome will say, that they themselves acknowledge, as fully as members

of the Anglican Church can do, that there is but one supreme {20} God

and Lord, to whom alone they intend to offer the worship due to God; and

that the appeals which they offer by way of invocation to saints and

angels for their services and intercession, do not militate against this

principle. But here let us ask ourselves these few questions:--

First, if it had been intended by the Almighty to forbid any religious

application, such as is now professedly the invocation of saints and

angels, to any other being than Himself alone, what words could have

been employed more stringently prohibitory?

Secondly, had such an address to saints and angels, as the Church of

Rome now confessedly makes, been contemplated by our heavenly Lawgiver

as an exception to the general rule, would not some saving clause, some

expressions indicative of such an intended exception, have been

discovered in some page or other of his revealed will?

Thirdly, if such an appeal to the angels of heaven, or to the spirits of

the just in heaven, had been sanctioned under the elder covenant, would

not some example, some solitary instance, have been recorded of a

faithful servant of Jehovah offering such a prayer with the Divine

approbation?

Lastly, when such strong and repeated declarations and injunctions

interspersed through the entire volume of the Old Testament,

unequivocally show the will of God to be, that no other object of

religious worship should have place in the heart or on the tongue of his

own true sons and daughters, can it become a faithful child of our

Heavenly Father to be seeking for excuses and palliations, and to invent

distinctions between one kind of worship and another?

God Himself includes all in one universal prohibitory {21} mandate,

"Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." So

far from according with those general rules for the interpretation of

the revealed will of God, which we have already stated, and from which,

in the abstract, probably few would dissent, an anxiety to force the

word of God into at least an acquiescence in the invocation of saints

and angels, indicates a disposition to comply with his injunctions,

wherever they seem to clash with our own view, only so far as we cannot

avoid compliance; and to seek how we may with any show of propriety

evade the spirit of those commands. Instead of that full, free, and

unstinted submission of our own inclinations and propensities to the

Almighty's will wherever we can discover it, which those entertain whom

the Lord seeketh to worship Him; to look for exceptions and to act upon

them, bears upon it the stamp of a reserved and grudging service. After

so many positive warnings, enactments, and denunciations, against

seeking by prayer the aid of any other being whatever, surely a positive

command would have been absolutely necessary to justify a mortal man in

preferring any prayer to any being, saint, angel, or archangel, save

only the Supreme Deity alone. Instead of any such command or even

permission appearing, not one single word occurs, from the first

syllable in the Book of Genesis to the last of the prophet Malachi,

which could even by implication be brought to countenance the practice

of approaching any created being in prayer.

But let us now look to the examples on this subject afforded in the Old

Testament. Many, very many a prayer is recorded of holy men, of inspired

men, of men, to whose holiness and integrity and acceptance {22} the

Holy Spirit bears witness; yet among these prayers there is not found

one invocation addressed to saint or angel. I will not here anticipate

the observations which it will be necessary to make in consequence of

the extraordinary argument which has been devised, to account for the

absence of invocations to saints before the resurrection of Christ,

namely, that before that event the saints were not admitted into heaven.

Although pressed forward with such unhesitating confidence in its

validity, that argument is so singular in its nature, and so important

in its consequences, and withal so utterly groundless, as to call for a

separate examination, on which we will shortly enter: meanwhile, we are

now inquiring into the matter of fact.

The whole Book of Psalms is a manual of devotion, consisting

alternately, or rather intermixedly, of prayers and praises, composed

some by Moses, some by other inspired Israelites of less note, but the

greater part by David himself; and what is the force and tendency of

their example? Words are spoken in collaudation of "Moses and Aaron

among the saints of the Lord," and of "Samuel among such as called upon

his name;" and mention is made with becoming reverence of the holy

angels; but not one word ever falls from the pen of the Psalmist,

addressed, by way of invocation, to saint or angel. In the Roman Ritual

supplication is made to Abel and Abraham as well as to Michael and all

angels. If it is now lawful, if it is now the duty of the worshippers of

the true God to seek his aid through the mediation of those holy men,

can we avoid asking, Why the inspired patriarchs did not appeal to Abel

for his mediation? Why did not the inspired David invoke the father of

the faithful to intercede for him with God? If the departed spirits {23}

of faithful men may be safely addressed in prayer; if those who in their

lifetime have, to their fellow-mortals, (who can judge only from outward

actions, and cannot penetrate the heart,) appeared accepted servants and

honoured saints of our Creator, may now be invoked by an act of

religious supplication either to grant us aid, or to intercede with God

for aid in our behalf, why did not men whom God declared to be partakers

of his Spirit of truth, offer the same supplication to those departed

spirits, who, before and after their decease, had this testimony from

Omniscience itself, that they pleased God? Why is no intimation given in

the later books of the Old Testament that such supplications were

offered to Moses, or Aaron, or Abraham, or Noah? When wrath was gone out

from the presence of the Lord, and the plague was begun among the

people, Aaron took a censer in his hand, and stood between the living

and the dead, and the plague was stayed. If the soul of Aaron was

therefore to be regarded as a spirit influential with God, one whose

intercession could avail, one who ought to be approached in prayer, were

it only for his intercession, could a stronger motive be conceived for

suggesting that invocation, than David must have felt, when the

pestilence was destroying its thousands around him, and all his glory

and strength, and his very life too, were threatened by its resistless

ravages? But no! neither Abel, nor Abraham, nor Moses, nor Aaron, must

be petitioned to intercede with God, and to pray that God would stay his

hand. To God and God alone, for his own mercy's sake, must his afflicted

servant turn in supplication. We find among his prayers no "Holy

Abraham, pray for us,"--"Holy Abel, pray for us." His own Psalm of

thanksgiving describes full well the object and the nature of his {24}

prayer: "When the waves of death compassed me, the floods of ungodly men

made me afraid, the sorrows of hell compassed me about, the snares of

death prevented me; in my distress I called upon the Lord, and cried to

my God; and He did hear my voice out of his temple, and my cry did enter

into his ears." [2 Sam. (2 Kings Vulg.) xxii. 5. or Ps. xviii.] Abraham,

when on earth, prayed God to spare the offending-people; but he invoked

neither Noah, nor Abel, nor any of the faithful departed, to join their

intercessions with his own. Isaac prayed to God for his son Jacob, but

he did not ask the mediation of his father Abraham in his behalf; and

when Jacob in his turn supplicated an especial blessing upon his

grandsons Ephraim and Manasseh, though he called with gratitude to his

mind, and expressed with his tongue, the devotedness both of Abraham and

of Isaac to the Almighty, yet we do not find him appealing to them, or

invoking their intercession with Jehovah.

When the conscience-struck Israelites felt that they had exposed

themselves to the wrath of Almighty God, whose sovereign power, put

forth at the prayer of Samuel, they then witnessed, distrusting the

efficacy of their own supplication, and confiding in the intercession of

that man of God, they implored him to intercede for them; and Samuel

emphatically responded to their appeal, with an assurance of his

earnestly undertaking to plead their cause with heaven: "And all the

people said unto Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God,

that we die not. And Samuel said unto the people, Fear not.... The Lord

will not forsake his people, for his great name's {25} sake....

Moreover, God forbid that I should sin against the Lord in ceasing to

pray for you." [1 Sam. (1 Kings Vulg.) xii. 19.] Samuel is one whom the

Holy Spirit numbers among those "who called upon God's name;" and when

Samuel died, all Israel gathered together to lament and to bury

him,--but we read of no petition being offered to him to carry on the

same intercessory office, when he was once removed from them. As long as

he was entabernacled in the flesh and sojourned on earth with his

brethren, they besought him to pray for them, to intercede with their

God and his God for blessings at his hand, (just as among ourselves one

Christian asks another to pray for him,) but when Samuel's body had been

buried in peace, and his soul had returned to God who gave it, the Bible

never records any further application to him; we no where read, "Holy

Samuel, pray for us."

Again, what announcement could God Himself make more expressive of his

acceptance of the persons of any, than He actually and repeatedly made

to Moses with regard to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? How could He more

clearly intimate that if the spirits of the faithful departed could

exercise intercessory or mediatorial influence with Him, those three

holy patriarchs would possess such power above all others who had ever

lived on the earth? "I am the God of your fathers; the God of Abraham,

the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob: and Moses hid his face, for he was

afraid to look upon God." "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of

Israel, The God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac,

the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you. This is my name for ever, and

this is my memorial throughout all generations." [Exod. iii. 6. 15.] Did

Moses in his alarm and dread, when he was afraid {26} to look upon God,

call upon those holy and accepted servants to aid him in his perplexity,

and intercede for him and his people with the awful Eternal Being on

whose majesty he dared not to look? Did he teach his people to invoke

Abraham? That was far from him. When Moses, that saint of the Lord, was

himself called hence and was buried, (though no mortal man was allowed

to know the place of his sepulture,) did the surviving faithful pray to

him for his help and intercession with God? He had wrought so many and

great miracles as never had been before witnessed on earth; whilst in

the tabernacle of the flesh he had talked with God as a man talketh with

his friend; and yet the sacred page records no invocation ever breathed

to his departed spirit. The same is the result of our inquiry

throughout.

I will specify only one more example--Hezekiah, who "trusted in the Lord

God of Israel, and clave to the Lord, and departed not from following

him, but kept his commandments," when he and his people were in great

peril, addressed his prayer only to God. He offered no invocation to

holy David to intercede with the Almighty for his own Jerusalem; he made

his supplication directly and exclusively to Jehovah; and, yet, the very

answer made to that prayer would surely have seemed to justify Hezekiah

in seeking holy David's mediation, if prayer for the intercession of any

departed mortal could ever have been sanctioned by Heaven: "Thus saith

the Lord, the God of David thy father; I have heard thy prayer, I have

seen thy tears; _I_ will heal thee. I will save this city for mine own

sake, and for my servant David's sake." [2 Kings (Vulg. 4 Kings) xix.

15. and xx. 6.] Of what saint in the calendar was ever such a thing as

this spoken? {27}

I have already intimated my intention of referring, with somewhat more

than a cursory remark, to the position assumed, and the argument built

upon it by writers in communion with Rome, for the purpose of nullifying

or escaping from the evidence borne by the examples of the Old Testament

against the invocation of saints. The writers to whom I refer, with

Bellarmin at their head, openly confess that the pages of the Old

Testament afford no instance of invocation being offered to the spirits

of departed mortals; and the reason which they allege is this, No one

can be invoked who is not admitted to the presence of God in heaven; but

before Christ went down to hell[2] and released the spirits from prison,

no mortal was admitted into heaven; consequently, before the

resurrection of Christ the spirit of no mortal was invoked. The

following are the words of Bellarmin at the close of the preface to his

"Church Triumphant:"--"The spirits of the patriarchs and prophets before

the coming of Christ were for this reason not worshipped and invoked, as

we now worship and invoke the Apostles and martyrs, because they were

yet shut up and detained in prisons below[3]." Again, he says, "Because

before {28} the coming of Christ the saints who died did not enter

heaven and saw not God, nor could ordinarily know the prayers of

suppliants, therefore, it was not customary in the Old Testament to say,

'Holy Abraham, pray for me,' &c.; but the men of that time prayed to God

only, and alleged the merits of the saints who had already departed,

that their own prayers might be aided by them."

[Footnote 2: The word Hell, signifying, in Saxon, a

hidden-place, altogether corresponding in its etymology with

"hades," is now used for the place of torment called by the

Hebrews "Gehennah;" and we must perhaps regret that the same

Saxon word is employed to signify also the unseen region of

departed spirits. This circumstance has been the source of much

difficulty and confusion.]

[Footnote 3: "Nam idcirco ante Christi adventum non ita

colebantur neque invocabantur spiritus patriarcharum atque

prophetarum, quemadmodum nunc Apostolos et martyres colimus et

invocamus, quod illi adhuc infernis carceribus clausi

detinebantur."--Ingolstadii, 1601. vol. ii. p. 833. "The last

edition, enlarged and corrected by the Author."]

Now let us inquire into this statement thus broadly made, and ascertain

for ourselves whether the point assumed and the argument built upon it

can stand the test of examination. Is this argument such as ought to

satisfy the mind of one, who would humbly but honestly follow the

apostolic rule, "Prove all things: hold fast that which is good?" Is

this such an exposition as that the reason of a cultivated mind, and the

faith of an enlightened Christian, can acquiesce in it? Let it be

examined neither with prejudice in its favour, nor with any undue

suspicion of its soundness, but with candour and impartiality

throughout.

It is not necessary to dwell at any length on the inconsistencies and

perplexities involved in this assumed abstract theory with regard to the

souls of the faithful who died before the resurrection of Christ, and

which require to be cleared away before its advocates can reasonably

expect to obtain for it any general acceptance among thinking men. I do

not wish to contravene the theory, far less to substitute another in its

stead. On the contrary, I am fully content, in company with some of the

most valuable among Roman Catholic writers, following the example of

Augustin [Aug. De Pecc. Orig. c. 23. tom. vii. p. 338.--Quoted by De

Sacy. 2 Kings (Vulg. 4 Kings) ii.], to leave the subject where Scripture

has left it. To the arguments {29} alleged, I would wish to reply

independently of any opinion, as a matter of Christian belief, with

regard to the place, the condition, and the circumstances of the souls

of the patriarchs and prophets before our blessed Lord's resurrection.

It may, nevertheless, materially facilitate an inquiry into the

soundness of the reasons alleged for the total absence of invocation to

those souls, if we briefly contemplate some of the difficulties which

surround this novel theory. At all events, such a process will incline

us to abstain from bold assumptions on a point upon which the Almighty

has been pleased to throw so little light in his Holy Word, or at least

avoid all severity of condemnation towards those who may differ from our

views.

It is very easy to assert, that all the souls of the faithful departed

were kept in the prison-house of Hades, and to allege in its behalf an

obscure passage of St. Peter, to which many of the most learned and

unprejudiced Christian teachers assign a meaning totally unconnected

with the subject of departed spirits. But surely the case of Enoch's

translation from this life to heaven, making, as it has been beautifully

expressed, but one step from earth to glory, which St. Paul, in his

Epistle to the Hebrews, cites with a most important comment of his own,

requires to be well and patiently weighed. He was taken from the earth

by an immediate act of Providence, that he should not see death; and

before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Surely the case of Elijah too, when we would ascertain the soundness of

this theory, must not be dismissed summarily from our thoughts, of whom

the book of eternal truth declares, that Jehovah took him {30} in a

whirlwind into heaven; his ascent being made visible to mortal eyes, as

was afterwards the ascension of the blessed Saviour Himself. Indeed the

accounts of Elijah's translation, and of our Lord's ascension, whether

in the Septuagint and Greek Testament, the Vulgate, or our own

authorized version, present a similarity of expression very striking and

remarkable.

On this subject we are strongly reminded, first, with what care and

candour and patience the language of Holy Scripture should be weighed,

which so positively declares, that Moses and Elijah, both in glory,

appeared visibly to the Apostles at the transfiguration of our blessed

Saviour, and conversed with Him on the holy mount: "And behold there

talked with Him two men, who were Moses and Elias, who appeared in glory

(in majesty, as the Vulgate renders the word), and spake of his decease

which He should accomplish at Jerusalem;" [Luke ix. 30.]--and, secondly,

how unwise it is to dogmatize on such subjects beyond the plain

declaration of the sacred narrative. Moreover, how very unsatisfactory

is the theory which we are examining as to the state of the souls of the

faithful who died before Christ, even the words of Jerome himself prove,

who, commenting on the transfiguration of the blessed Jesus, is

unhappily led to represent the Almighty as having summoned Elijah to

descend from heaven, and Moses to ascend from Hades, to meet our Lord in

the Mount[4].

[Footnote 4: "Elia inde descendente quo conscenderat, et Moyse

ab inferis resurgente."--Hieron. in Matt. xvii. 1. Paris, 1706.

vol. iv. p. 77.]

Strange and startling as is this sentiment of Jerome, it is, you will

observe, utterly irreconcileable with the theory, that the reason why

the ancient Church did not {31} pray to the saints departed, was because

they were not yet in heaven.

On this point, among Roman Catholic writers themselves, there prevails a

very great diversity of opinion, arising probably from the difficulty

which they have experienced in their endeavours to make all facts and

doctrines square with the present tenets and practices of their

Church[5]. Thus, whilst some maintain that Elijah was translated to the

terrestrial paradise in which Adam had been placed, not enjoying the

immediate divine presence; others cite the passage as justifying the

belief that the saints departed pray for us[6]. But not only are

different authors at variance with each other on very many points here;

the same writer in his zeal is betrayed into great and palpable

inconsistency. Bellarmin, anxious to enlist the account given by our

Lord of the rich man and Lazarus, to countenance the invocation of

saints by the example of the rich man appealing to Abraham, maintains

that section of Holy Writ to be not a parable, but a true history of a

matter of fact which took place between two real individuals; and of his

assertion he adduces this proof, that "the Church worships that Lazarus

as verily a holy man[7];" and yet he denies that any of the holy men

were in heaven before the {32} death of Christ. Either Abraham was in

heaven in the presence of God, or not; if he was in heaven, why did not

his descendants invoke his aid? if he was not in heaven, the whole

argument drawn from the rich man's supplication falls to the ground.

[Footnote 5: See De Sacy on 4 Kings i. 1. See also Estius, 1629.

p. 168. Pope Gregory's Exposition; Rome, 1553. p. 99. Stephen's

Bible in loc. 1557, &c. The Vulgate ed. Antwerp, 1624, cites a

note, "Thy prayers are stronger than chariots and horsemen."]

[Footnote 6: Gaspar Sanctius, Antwerp, 1624. p. 1360, considers

the fable not improbable, that Elijah, living in the terrestrial

paradise, wrote there the letters to Joram (mentioned 2 Chron.

xxi. 12), and sent them by angels.]

[Footnote 7: Colit Lazarum ilium ut vere sanctum

hominem.--Bellarm. De Ecd. Triumph, p. 864.]

Another very extraordinary inconsistency, arising from the same

solicitude, forces itself upon our notice, when the same author urges a

passage in Leviticus [Levit. xix. 13.] to prove, that the saints are now

admitted at once into the enjoyment of the presence of God in heaven,

without waiting for the day of final judgment. [Bell vol. ii. p. 865.]

"God (such are his words) commanded it to be written, 'The work of the

hireling shall not remain with thee till the morning;' therefore, unless

God would appear inconsistent with Himself, He will not keep back the

reward of his saints to the end of the world." How strange, that in the

same treatise [Ibid. p. 833.] this author should expressly maintain,

that the reward of Abel and Abraham, and the holy prophet and lawgiver

Moses, the very man who was commanded to write that law in Leviticus,

was kept back,--the last for a longer period than a thousand years; the

first well nigh four thousand years.

I mention these particulars merely to point out how very unsatisfactory

and unsound is the attempted solution of the difficulties which surround

on every side the theory of those who maintain, that the reason why we

have no instance of the righteous departed being invoked in the times of

the elder covenant is, that they were not as yet admitted into heaven,

but were kept in prison till the resurrection of Christ. I would also

observe, even at the risk {33} of repetition, that I am here not

maintaining any opinion as to the appointed abiding-place, the

condition, and circumstances, the powers of consciousness, volition or

enjoyment of the departed, before Christ's resurrection; on the

contrary, I am rather urging the consideration of the great and serious

caution requisite before we espouse, as an article of faith, any opinion

which rests on so questionable a foundation, and which involves such

interminable difficulties.

But while we need not dwell longer on this immediate point, yet there

are two considerations which appear to be altogether decisive as to the

evidence borne against the Invocation of Saints by the writers of the

Old Testament. If the spirits of the saints departed were not invoked

before the resurrection of Christ, purely because they were not then

admitted into heaven; the first consideration I would suggest is this:

Why did the faithful and inspired servants of Jehovah not invoke the

angels and archangels who were in heaven? The second is this: Why did

not the inspired Apostles and faithful disciples of our Lord invoke the

spirits of those saints after his resurrection; that is (according to

the theory before us), after those saints had been taken by Christ with

him into his Father's presence? I wish not to anticipate here our

inquiry into the testimony borne by the writers of the New Testament as

to the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church in this particular; and

I will only add, that whatever be the cause of the absence from the Old

Testament of all worship and invocation of Abel and Abraham, whom the

Roman Church now invokes, the alleged reason that it was because they

were not in heaven till after Christ's resurrection, is utterly set

aside by the conduct of the Apostles and disciples of our Lord recorded

in the New {34} Testament, for more than half a century after his return

to his Father's glory.

This, however, seems to be the proper place for entertaining the first

consideration, Why did not the holy men of old, under the elder

covenant, invoke angels and archangels, as the Roman Church now does?

Writers, indeed, who have declared themselves the defenders of that

doctrine and practice, refer us to passages, which they cite, as

affording examples of the worship of angels; and we will not knowingly

allow any one of those sections of Holy Writ to remain unexamined. We

must first endeavour to ascertain the testimony borne by the books of

the Old Testament: and that presents to us such a body of evidence as

greatly increases our surprise at the perseverance with which the

invocation of angels has been maintained by any community of men

acknowledging the inspiration of the sacred volume.

The inspired writers of the Old Testament, and those to whom through

their mouth and pen the Divine word was addressed, were as fully as

ourselves acquainted with the existence of angelic beings. They were

aware of the station of those angels in the court of heaven, of their

power as God's ambassadors, and agents for good. Either their own eyes

had seen the mighty operations of God by the hands of those celestial

messengers; or their ears had heard their fathers tell what HE had done

by their instrumentality in times of old. Why then did not God's chosen

people offer to the angels the same worship and invocation which the

Church of Rome now addresses to them in common with the patriarchs and

prophets of the elder covenant, and with saints and martyrs under the

new? In the condition of the holy angels no one ever suggests that {35}

any change, affecting the argument, has taken place since the time when

man was created and made. And as the angels of heaven were in themselves

the same, equally in the presence of God, and equally able to succour

men through that long space of four thousand years, which intervened

between Adam's creation and the birth of HIM who was Son of Adam and Son

of God, so was man in the same dependent state, needing the guidance and

protection of a power above his own. Nay, surely, if there was in man

any difference affecting the argument, it would all add weight to the

reason against the invocation of angels by Christians. The Israelites of

old had no clear knowledge, as we have, of one great Mediator, who is

ever making intercession for us; and yet they sought not the mediation

and intercession and good offices of those superhuman beings, of whose

existence and power, and employment in works of blessing to man, they

had no doubt[8]. This is a point of great importance to our argument,

and I will refer to a few passages in support of it.

[Footnote 8: A small section indeed of their countrymen in our

Saviour's time denied the reality of a future state, and the

existence of angels and spirits; but the sect was of then recent

origin, and the overwhelming majority believed as their fathers

had believed.]

When David, who had, as we know [1 Chron. xxi. 16.], visible

demonstration afforded him of the existence and ministration of the

angels, called upon them to unite with his own soul, and with all the

works of creation through all places of God's dominion, in praising

their merciful, glorious, and powerful Creator, he thus conveys to us

the exalted ideas with which he had been filled of their nature, their

excellence, and their ministration. "The Lord hath prepared his throne

in the heavens, and his {36} kingdom ruleth over all: Bless the Lord, ye

his angels that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening

unto the voice of his word. Bless ye the Lord, all ye his hosts, ye

ministers of his that do his pleasure." [Ps. ciii. 19-21.] David knew

moreover that one of the offices, in the execution of which the angels

do God's pleasure, is that of succouring and defending us on earth. For

example, in one of the psalms used by the Church of Rome at complin, and

with the rest repeated in the Church of England, and prophetic of the

Redeemer, David, to whom this psalm is probably to be ascribed, declares

of the man who had made the Most High his refuge and strength, "There

shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy

dwelling; for he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in

all thy ways; they shall bear thee up in their hands lest thou dash thy

foot against a stone." [Ps. xci. 10-12.] And again, with exquisitely

beautiful imagery, he represents those same blessed servants of heaven

as an army, as a host of God's spiritual soldiers keeping watch and ward

over the poorest of the children of men, who would take refuge in his

mercy: "The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him,

and delivereth them[9]." And yet David, the prophet of the Lord, never

addresses to these beings, high and glorious though they are, one single

invocation: he neither asks them to assist him, nor to pray for him, nor

to pray with him in his behalf.

[Footnote 9: Ps. xxxiv. 7. (Vulg. xxxiii. 8.) "Immittet angelus

Domini in circuitu timentium eum, et eripiet eos." In the

Vulgate the beauty of the figure is lost; which, however, Roman

Catholic writers restore in their comments. Basil makes a

beautiful use of the metaphor. See De Sacy in loc.] {37}

Isaiah was admitted by the Holy Spirit to witness in the fulness of its

glory the court and the throne of heaven; and he heard the voices of the

seraphim proclaiming their Maker's praise; he experienced also

personally the effect of their ministration, when one of them said, "Lo,

this hath touched thy lips, and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy

sin purged." [Isaiah vi. 7.] Still, though Isaiah must have regarded

this angel as his benefactor under God, yet neither to this seraph, nor

to any of the host of heaven, does he offer one prayer for their good

offices, even by their intercession. He ever ascribes all to God alone;

and never joins any other name with His either in supplication or in

praise. Let us also take the case of Daniel. He acknowledges not only

that the Lord's omnipotent hand had rescued him from the jaws of the

lions, but that the deliverance was brought about by the ministration of

an angel. "My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths,

that they have not hurt me." [Dan. vi. 22.] Yet when we look through

Daniel's prayers, we find no allusion to any of the highest angels. He

had seen Gabriel before his prayer; he had heard the voice and felt the

hand of that heavenly messenger who was commissioned to reveal to him

what should be done in the latter end; and immediately after the

offering of his prayer, the same Gabriel announces himself as one who

was come forth to give the prophet skill and understanding. And yet

neither towards Gabriel, nor any other of the angels of God, does one

word of invocation fall from the lips of Daniel. In the supplications of

that holy, intrepid, and blessed servant and child of God, we search in

vain for any thing approaching in spirit to the invocation, "Sancte

Gabriel, ora pro nobis." {38}

* * * * *

SECTION III.--EVIDENCE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT (continued)

We must now briefly refer to those passages, by which Roman Catholic

writers have endeavoured to maintain that religious adoration was paid

to angels by the faithful sons of God. The two principal instances cited

are, first, the case of Abraham bowing down before three men, whom he

recognizes as messengers from heaven; and, secondly, the words of Jacob

when he gave his benediction to his grandsons.

With regard to the first instance, how very far the prostration of

Abraham was in itself from implying an act of religious worship, being

as it was the ordinary mode of paying respect to a fellow mortal, is

evident from the very words of Scripture. The Hebrew word, which we

translate by "bowed himself," and which the Vulgate unhappily renders

"adoravit" ("adored"), is, letter for letter, the same in the case of

Abraham saluting his three heavenly visitors, and in the case of Jacob

saluting his brother Esau. The parallelism of the two passages is very

striking.

GEN. xviii. 2. GEN. xxxiii. 1 and 3.

And he [Abraham] lift up his And Jacob lifted up his eyes,

eyes, and lo! three men stood and looked, and behold! Esau

by him; and when he saw them, came ... And he passed over, and

he ran to meet them from the _bowed himself to the ground_ seven

tent door; and _bowed himself_ times until he came near to his

_toward the ground_. brother. {39}

By rendering the Hebrew word[10], which means to "bow or bend oneself,"

by the word "adoravit," which is literally "to pray to," the Latin

Vulgate has laid the foundation for much unsound and misleading

criticism. But suppose the word had meant, what it does not mean, an act

of solemn religious worship; and let it be granted (as I am not only

ready to grant, but prepared to maintain) that Abraham paid religious

adoration at that time, what inference can fairly and honestly be drawn

from that circumstance in favour of the invocation of angels? The

ancient writers of the Christian Church, and those whom the Church of

Rome habitually holds in great respect, are full and clear in

maintaining that the person whom Abraham then addressed, was no created

being, neither angel nor seraph; but the Angel of the Covenant; the

Word, the eternal Son of God, Himself God[11]. Before the visible and

miraculous presence of the God of heaven, who for his own glory and in

carrying on the work of man's salvation, sometimes deigned so to reveal

Himself, the patriarchs of old bowed themselves to the earth. Can this,

with any shadow of {40} reason, be employed to sanction the invocation

of Michael and all the myriads of angels who fill the court of heaven?

[Footnote 10: Not only is the Hebrew word precisely the same,

letter for letter, and point for point, [Hebrew: shahah], but

the Septuagint in each case employs the same, [Greek:

prosekunaesen]; and the Vulgate in each case renders it by the

same word, "adoravit." The Roman Catholic commentator De Sacy

renders it in each case, "se prosternavit," which corresponds

exactly with our English version. The Douay Bible in each case

renders it "adored."]

[Footnote 11: Many early Christian writers may be cited to the

same purpose: it is enough, however, to refer to Justin Martyr

and to Athanasius; who are very full and elaborate in

maintaining, that the angel here mentioned was no created being,

but was the Angel of the Covenant, God, in the fulness of time

manifested in the flesh. The passage from Athanasius will be

quoted at some length, when we come to examine that father's

testimony. For Justin Martyr, see Dial. cum Tryph. ch. 56, &c.

p. 150, &c. (Paris, 1742.)]

The only other instance to which it will be necessary to call your

attention, occurs in the forty-eighth chapter of Genesis. The passage,

however, is so palpably and on the very face of it inapplicable, that

its examination needs not detain us long. "And he [Jacob] blessed

Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did

walk, the God who fed me all my life long unto this day, the ANGEL which

redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads." [Gen. xlviii. 15.] Here the

patriarch speaks of God as the Angel, and the Angel as God: being the

Angel or Messenger of the Covenant--God manifested to man. He speaks not

of Michael or Gabriel, or archangel or seraph, or any created being; but

of the Lord Himself, who appeared to him, agreeably to the revelation of

God Himself recorded in a previous chapter, and thus communicated by the

patriarch to Rachel and Leah: "And the ANGEL of God spake unto me in a

dream, saying, Jacob; and I said, Here am I. And he said ... _I_ am the

GOD of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar, and vowedst a vow unto

me." [Gen. xxxi. 11.] The Angel whose blessing he desired for the lads

was the God[12], to whom he had vowed a vow in Bethel, the Lord Himself.

[Footnote 12: It may not be superfluous to add, that this is the

interpretation of the passage adopted by primitive writers,

Among others see Eusebius Demonstr. Evan. lib. v. ch. 10: who

declares that the Angel spoken of by Jacob was God the Son.]

Independently, however, of this conclusive consideration, if the latter

member of this sentence had merely expressed a wish, that an angel might

be employed as {41} an instrument of good in behalf of Ephraim and

Manasseh, I could readily offer such a prayer for a blessing on my own

children. My prayer would be addressed to the angel neither immediately

nor transitively, but exclusively to God alone, supplicating Him

graciously to employ the service of those ministering spirits for our

good. Such a prayer every Catholic in communion with the Church of

England is taught and directed to offer. Such a prayer is primitive and

scriptural; and such is offered in the Church on the anniversary of

Saint Michael and all angels:

"O Everlasting God, who hast ordained and constituted the services of

angels and men in a wonderful order, mercifully grant that as Thy holy

angels alway do Thee service in heaven, so by Thy appointment they may

succour and defend us on earth; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

Such is the prayer of the Church Catholic, whether of the Roman or the

Anglican branch; it is in spirit and in truth a Christian prayer, fit

for faithful mortals to offer on earth to the Lord of men and of angels

in heaven. Would that the Church of Rome, preserving, as she has

preserved, this prayer in all its original purity, had never been

successfully tempted to mingle in the same service, supplications, which

rob the one only God of his exclusive honour and glory, as the God "who

heareth prayer;" and to rob Christ of his exclusive honour and glory, as

our only Mediator and Advocate!

Here, though unwilling, by departing from the order of our argument, to

anticipate our examination in its place of the Roman ritual, I cannot

refrain from contrasting this prayer, the genuine offspring of Christian

faith, with some forms of invocation contained in {42} the Roman service

on St. Michael's day, in which I could not join, and the adoption of

which I deeply lament. The first is appointed to be said at the part of

the Mass called "The Secret:" "We offer to Thee, O Lord, the sacrifice

of praise, humbly beseeching Thee, That by the intervention of the

prayers of the angels for us, Thou, being appeased, mayest both accept

the same, and make them profitable for our salvation. Through ..." The

second is offered at the Post Communion: "Supported [propped up,

suffulti] by the intercession of Thy blessed archangel Michael, we

humbly beseech Thee, O Lord, that what with honour we follow[13], we may

obtain also in mind. Through ..."

[Footnote 13: I do not understand the exact meaning of these

words, which however contain no portion of that sentiment, the

presence of which in this prayer I deplore. The original is

this: "Beati archangeli tui Michaelis intercessione suffulti,

supplices te Domine deprecamur, ut quod honore prosequimur,

contingamus et in mente. Per ..." Probably the general sense is,

that what we reverently seek we may actually realize.]

Still, though here the Christian seems to be taught to rest on a broken

reed, to support and prop himself up by a staff which must bend and

break; yet I acknowledge that so much violence is not done to my

Christian principles, nor do my feelings, as a believer in God and his

ever-blessed Son, meet with so severe a shock by either of these

prayers, as by the invocation addressed to the archangel himself in the

"Gradual" on that same day:

"O holy Michael, O archangel, defend us in battle, that we perish not in

the dreadful judgment."

Christians of the Church of Rome! for one moment meditate, I beseech

you, on this prayer. It is not addressed to God; in it there is no

mention made of {43} Christ: having called upon the angels, and on your

own soul in the words of the psalmist, to praise the Lord, you address

your supplication to Michael himself; not even invoking him for his

intercession, but imploring of him his protection. If it be said, that

his intercession is all that is meant, with most unfeigned sincerity I

request you to judge for yourselves, whether any prayer from poor sinful

man, putting his whole trust in the Lord and imploring his help, could

be addressed to our God and Saviour more immediate and direct than this?

In the place of the name of his servant Michael, substitute the highest

and the holiest name ever uttered in heaven or on earth, and can words

form a prayer more direct to God? "O Lord God Almighty, O Lord Jesus our

only Saviour, defend us in battle, that we perish not in the dreadful

judgment. Hallelujah!"--Can this be right? Were the archangel allowed

now, by his Lord and ours, to make his voice heard upon earth by

Christians offering to him this prayer, would he utter any other words,

than the angel, his fellow-servant and ours, once addressed to Saint

John, when he fell down to worship before him, "See thou do it not; for

I am thy fellow-servant: worship God."

Such then is the evidence borne by the writers of the Old Testament. No

prayer to angel or beatified spirit occurs from its first to its last

page. The theory which would have us account for the absence of all

prayer to the saints before the advent of Messiah, by reason of their

not having been then admitted into their everlasting habitations, and

the immediate presence of God proves to be utterly groundless. The holy

angels were confessedly in heaven [Matt. xviii. 10.], beholding the face

of {44} God; but no invocation was ever addressed to them, by patriarch,

or prophet, or people, as mediators or intercessors. God, and God alone,

the one eternal Jehovah, is proclaimed by Himself throughout, and is

acknowledged throughout to be the only object of any kind of spiritual

worship; the only Being who heareth prayer, to whom alone therefore all

mankind should approach with the words and with the spirit of

invocation. It has been argued by some writers, that in the times of the

Old Testament, prayer was not offered to God through a mediator at all;

and that as the one Mediator was not then revealed in his person and his

offices, the subsidiary intercessors could not of course act; and

therefore could not be invoked by man. The answer to this remark is

conclusive. That Mediator has been revealed in his person and his

offices; and has been expressly declared to be the one Mediator between

God and man: we therefore seek God's covenanted mercies through Him.

Those subsidiary intercessors have never been revealed; and therefore we

do not seek their aid. To assure us that it was the mind and will of our

Heavenly Father that we should approach Him by secondary and subsidiary

mediators and intercessors, the same clear and unquestionable revelation

of their persons and their offices as mediators would have been

required, as He has vouchsafed of the mediation of his Son. Had God

willed that the faithful should approach Him by the intercessions of the

saints and martyrs, is it conceivable that He would not have given some

intimation of his will in this respect? If believers in the Gospel were

to have unnumbered mediators of intercession in heaven, as well as the

one Mediator of redemption, would not the {45} Gospel itself have

announced it? Could such declarations as these have remained on record

without any qualifying or limiting expression, "He[14] is able also to

save to the uttermost them who come unto God by Him, seeing He ever

liveth to make intercession for them." "There is one God, and one

Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." But this involves

the question to which the next section must be devoted. All I would

anticipate here is, that if the irresistible argument from the Old

Testament is sought to be evaded on the ground that no mediator at all

was then revealed, we must require a distinct revelation of the

existence and offices of other mediators and intercessors, before we can

be justified in applying to them for their intervention in our behalf.

And the question now is. Are they so revealed?

[Footnote 14: Heb. vii. 25. I Tim. ii. 5.--Unde et salvare in

perpetuum potest accedentes per semetipsum ad Deum, semper

vivens ad interpellandum pro nobis.--_Vulg._]

* * * * *

SECTION IV.--EVIDENCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Though such is the evidence borne against the invocation of saints and

angels by the Old Testament, yet it has been said that we are living

neither under the patriarchal, nor the Mosaic dispensation, but under

the Gospel, to whom therefore as Christians neither the precepts nor the

examples of those ancient times are applicable: {46} the injunctions

consequently given of old to preserve the chosen people from idolatry

and paganism, cannot be held to prohibit Christians from seeking the aid

of those departed saints who are now reigning with Christ. But, surely,

those precepts, and denunciations, and commands, are still most strictly

applicable, as conveying to us a knowledge of the will of our Heavenly

Father, that his sons and daughters on earth should associate no name,

however exalted among the principalities and powers in heavenly places,

with his own holy name in prayer, and spiritual invocation. I am

throughout this address supposing myself to be speaking to those whose

heart's desire is to fulfil the will of God in all things; not those who

are contented to depart from the spirit of that will, whenever they can

devise plausible arguments to countenance such departure.

The cases both of precept and example through the Old Testament

affording so stringent and so universal a rule against the association

of any name with the name of the Almighty in our prayers; before we can

conclude that Christians have a liberty denied to believers under the

former dispensations, we must surely produce a declaration to that

effect, clear, unequivocal, and precisely in point. Nothing short of an

enactment, rescinding in terms the former prohibitory law, and

positively sanctioning supplications and prayers to saints and angels,

seems capable of satisfying any Christian bent on discovering the will

of God, and resolved to worship Him agreeably to the spirit of that will

as it has been revealed. But let us read the New Testament from its

first to its very last word, and we shall find, that the doctrines, the

precepts, and the examples, the pervading reigning spirit of the entire

{47} volume, combine in addressing us with voices loud and clear. Pray

to God Almighty solely in the name and for the sake of his dear and only

Son Jesus Christ our Lord, and offer no prayer, no supplication, no

intreaty, to any other being or power, saint or angel, though it be only

to ask for their intercession with the great God. But this involves the

whole question, and must be sifted thoroughly. Let us then review the

entire volume with close and minute scrutiny, and ask ourselves, Is

there a single passage, interpreted to the best of our skill, with the

aid of those on whose integrity and learning we can rely, which directly

and unequivocally sanctions any religious invocation of whatever kind to

any being except God alone? And then let us calmly and deliberately

resolve this point: In a matter of so vital importance, of so immense

interest, and of so sacred a character as the worship of the Supreme

Being, who declares Himself to be a jealous God, ought we to suffer any

refinements of casuistry to entice us from the broad, clear light of

revelation? If it were God's good pleasure to make exceptions to his

rule--a rule so repeatedly, and so positively enacted and

enforced--surely the analogy of his gracious dealings with mankind would

have taught us to look for an announcement of the exceptions in terms

equally forcible and explicit. Instead, however, of this, we find no

single act, no single word, nothing which even by implication can be

forced to sanction any prayer or religious invocation, of whatever kind,

to any other being save to God alone.

Let us first look to the language and conduct of our blessed Lord, whose

prayers to his Father are upon record for our instruction and comfort,

and whose precepts and example form the best rule of a Christian's {48}

life. So far from repealing the ancient law, he repeats in his own

person its solemn announcement, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one

Lord." [Mark xii. 29.] While the same heavenly Teacher commands us with

authority, "When thou prayest, pray to thy Father which is in secret,

and thy Father, who seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly." [Matt.

vi. 6.] No allusion in any word of His do we find to any prayer from a

mortal on this earth to an angel or saint in heaven. And yet occasions

were multiplied on which a reference to the invocation of angels would

have been natural, and apparently called for. He again and again places

beyond all doubt the reality of their good services towards mankind, but

it is as God's servants, and at God's bidding; not in answer to any

supplication or invoking of ours. The parable of the rich man and

Lazarus has been cited [Bellarmin, p. 895.] to bear contrary evidence;

but, in the first place, that parable does not offer a case in point; in

the second place, were it in point, it might be fairly and strongly

urged against the practice of invoking the spirit of any departed

mortal, even the father of the faithful himself. For what are the

circumstances of the parabolic representation? A lost spirit in the

regions of torment prays to Abraham in the regions of the blessed, and

the spirit of the departed patriarch professes himself to have no power

to grant the request of the departed and condemned spirit. [Luke xvi.

19.] The practice indeed of our Roman Catholic brethren would have been

exemplified, had our blessed Lord represented the rich man's five

brethren still on earth as pious men, and as supplicating Abraham in

heaven to pray for themselves, or to mitigate {49} their lost brother's

punishment and his woes. But then it would have afforded Christians

little encouragement to follow their example, when they found Abraham

declaring himself unable to aid them in attaining the object of their

prayer, or in any way to assist them at all. Without one single

exception, we find our blessed Lord's example, precepts, and doctrines

to be decidedly against the practice of invoking saint or angel; whilst

not one solitary act or word of His can be cited to countenance or

palliate it.

Next it follows, that we inquire into the conduct and the writings of

Christ's Apostles and immediate followers, to whom He graciously

promised that the Holy Spirit should guide them into all truth. In the

Acts of the Apostles, various instances of prayer attract our notice,

but not one ejaculation is found there to any other being save God

alone. Neither angel nor saint is invoked. The Apostles prayed for

guidance in the government of Christ's infant Church, but it was, "Thou,

Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men." [Acts i. 24.] They prayed for

their own acceptance, but it was "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." [Acts

vii. 59.] They prayed for each other, as in behalf of St. Peter when in

prison; but we are expressly told, that the prayer which was made

without ceasing by the Church for him was addressed to GOD. [Acts xii.

5.]

To deliver St. Peter from his chains, an angel was sent on an especial

mission from heaven; but though St. Peter saw him, and heard his voice,

and followed him, and knew of a surety that the Almighty had employed

the ministration of an angel to liberate him from his bonds, yet we do

not hear thereafter of {50} Peter having himself prayed to an angel to

secure his good offices, and his intercession with God, nor has he once

indirectly intimated to others that such supplications would be of

avail, or were even allowable. He exhorts his fellow-Christians to pray,

"Watch unto prayer," but it is because "The eyes of the LORD are over

the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers." [1 Pet. iv. 7;

iii. 12.] He Himself prays for them, but it is, that the God of all

grace might make them perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle them. He

suggests no invocation of saint or angel to intercede with God for them.

He bids them cast all their care upon GOD, on the assurance that God

Himself careth for them.

Precisely the same result issues from a contemplation of the acts and

exhortation of St. Paul. He too experienced in his own person the

comfort of an angel's ministration, bidding him cast off all fear when

in the extreme of imminent peril. [Acts xxvii. 23, 24.] Many a prayer of

that holy Apostle is upon record; many an earnest exhortation to prayer

was made by him; we find many a declaration relative to his own habits

of prayer. But with him God and God alone is the object of prayer

throughout: by him no saint or angel or archangel is alluded to, as one

whose intercession might be sought by himself or by us. He could speak

in glowing language of patriarchs, prophets, and angels, but unto none

of these would he turn. "Be careful for nothing, but in every thing by

prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made

known unto God." [Phil. iv. 6.] And let any one receive, in the plain

meaning of his words, his prohibitory monition [Col. ii. 18.], and say,

could St. Paul have {51} uttered these words without any qualifying

expression, had he worshipped angels by invocation, even asking them

only to aid him by their prayers. "Let no one beguile you of your reward

in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels; not holding the

Head," which Head he had in the first chapter (v. 18) declared to be the

dear Son of God, "in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the

forgiveness of our sins."

The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews could bring before our minds

with most fervent uplifting eloquence Abel and Abraham and David,--that

goodly fellowship of the prophets, that holy army of martyrs; he could

speak as though he were an eye-witness of what he describes, of the

general assembly and church of the first-born, whose names are written

in heaven. And, surely, had the thought of seeking the support or

intercession of saint or angel by invocation addressed to them, been

familiar to him; had the thought even occurred to his mind with

approbation, he would not have allowed such an occasion to pass by,

without even alluding to any benefit that might arise from our invoking

such friends of God. So far from that allusion, the utmost which he says

at the close of his eulogy is this, "These all, having obtained a good

report through faith, received not the promise; God having provided some

better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect."

[Heb. xi. 39, 40.]

The beloved Apostle who could look forward in full assurance of faith to

the day of Christ's second coming, and knew that "when He shall appear

we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is," has left us this

record of his sentiments concerning prayer: {52} "This is the confidence

that we have in HIM, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he

heareth us; and if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know

that we have the petitions that we desired of him." [1 John v. 14, 15.]

St. John alludes to no intercessor, to no advocate, save only that

"Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, who is also the

propitiation for our sins." [1 John ii. 1.] St. John never suggests to

us the advocacy or intercession of saint or angel; with him God in

Christ is all in all.

I will only refer to one more example, that of St. James: the instance

is equally to the point, and is strongly illustrative of the truth. This

Apostle is anxious to impress on his fellow-Christians a due sense of

the efficacy of our intercessions: "The effectual fervent prayer of a

righteous man availeth much." [James v. 16.] He instances its power with

God by the case of Elijah, a man so holy, that the Almighty suffered him

not to pass through the regions of death and the grave, but translated

him at once from this life to glory: "Elias was a man subject to like

passions as we are, and he prayed that it might not rain; and it rained

not on the earth by the space of three years and six months; and he

prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her

fruit." [James v. 17, 18.] And yet St. James is very far from suggesting

the lawfulness or efficacy of any invocation to the hallowed spirit of

this man, to whose prayer the elements and natural powers of the sky and

the earth had been made obedient. He exhorts all men to pray, but it

must be to God alone, and directly to God, without applying for the

intervention of any mediators or intercessors from among angels or men.

{53} "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth

liberally to all men, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him; but

let him ask in faith, nothing wavering." [James i. 5, 6.] Like the

writer to the Hebrews, he would have us come ourselves "boldly" and

directly "to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find

grace to help in time of need."

Surely, these Apostles, chosen vessels for conveying the truths of

salvation throughout the world, knew well how the Almighty could best be

approached by his children on earth; and had the invocation of saint or

angel found a place in their creed, they would not have kept so

important a truth from us.

Before leaving this part of our inquiry, I would propose the patient and

unprejudiced weighing of the import of two passages in the New

Testament, often quoted on this subject; one in the Acts of the

Apostles, the other in the Apocalypse.

The holy Apostles Barnabas and Paul, by the performance of a striking

miracle, had excited feelings of religious reverence and devotion among

the people of Lystra, who prepared to offer sacrifice to them as two of

their fabled deities. [Acts xiv. 11-18.] The indignant zeal with which

these two holy men rushed forward to prevent such an act of impiety,

however admirable and affecting, does not constitute the chief point for

which reference is here made to this incident. They were men, still

clothed with the tabernacle of the flesh, and the weakness of human

nature; and the priests and people were ready to offer to them the

wonted victims, the abomination of the heathen. Now, I am fully aware of

the wide difference, in many {54} particulars, between such an act and

the act of a Christian praying to their spirits after their departure

hence, and supplicating them to intercede with the true God in his

behalf: and on this difference Roman Catholic writers have maintained

the total inapplicability of this incident to the present state of

things. But, surely, if any such prayer to departed saints had been

familiar to their minds, instead of repelling the religious address of

the inhabitants of Lystra at once and for ever, they would have altered

the tone of their remonstrance, and not have suppressed the truth when a

good opportunity offered itself for imparting it. And, supposing that it

was part of their commission to announce and explain the invocation of

saints at all, on what occasion could an explanation of the just and

proper invocation of angels and saints departed have been more

appropriate in the Apostles, than when they were denouncing the

unjustifiable offering of sacrifice to themselves while living? But

whether the more appropriate place for such an announcement were at

Lystra, in Corinth, at Athens, or at Rome, it matters not; nor whether

it would have been more advantageously communicated by their oral

teaching, or in their epistles. Doubtless, had the Apostles, by their

example or teaching, sanctioned the invocation of saints and angels, in

the course of fifty years or more after our blessed Saviour's

resurrection, it would infallibly have appeared in some page or other of

the New Testament. Instead of this the whole tenor of the Holy Volume

breathes in perfect accordance with the spirit of the apostolical

remonstrance at Lystra, to the fullest and utmost extent of its meaning,

"We preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities to serve the

living God." {55}

Of the other instance, it well becomes every Catholic Christian to

ponder on the weight and cogency. John, the beloved disciple of our

Lord, when admitted to view with his own eyes and hear with his mortal

ears the things of heaven, rapt in amazement and awe, fell down to

worship before the feet of the angel who showed him these things. [Rev.

xxii. 8, 9.] If the adoration of angels were ever justifiable, surely it

was then; and what a testimony to the end of the world would have been

put upon record, had the adoration of an angel by the blessed John at

such a moment, when he had the mysteries and the glories of heaven

before him, been received and sanctioned. But what is the fact? "Then

saith he to me, See thou do it not. I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy

brethren the prophets, and of them who keep the sayings of this book.

Worship God." I cannot understand the criticism by which the

conclusiveness of this direct renouncement of all religious adoration

and worship is attempted to be set aside. To my mind these words,

uttered without any qualification at such a time, by such a being, to

such a man, are conclusive beyond gainsaying. The interpretation put

upon this transaction, and the words in which it is recorded, and the

inference drawn from them by a series of the best divines, with St.

Athanasius at their head, presents so entirely the plain common-sense

view of the case to our minds, that all the subtilty of casuists, and

all the ingenuity of modern refinements, will never be able to

substitute any other in its stead. "The angel (such are the words of

that ancient defender of the true faith), in the Apocalypse, forbids

John, when desiring to worship him, saying, 'See thou {56} do it not; I

am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them who

keep the sayings of this book. Worship God.' Therefore, to be the object

of worship belongs to God only; and this even the angels themselves

know: though they surpass others in glory, but they are all creatures,

and are not among objects of worship, but among those who worship the

sovereign Lord." [Athan. Orat. 2. Cont. Ar. vol. i. p. 491.] To say that

St. John was too fully illuminated by the Holy Spirit to do, especially

a second time, what was wrong; and thence to infer that what he did was

right, is as untenable as to maintain, that St. Peter could not,

especially thrice, have done wrong in denying our Lord. He did wrong, or

the angel would not have chided and warned him. And to say that the

angel here forbade John personally to worship him, because he was a

fellow-servant and one of the prophets; and thus that the prohibition

only tended to exalt the prophetic character, not to condemn the worship

of angels, is proved to be also a groundless assumption, from the

angel's own words, who reckons himself as a fellow-servant with not St.

John only, but all those also who keep the words of the book of

God,--thus equally forbidding every faithful Christian to worship their

fellow-servants the angels. They are almost the last words in the volume

of inspired truth, and to me, together with those last words, they seem

with "the voice of a great multitude, and of many waters, and of mighty

thunderings," from the very throne itself of the Most High, to proclaim

to every inhabiter of the earth, Fall down before no created being;

adore no created being; pray to, invoke, call upon no created being,

whether saint or angel: worship {57} and adore God only; pray to God

only. Trust to his mercy; seek no other mediator or intercessor than his

own only and blessed Son. "He who testifieth these things saith, Surely,

I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord

Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen." [Rev. xxii. 20, 21.]

Thus the New Testament, so far from mitigating the stringency of the

former law, so far from countenancing any departure from the obligation

of that code which limits religious worship to God alone, so far from

suggesting to us invocation to sainted men, and to angels as

intercessors with the eternal Giver of all good, reiterates the

injunction, and declares, that invocation in order to be Christian must

be addressed to God alone; and that there is one and only one Mediator

between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of

his Father, a merciful High Priest sympathizing with us in our

infirmities, ever making intercession for us, able to save to the

uttermost those who come unto God through Him.

The present seems to be a convenient place for observing, that however

the distinction is strongly insisted upon, or rather implicitly

acquiesced in by many, which would admit of a worship or service called

dulia (the Greek [Greek: douleia]) to saints and angels, and would limit

the worship or service called latria ([Greek: latreia]) to the supreme

God only, yet that such distinction has no ground whatever to rest upon

beyond the will and the imagination of those who draw it. The two words

are used in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, and in the

original Greek of the {58} New promiscuously, without any such

distinction whatever. The word which this distinction would limit to the

supreme worship of the Most High, is used to express the bodily service

paid by the vanquished to their conquerors, as well as the religious

service paid by idolaters to their fabled deities, and by the true

worshippers to the Most High. The word which this distinction would

reserve for the secondary worship paid to saints and angels, is employed

to express not only the service paid by man to man, but also the service

and worship paid to God alone, even when mentioned in contradistinction

to other worship. It will be necessary to establish this by one or two

instances; and first as to "latria." One single chapter in the Book of

Deuteronomy supplies us with instances of the word used in the three

senses, of service to men, service to idols, and service to God, xxviii.

36. 47, 48: "Because thou servedst [Greek: elatreusas] not the Lord thy

God with joyfulness and gladness of heart; Therefore thou shalt serve

[Greek: latreuseis] thine enemies which the Lord shall send against thee

in hunger and in thirst and nakedness." "The Lord shall bring thee unto

a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt

thou serve [Greek: latreuseis] other gods, wood and stone." Next as to

the word "dulia." The First Book of Samuel (called also the First of

Kings) alone supplies us with instances of this word being used in each

of the same three senses of service from man to man, from man to idols,

and from man to his Maker and God. 1 Sam. xvii. 9. "Ye shall be our

servants and serve [Greek: douleusite haemin] us." xii. 24. "Only fear

the Lord, and serve [Greek: douleusate] him in truth with all your

heart." xxvi. 19. {59} "They have driven me out from the inheritance of

the Lord, saying, Go, serve[15] other gods."

[Footnote 15: [Greek: douleue]. In this case also the Vulgate

translates all the three passages alike by the same verb,

"servire."]

It is worthy of remark, that the same word "dulia[16]" is employed, when

the Lord by his prophet speaks of the most solemn acts of religious

worship; not in general obedience only, but in the offerings and

oblations of their holy things. Ezek. xx. 40. "In mine holy mountain, in

the mountain of the height of Israel, saith the Lord God, there shall

all the house of Israel, all of them in the land, serve me [Greek:

douleusousi. Vulg: serviet.]; there will I accept them, and there will I

require your offerings, and the first-fruits of your oblations, with all

your holy things." St. Matthew also uses the same word when he records

the saying of our blessed Lord, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon." [Matt.

vi. 24.; Greek: douleuein. Vulg: servire.]

[Footnote 16: It is also remarkable that in all these cases,

whether the Septuagint employs the word "dulia," or "latria,"

the word in the Hebrew is precisely the same, [Hebrew: avad].

That in the fifth century the words were synonymous is evident

from Theodoret. I. 319. See Edit. Halle.--Index.]

I will only detain you by one more example, drawn from two passages,

which seems the more striking because each of the two words "dulia" and

"latria" is used to imply the true worship of God in a person, who was

changed from a state of alienation to a state of holiness. The first is

in St. Paul's 1st Epistle to the Thessalonians, i. 9. "How ye turned to

God from idols, to serve [Greek: douleuein theo zonti] the living and

true God." The second is in Heb. ix. 14. "How much more shall the blood

of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself {60} without

spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve[17] the

living God."

[Footnote 17: [Greek: latoeuein theo zonti.] In each of these

two cases the Vulgate uses "servire."]

The word "hyperdulia," now used to signify the worship proper to the

Virgin Mary, as being a worship of a more exalted character than the

worship offered to saints and angels, archangels, and cherubim and

seraphim, will not require a similar examination. The word was invented

in later times, and has been used chiefly to signify the worship of the

Virgin, and is of course found neither in the Scriptures, nor in any

ancient classical or ecclesiastical author. {61}

* * * * *

CHAPTER III.

SECTION I.--THE EVIDENCE OF PRIMITIVE WRITERS.

Before we enter upon the next branch of our proposed inquiry, allow me

to premise that I am induced to examine into the evidence of Christian

antiquity not by any misgiving, lest the testimony of Scripture might

appear defective or doubtful; far less by any unworthy notion that God's

word needs the additional support of the suffrages of man[18]. On the

contrary, the voice of God in his revealed word is clear, certain, and

indisputable, commanding the invocation of Himself alone in acts of

religious worship, and condemning any such departure from that

singleness of adoration, as they are {62} seduced into, who invoke

saints and angels. And it is a fixed principle in our creed, that where

God's written word is clear and certain, human evidence cannot be

weighed against it in the balance of the sanctuary. When the Lord hath

spoken, well does it become the whole earth to be silent before him;

when the eternal Judge Himself hath decided, the witness of man bears on

its very face the stamp of incompetency and presumption.

[Footnote 18: While some authors seem to go far towards the

substitution of the fathers for the written word of God, others

in their abhorrence of that excess have run into the opposite,

fancying, as it would seem, that they exalt the Divine oracles

just in the same proportion as they disparage the uninspired

writers of the Church. The great body of the Church of England

adhere to a middle course, and adopt that golden mean, which

ascribes to the written Word its paramount authority, from which

is no appeal, and yet honours Catholic tradition as the handmaid

of the truth.]

For myself I can say (what I have good hope these pages will of

themselves evince) that no one can value the testimony of Christian

tradition within its own legitimate sphere more sincerely, or more

highly, than the individual who is now soliciting your attention to the

conclusions which he has himself drawn from it. When Scripture is

silent, or where its meaning is doubtful, Catholic tradition is to me a

guide, which I feel myself bound to follow with watchful care and

submissive reverence.

Now let it be for the present supposed, that instead of the oracles of

God having spoken, as we believe them to have spoken, with a voice

clear, strong, and uniform against the doctrine and practice of the

invocation of saints and angels, their voices had been weak, doubtful,

and vague; in other words, suppose in this case the question had been

left by the Holy Scriptures an open question, then what evidence would

have been deducible from the writings of the primitive Church? What

testimony do the first years and the first ages after the canon of

Scripture was closed, bear upon this point? And here I would repeat the

principle of inquiry, proposed above for our adoption in the more

important and solemn examination of the Holy Volume itself.--We ought to

endeavour to ascertain what may {63} fairly and honestly be regarded as

the real bearing of each author's remains, and not suffer the general

tone and spirit of a writer to be counterbalanced by single expressions,

which may be so interpreted as to convey an opposite meaning. Rather we

should endeavour to reconcile with that general spirit and pervading

tendency of a writer's sentiments any casual expressions which may admit

of two acceptations. We adopt this principle in our researches into the

remains of classical antiquity; we adopt the same principle in

estimating the testimony of a living witness. In the latter case,

indeed, the ingenuity of the adverse advocate is often exercised in

magnifying the discrepancies between some minor facts or incidental

expressions with the broad and leading assertions of the witness, with a

view to invalidate his testimony altogether, or at least to weaken the

impression made by it. But then a wise and upright judge, assured of the

truth of the evidence in the main, and of the integrity of the

individual, will not suffer unessential, apparent inconsistencies to

stifle and bury the body of testimony at large, but will either extract

from the witness what may account for them, or show them to be

immaterial. Inviting, therefore, your best thoughts to this branch of

our subject, I ask you to ascertain, by a full and candid process of

induction, this important and interesting point,--Whether we of the

Anglican Church, by religiously abstaining from the presentation, in

word or in thought, of any thing approaching prayer or supplication,

entreaty, request, or any invocation whatever, to any other being except

God alone, do or do not tread in the steps of the first Christians, and

adhere to the very pattern which they set; and whether members of the

Church of Rome by addressing angel or saint in any form of invocation

seeking {64} their aid, either by their intercession or otherwise, have

not unhappily swerved decidedly and far from those same footsteps, and

departed widely from that pattern?

In one point of view it might perhaps be preferable to enter at once

upon our investigation, without previously stating the conclusions to

which my own inquiries have led; but, on the whole, I think it more fair

to make that statement, in order, that having the inferences already

drawn placed before the mind, the inquirer may in each case weigh the

several items of evidence bearing upon them separately, and more justly

estimate its whole weight collectively at the last.

After then having examined the passages collected by the most celebrated

Roman Catholic writers, and after having searched the undisputed

original works of the primitive writers of the Greek and Latin Churches,

the conclusion to which I came, and in which every day of further

inquiry and deliberation confirms me more and more in this:--

In the first place, negatively, that the Christian writers, through the

first three centuries and more, never refer to the invocation of saints

and angels as a practice with which they were familiar: that they have

not recorded or alluded to any forms of invocation of the kind used by

themselves or by the Church in their days; and that no services of the

earliest times contain hymns, litanies, or collects to angels, or to the

spirits of the faithful departed.

In the second place, positively, that the principles which they

habitually maintain and advocate are irreconcileable with such a

practice.

In tracing the history of the worship of saints and angels, we proceed

(gradually, indeed, though by no {65} means at all periods, and through

every stage, with equal rapidity,) from the earliest custom established

and practised in the Church,--of addressing prayers to Almighty God

alone for the sake of the merits of his blessed Son, the only Mediator

and Intercessor between God and man,--to the lamentable innovation both

of praying to God for the sake of the merits, and through the mediation

of departed mortals, and of invoking those mortals themselves as the

actual dispensers of the spiritual blessings which the suppliant seeks

from above. It is not only a necessary part of our inquiry for

ascertaining the very truth of the case; it is also curious and

painfully interesting, to trace the several steps, one after another,

beginning with the doctrine maintained by various early writers, both

Greek and Latin, that the souls of the saints are not yet reigning with

Christ in heaven, and ending with the anathema of the Council of Trent,

against all who should maintain that doctrine; beginning with prayer and

thanksgiving to Almighty God alone, and ending with daily prayers both

to saints and angels; one deviation from the strict line of religious

duty, and the pure singleness of Christian worship, successively gliding

into another, till at length the whole of Christendom, with a few

remarkable exceptions, was seen to acquiesce in public and private

devotions, which, if proposed, the whole of Christendom would once with

unanimity have rejected.

Before I offer to you the result of my inquiries as to the progressive

stages of degeneracy and innovation in the worship of Almighty God, I

would premise two considerations:

First, I would observe, that the soundness of my conclusion on the

general points at issue does not depend at all on the accuracy of the

arrangement of those stages {66} which I have adopted. Should any one,

for example, think there is evidence that two or more of those

progressive steps, which I have regarded as consecutive, were

simultaneous changes, or that any one which I have ranked as subsequent

took rather the lead in order of time, such an opinion would not tend in

the least to invalidate my argument; the substantial and essential point

at issue being this: Is the invocation of saints and angels, as now

practised in the Church of Rome, agreeable to the primitive usage of the

earliest Christians?

Secondly, I would observe, that the places and occasions most favourable

for witnessing and correctly estimating the changes and gradual

innovations in the worship of those early times, are the tombs of the

martyrs, and the Churches in which their remains were deposited; and at

the periods of the annual celebration of their martyrdom, or in some

instances at what was called their translation,--the removal, that is,

of their mortal remains from their former resting-place to a church, for

the most part dedicated to their memory. On these occasions the most

extraordinary enthusiasm prevailed; sometimes the ardour of the

worshippers, as St. Chrysostom [St. Chrys. Paris, 1718. Vol. xii. p.

330.] tells us, approaching madness. But even at times of less

excitement, by contemplating, immediately after his death, the acts and

sufferings of the martyr, and recalling his words, and looks, and

stedfast bearing, and exhorting each other to picture to themselves his

holy countenance then fixed on them, his tongue addressing them, his

sufferings before their eyes, encouraging all to follow his example,

they began habitually to consider him as actually himself one of the

faithful assembled round {67} his tomb. Hence they believed that he was

praying with them as well as for them; that he heard their eulogy on his

merits, and was pleased with the honours paid to his memory: hence they

felt sure of his goodwill towards them, and his ability, as when on

earth, to promote their welfare. Hence they proceeded, by a fatal step,

first, to implore him to give them bodily relief from some present

sufferings; then invoking him to plead their cause with God, and to

intercede for the supply of their spiritual wants, and the ultimate

salvation of their souls; and, lastly, they prayed to him generally as

himself the dispenser of temporal and spiritual blessings.

The following then is the order in which the innovations in Christian

worship seem to have taken place, being chiefly introduced at the annual

celebrations of the martyrs:--

1st. In the first ages confession and prayer and praise were offered to

the Supreme Being alone, and that for the sake of his Son our only

Saviour and Advocate: when mention was made of saint or martyr, it was

to thank God for the graces bestowed on his departed holy ones when on

earth, and to pray to God for grace that we might follow their good

examples, and attain, through Christ, to the same end and crown of our

earthly struggles. This act of worship was usually accompanied by a

homily setting forth the Christian excellences of the saint, and

encouraging the survivors so to follow him, as he followed Christ.

2nd. The second stage seems to have been a prayer to Almighty God, that

He would suffer the supplications and intercessions[19] of angels and

saints to prevail {68} with him, and bring down a blessing on their

fellow-petitioners on earth; the idea having spread among enthusiastic

worshippers, as I have already observed, that the spirits of the saints

were suffered to be present around their tombs, and to join with the

faithful in their addresses to the throne of grace.

[Footnote 19: The Greek word [Greek: presbeia], "embassy,"

employed on such occasions, is still used in some eastern

Churches in the same sense.]

3rd. The third stage seems to have owed its origin to orators constantly

dwelling upon the excellences of the saints in the panegyrics delivered

over their remains, representing their constancy and Christian virtues

as superhuman and divine, and as having conferred lasting benefits on

the Church. By these benefits at first was meant the comfort and

encouragement of their good example, and the honour procured to the

religion of the cross by their bearing witness to its truth even unto

death; but in process of time the habit grew of attaching a sort of

mysterious efficacy to their merits; hence this third gradation in

religious worship, namely, prayers to God that "He would hear his

suppliants, and grant their requests for the sake of his martyred

servant, and by the efficacy of that martyr's merits."

4th. Hitherto, unauthorized and objectionable as the two last forms of

prayer are, still the petitions in each case were directed to God alone.

The next step swerved lamentably from that principle of worship, and the

petitioners addressed their requests to angels and sainted men in

heaven; at first, however, confining their petitions to the asking for

their prayers and intercessions with Almighty God.

5th. The last stage in this progressive degeneracy of Christian worship

was to petition the saints and angels, directly and immediately

themselves, at first for the temporal, and afterwards for the spiritual

benefits which the petitioners desired to obtain from heaven. For it

{69} is very curious, but not more curious than evident, that the

worshippers seem for some time to have petitioned their saints for

temporal and bodily benefits, before they proceeded to ask for spiritual

blessings at their hands, or by their prayers. (See Basil. Oral. in

Mamanta Martyrem.)

Of these several gradations and stages we find traces in the records of

Christian antiquity, after superstition and corruption had spread

through Christian worship, and leavened the whole. Of all of them we

have lamentable instances in the present ritual of the Church of Rome,

as we shall see somewhat at large when we reach that division of our

inquiry. But from the beginning it was not so. In the earliest ages we

find only the first of these forms of worship exemplified, and it is the

only form now retained in the Anglican Ritual; of which, among other

examples, the following passage in the prayer for Christ's Church

militant on earth supplies a beautiful specimen: "We bless Thy holy name

for all Thy servants departed this life in Thy faith and fear;

beseeching Thee to give us grace so to follow their good examples, that

with them we may be partakers of Thy heavenly kingdom: Grant this, O

Father, for Jesus Christ's sake, our only Mediator and Advocate. Amen."

We now proceed to examine the invaluable remains of Christian antiquity,

not for the purpose of testing the accuracy of the above catalogue of

gradations _seriatim_ and in order of time; but to satisfy ourselves on

the question, whether the invocation of saints and angels prevailed from

the first in the Christian Church; or whether it was an innovation

introduced after pagan superstition had begun to mingle its poisonous

corruptions with the pure worship of {70} Almighty God. And here, I

conceive, few persons will be disposed to doubt, that if the primitive

believers were taught by the Apostles to address the saints reigning in

heaven and the holy angels, and the Virgin Mother of our Lord, with

adoration and prayers, the earliest Christian records must have

contained clear and indisputable references to the fact, and that

undesigned allusions to the custom would inevitably be found offering

themselves to our notice here and there. I do not mean that we should

expect to meet with full and explicit statements either of the doctrine

or the practice of the primitive Church in this particular; much less

such apologies and elaborate defences of the practice as abound to the

overflow in later times. But, what is more satisfactory in proof of the

general and established prevalence of any opinions or customs, we should

surely find expressions incidentally occurring, which implied an

habitual familiarity with such opinions or customs. In every record, for

example, of primitive antiquity, from the very earliest of all,

expressions are constantly meeting us which involve the doctrine of the

ever-blessed Trinity, the atoning sacrifice of Christ's death, the

influences of the Holy Spirit; habitual prayer and praise offered to the

Saviour of the world, as very and eternal God; the holy Sacraments of

Baptism and the Lord's Supper; with other tenets and practices of the

Apostolic Church. It is impossible to study the remains of Christian

antiquity without being assured beyond the reach of doubt, that such

were the doctrines and practice of the universal Church from the days of

the Apostles. Is the invocation of saints and angels and the blessed

Virgin to be made an exception to this rule? Can it stand this test? The

great anxiety and labour of Roman Catholic {71} writers to press the

authors of every age to bear witness on their side in this behalf,

proves that in their judgment no such exception is admissible. It is

clearly beyond gainsaying, that if the present doctrine of the Church of

Rome, with respect to the worship of angels and saints, as propounded by

the Council of Trent; and if her present practice as set forth in her

authorized liturgies and devotional services, and professed by her

popes, bishops, clergy, and people, had been the doctrine and practice

of the primitive Church, we should have found evident and indisputable

traces of it in the earliest works of primitive antiquity, in the

earliest liturgies, and in the forms of prayer and exhortations to

prayer with which those works abound. It by no means follows that if

some such allusions were partially discoverable, therefore the doctrines

and practice must forthwith be pronounced to be apostolical; but if no

such traces can be found, their absence bears witness that neither did

those doctrines nor that practice exist. If, for example, through the

remains of the first three centuries we could have discovered no trace

of the doctrine or practice of holy Baptism and the Eucharist, we must

have concluded that the doctrine and the practice were the offspring of

later years. But when we read every where, in those remains,

exhortations to approach those holy mysteries with a pure heart and

faith unfeigned; when we find rules prescribed for the more orderly

administration of the rites; in a word, when we perceive throughout as

familiar references to these ordinances as could be now made by

Catholics either of Rome or of England, while this would not of itself

necessarily prove their divine origin, we should with equal plausibility

question the existence of Jerusalem or Constantinople, or of David or

Constantine, as we {72} should doubt the prevalence both of the doctrine

and practice of the Church in these particulars, even from the Apostles'

days.

With these principles present to our minds, I now invite you to

accompany me in a review of the testimonies of primitive Christian

antiquity with regard to supplications and invocations of saints and

angels, and of the blessed Virgin Mary.

* * * * *

SECTION II--CENTURY I.--THE EVIDENCE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

It will be necessary for the satisfaction of all parties, that we

examine, in the first place, those ancient writings which are ascribed

to an Apostle, or to fellow-labourers of the Apostles; familiarly known

as the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. They are five in number,

Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Many able writers, as

well of the Roman as of the Anglican communion, have discussed at large

the genuineness of these writings; and have come to very different

results. Some critics are of opposite and extreme opinions, others

ranging between them with every degree and shade of variation. Some of

these works have been considered spurious; others have been pronounced

genuine; though, even these have been thought to be, in many parts,

interpolated. The question, however, of their genuineness, though deeply

interesting in itself, will not affect their testimony with {73} regard

to the subject before us[20]. They were all in existence before the

Council of Nicæa; and we shall probably not be wrong in assigning to the

first two a date at the very lowest computation not less remote than the

middle of the second century; somewhere, it may be, at the furthest,

about one hundred years after the death of our Lord. (A.D. 130-150.)

With all their errors and blemishes and interpolations taken at the

worst, after every reasonable deduction for defects in matter, taste,

and style, the writings which are ascribed to the Apostolic Fathers are

too venerable for their antiquity, too often quoted with reverence and

affection by some who have been the brightest ornaments of the Christian

Church, and possess too copious a store of genuine evangelical truth,

sound principle, primitive simplicity, and pious sentiment, to be passed

over with neglect by any Catholic Christian. The few extracts {74} made

here will, I am assured, be not unacceptable to any one, who holds dear

the religion of Christ[21].

[Footnote 20: I do not think it suitable in this address to

enter upon the difficult field of inquiry, whether all or which

of these works were the genuine productions of those whose names

they bear; and whether the Barnabas, Clement, and Hermas to

which three of them are ascribed, were the Barnabas, Clement,

and Hermas of whom express mention is made in the pages of Holy

Scripture. I have determined, in conducting my argument, to

affix to them in each case the lowest proposed antiquity. The

edition of Archbishop Wake, (who maintains the highest antiquity

for these works, though I have not here adopted his

translation,) may be consulted with much profit.

Did the question before us relate to the genuineness and dates

of these works, they could not, with any approach to fairness,

be all five placed without distinction under the same category.

The evidence for the genuineness of Clement, Ignatius in the

shorter copy, and Polycarp, is too valuable to be confounded

with that of the others, which are indisputably subject to much

greater doubt. But this question has only an incidental bearing

on our present inquiry, and will be well spared.]

[Footnote 21: The edition of the works of these Apostolic

Fathers used here is that of Cotelerius as revised by Le Clerc,

Antwerp, 1698.]

* * * * *

THE EPISTLE OF ST. BARNABAS.

In the work entitled The Catholic Epistle of Barnabas, which was written

probably by a Jew converted to the Christian faith, about the close of

the first century, or certainly before the middle of the second[22], I

have searched in vain for any thing like the faintest trace of the

invocation of saint or angel. The writer gives directions on the subject

of prayer; he speaks of angels as the ministers of God; he speaks of the

reward of the righteous at the day of judgment; but he suggests not the

shadow of a supposition, that he either held the doctrine himself which

the Church of Rome now holds, or was aware of its existence among

Christians. In his very beautiful but incomplete summary of Christian

duty [Sect. 18, 19. p. 50, 51, 52.], which he calls "The Way of Light,"

we perceive more than one most natural opening for reference to that

doctrine, had it been familiar to his mind. In the midst indeed of his

brief precepts of religious and moral obligation, he directs the

Christian to seek out every day "the persons of the saints," but they

are our fellow-believers on earth; those saints or holy ones, for

administering to whose necessities, the Scripture assures us that God

will not forget our work and labour of love [Heb. vi. 10.]: these the

author bids the Christians {75} search out daily, for the purposes of

religious intercourse, and of encouragement by the word.

[Footnote 22: Archbishop Wake considers this Epistle to have

been written by St. Barnabas to the Jews, soon after the

destruction of Jerusalem.]

The following interesting extracts shall conclude our reference to this

work:--

"There are two ways of doctrine and authority, one of light, the other

of darkness; and the difference between the two ways is great. Over the

one are appointed angels of God, conductors of the light; over the

other, angels of Satan: and the one (God) is Lord from everlasting to

everlasting; the other (Satan) is ruler of the age of iniquity. The way

of light is this ... Thou shalt love Him that made thee; thou shalt

glorify Him that redeemed thee from death. Thou shalt be single in

heart, and rich in spirit. Thou shalt not join thyself to those who are

walking in the path of death. Thou shalt hate to do what is displeasing

to God; thou shalt hate all hypocrisy. Thou shalt entertain no evil

counsel against thy neighbour. Thou shalt not take away thy hand from

thy son or thy daughter, but shalt teach them the fear of the Lord from

their youth. Thou shalt communicate with thy neighbour in all things,

and call not things thine own. Thou shalt not be of a froward tongue,

for the mouth is the snare of death. To the very utmost of thy power

keep thy soul chaste. Do not open thine hand to receive, and close it

against giving. Thou shalt love as the apple of thine eye every one who

speaketh to thee the word of the Lord. Call to remembrance the day of

judgment, night and day. Thou shalt search out every day the persons of

the saints [23]; both meditating by the word, {76} and proceeding to

exhort them, and anxiously caring to save a soul by the word. Thou shalt

preserve what thou hast received, neither adding thereto, nor taking

therefrom. Thou shalt not come with a bad conscience to thy prayer."

[Footnote 23: There is much obscurity in the phraseology of this

passage: [Greek: ekzaetaeseis kath hekastaen haemeran ta prosopa

ton hagion kai dia logou skopion kai poreuomenos eis to

parakalesai, kai meleton eis sosai psuchaen to logo]. In the

corresponding exhortation among the Apostolical Constitutions

(book vii. ch. 9), the expression is, "Thou shalt seek the

person ([Greek: prosopon]) of the saints, that thou mayest find

rest (or find refreshment, or refresh thyself) ([Greek: in

epanapanae tois logois auton]) in their words." The author seems

evidently to allude to the reciprocal advantage derived by

Christians from religious intercourse.]

The closing sentences contain this blessing: "Now God, who is the Lord

of all the world, give to you wisdom, skill, understanding, knowledge of

his judgments, with patience. And be ye taught of God; seeking what the

Lord requires of you, and do it, that ye may be saved in the day of

judgment.... The Lord of glory and of all grace be with your spirit.

Amen."

* * * * *

THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS.

This work, which derives its title from the circumstance of an angelic

teacher being represented as a shepherd, is now considered by many to

have been the production of Hermas, a brother of Pius, Bishop of

Rome[24] though others are persuaded that the work is of a much earlier

date[25]. The author speaks of guardian angels and of evil angels, and

he speaks much of prayer; but not the faintest hint shows itself

throughout the three books, of which the work consists, that he had {77}

any idea of prayer being addressed to any created being, whether saint

or angel. On the evidence of this writer I will not detain you much

longer than by the translation of a passage as it is found in the Greek

quotation from Hermas, made by Antiochus (Homil. 85), on a point the

most nearly, of all that I can find, connected with the immediate

subject of our inquiry. The Latin is found in the second book, ninth

mandate. It contains sound spiritual advice, of universal application.

[Footnote 24: Ecclesiastical writers refer the appointment of

Pius, as Bishop of Rome, to the year 153.]

[Footnote 25: Archbishop Wake thinks it not improbable that this

book was written by the same Hermas, of whom mention is made by

St. Paul.]

"Let us then remove from us double-heartedness and faint-heartedness,

and never at all doubt of supplicating any thing from God; saying within

ourselves, 'How can I, who have been guilty of so many sins against Him,

ask of the Lord and receive?' But with thine whole heart turn to the

Lord, and ask of Him without doubting; and thou shalt know his great

mercy, that He will not forsake thee, but will fulfil the desire of thy

soul. For God is not as men are, a rememberer of evil, but is Himself

one who remembers not evil, and is moved with compassion towards his

creature. Do thou, therefore, cleanse thy heart of doubt, and ask of

Him, and thou shalt receive thy request. But when thou doubtest, thou

shalt not receive. For they who doubt towards God are the

double-hearted, and shall receive nothing whatever of their desires. For

those who are whole in the faith, ask every thing, trusting in the Lord,

and they receive because they ask nothing doubting. [See St. James i.

6.] And if thou shouldest be tardy in receiving, do not doubt in thy

mind because thou dost not receive soon the request of thy soul. For the

cause of the tardiness of thy receiving is some trial, or some

transgression which thou knowest not of. Do thou then {78} not cease to

offer the request of thy soul, and thou shalt receive it. But if thou

grow faint in asking, accuse thyself, and not the Giver. For

double-heartedness is a daughter of the devil, and works much mischief

towards the servants of God. Do thou, therefore, take to thyself the

faith that is strong."

In the twelfth section of the ninth Similitude, in the third book, in

the midst of much to the same import, and of much, too, which is strange

and altogether unworthy of the pen from which the previous quotation

proceeded, he thus writes, as the Latin records his words, the Greek of

this passage having been lost.

"These all are messengers to be reverenced for their dignity. By these,

therefore, as it were by a wall, the Lord is girded round. But the gate

is the Son of God, who is the only way to God. For no one shall enter in

to God except by his Son." [Book iii. Simil. 2.]

On the subject of prayer, I cannot refrain from referring you to a

beautiful similitude, illustrative of the powerful and beneficial

effects of the intercession of Christians for each other. The author

compares a rich man, abounding in deeds of charity, to a vine full of

fruit supported by an elm. The elm seems not to bear fruit at all; but

by supporting the vine, which, without that support, would bear no fruit

to perfection, it may be said to bear fruit itself. So the poor man, who

has nothing to give in return for the rich man's fruits of charity,

beyond the support which his prayers and praises ascending to God in his

behalf will obtain, confers a far more substantial benefit on the rich

man than the most liberal outpouring of alms from the rich can confer on

the poor. [Ibid.] Yet the writer, who {79} had formed such strong

notions of the benefits mutually obtained by the prayers of Christians

for each other, says not a word about the intercession of saints and

angels, nor of our invoking them. He will not suffer us to be deterred

by any consciousness of our own transgressions from approaching God

Himself, directly and immediately ourselves; but He bids us draw near

ourselves to the throne and mercy seat of our heavenly Father.

* * * * *

ST. CLEMENT, BISHOP OF ROME.

It is impossible to read the testimony borne by Eusebius, and other most

ancient writers, to the character and circumstances of Clement, without

feeling a deep interest in whatever production of his pen may have

escaped the ravages of time. "Third from the Apostles," says Eusebius,

"Clement obtained the bishopric of Rome; one who had seen the Apostles

and conversed with them, and had still the sound of their preaching in

his ears, and their tradition before his eyes;--and not he alone, for

many others[26] at that time were still living, who had been taught by

the Apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small schism having arisen

among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a most important

letter to the Corinthians, urging them to return to peace, renewing {80}

their faith, and [reminding them of] the tradition which had been so

lately received from the Apostles." [Euseb. Eccl. Hist. v. c. 6.]

[Footnote 26: See St. Paul to the Philippians, iv. 3. "And I

entreat thee also, true yoke-fellow, help those women which

laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with

other my fellow-labourers, whose names are in the book of

life."]

Of the many works which have been attributed to Clement, it is now

generally agreed, that one, and only one, can be safely received as

genuine, whilst some maintain that even that one is not altogether free

from interpolations, if not itself spurious[27]. But though we must

believe the other works to have been assigned improperly to Clement; yet

I have not thought it safe to pass them by unexamined, both because some

of them are held in high estimation by writers of the Church of Rome,

and especially because whatever pen first composed them, of their very

great antiquity there can be entertained no reasonable doubt. Indeed,

the Apostolical Canons, and the Apostolical Constitutions, both ascribed

to Clement as their author, acting under the direction of the Apostolic

Council, stand first among the records of the Councils received by the

Church of Rome.

[Footnote 27: Archbishop Wake concludes that this first Epistle

was written shortly after the end of Nero's persecution, and

before A.D. 70.]

To Clement's first Epistle to the Corinthians, now regarded by many as

the only genuine work of that primitive writer, the date of which is

considered by many to be about A.D. 90, Jerome bears this very

interesting testimony in his book on illustrious men:

"He, Clement, wrote in the person of the Church of Rome, to the Church

in Corinth, a very useful epistle, which is publicly read in some

places; in its character agreeing with St. Paul's Epistle to the

Hebrews, not only in the sense, but even in the words: and indeed the

resemblance is very striking in each." [Catalogus Scriptorum

Ecclesiasticorum, Jeron., vol. iv, part ii. p. 107, edit. Benedict.

Paris, 1706.] {81}

It is impossible to read this Epistle of one of the earliest bishops of

Christ's flock in the proper frame of mind, without spiritual

edification. A tone of primitive simplicity pervades it, which is quite

delightful. His witness to the redemption by the atoning sacrifice of

Christ's death, and to the life-giving influences of the Spirit of

grace, is clear, repeated, and direct. His familiar acquaintance with

the ancient Scriptures is very remarkable; though we might not always

acquiesce in the critical accuracy of his application. His reference to

the Epistles written by St. Paul to the same Church at Corinth that he

was then addressing, affords one of those unobtrusive and undesigned

collateral evidences to the Holy Scriptures, which are as abundant in

the primitive writings, as they are invaluable. No one can read this

Epistle of Clement, without acquiescing in the expression of Jerome,

that it is "very admirable."

Perhaps in the present work the Epistle of Clement becomes even more

interesting from the circumstance of his having been a bishop of the

Church founded by the Apostles themselves in the very place where that

Church exists, to whose members this inquiry is more especially

addressed. In his writings I have searched diligently for every

expression which might throw light upon the opinions and practice either

of the author or of the Church in whose name he wrote; of the Church

which he addressed, or of the Catholic Church at large to which he

refers, on the subject of our inquiry. So far, however, from any word

occurring, which could be brought to bear in favour of the adoration of

saints and angels, or of any supplication to them for their succour or

their prayers, the peculiar turn and character of his Epistle in many

parts seems to supply {82} more than negative evidence against the

prevalence of any such belief or practice. Clement speaks of angels; he

speaks of the holy men of old, who pleased God, and were blessed, and

were taken to their reward; he speaks of prayer; he urges to prayer; he

specifies the object of our prayers; he particularizes the subjects of

our prayers; but there is not the most distant allusion to the saints

and angels as persons to whom supplications could be addressed. Pray for

yourselves (such are the sentiments of this holy man); pray for your

brethren who have fallen from their integrity; pray to God Almighty, for

the sake of his Son, and your prayer will be heard and granted. Of any

other intercessor or advocate, angel, saint, or Virgin Mother; of any

other being to whom the invocations of the faithful should be offered,

Clement seems to have had no knowledge. Could this have been so, if

those who received the Gospel from the very fountain-head had been

accustomed to pray to those holy men who had finished their course on

earth, and were gone to their reward in heaven? Clement invites us to

contemplate Enoch, and Abraham, and David, and Elijah, and Job, with

many of their brethren in faith and holiness; he bids us look to them

with reverence and gratitude, but it is only to imitate their good

examples. He tells us to think of St. Paul and St. Peter and their

brethren in faith and holiness; but it is in order to listen to their

godly admonitions, and to follow them in all pious obedience to the will

of our heavenly Father, as they followed Christ. I must content myself

with a very few brief extracts from this Epistle[28]:

[Footnote 28: I am induced to mention here that two Epistles,

ascribed to St. Clement, written in Arabic, and now appended to

Wetstein's Greek Testament (Amsterdam, 1751), are believed by

many to be genuine, whilst others say they are spurious. At all

events they are productions of the earliest times. The

manuscript was procured at Constantinople. I have examined the

Latin translation carefully, and in some points submitted my

doubts to a very learned Syriac scholar. The general subject is

the conduct of those who have professed celibacy, whilst of the

invocation of saints no trace whatever is to be found. The

passages most closely bearing on the point before us are to the

following effect:

The writer urges Christians to be careful to maintain good

works, especially in the cause of charity, visiting the sick and

afflicted, praying with them, and praying for them, and

persevering always in prayer; asking and seeking of God in joy

and watchfulness, without hatred or malice. In the Lord's

husbandry, he says, it well becomes us to be good workmen, who

are like the Apostles, imitating the Father, the Son, and the

Holy Ghost, who are ever anxious for the salvation of men.

"Therefore (he adds, at the close of the first of these

Epistles) let us look to and imitate those faithful ones, that

we may behave ourselves as is meet in the Lord. So shall we

serve the Lord, and please him, in righteousness and justice

without a stain. Finally, farewell in the Lord, and rejoice in

the Lord, all ye holy ones. Peace and joy be with you from God

the Father, by Jesus Christ our Lord."] {83}

Ch. 21. "Take heed, beloved, lest the many loving-kindnesses of the Lord

prove our condemnation, if we do not live as is worthy of him, nor do

with one accord what is good and well-pleasing in his sight.... Let us

consider how nigh to us he is, and that nothing of our thoughts or

reasonings is concealed from him. Justice it is that we should not

become deserters from his will.... Let us venerate the Lord Jesus, whose

blood was given for us."

Ch. 29. "Let us then approach him in holiness of soul, lifting up holy

and undefiled hands towards him; loving our merciful and tender Father

who hath made us a portion of his elect." {84}

Ch. 36. "This is the way, beloved, in which we find Jesus Christ our

salvation, the chief-priest of our offerings, our protector, and the

succourer of our weakness. By him let us look stedfastly to the heights

of heaven; by him let us behold his most high and spotless face: by him

the eyes of our heart are opened; by him our ignorant and darkened minds

shoot forth into his marvellous light; by him the Supreme Governor

willed that we should taste immortal knowledge: who, being the

brightness of his magnificence, is so much greater than the angels, as

he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they."

Ch. 49. "He who hath love in Christ, let him keep the commandments of

Christ. Who can tell of the bond of the love of God? The greatness of

his goodness who can adequately express?... Love unites us to God.... By

love the Lord took us; by the love which he had for us Christ our Lord

gave his blood for us by the will of God, and his flesh for our flesh,

and his life for our lives."

Ch. 56. "Let us pray for those who are in any transgression, that

meekness and humility may be granted to them; that they may submit, not

to us, but to the will of God; for thus to them will the remembrance

towards God and the saints, with mercies, be fruitful and perfect[29]."

[Footnote 29: The original is obscure, and has been variously

rendered, [Greek: outos gar estai autois egkarpos kai teleia hae

pros ton theon kai tous hagious met oiktirmon mneia.] The Editor

refers his readers to Rom. xii. 13. "Distributing to the

necessity of saints." The received translation is this, "Sic

enim erit ipsis fructuosa et perfecta quæ est apud Deum et

sanctos cum misericordia recordatio."]

Ch. 58. "The all-seeing God, the Sovereign Ruler {85} of spirits, and

the Lord of all flesh, who hath chosen the Lord Jesus, and us through

him, to be a peculiar people; grant to every soul that calleth on his

glorious and holy name, faith, fear, peace, patience, long-suffering,

self-control, purity, and temperance, to the good pleasure of his name,

through our high-priest and protector Jesus Christ; through whom to him

be glory and majesty, dominion and honour, now and for ever and ever,

world without end. Amen."

* * * * *

SAINT IGNATIUS.

This martyr to the truth as it is in Jesus sealed that truth with his

blood about seventy years after the death of our Lord. From Antioch in

Syria, of which place he was bishop, he was sent to the imperial city,

Rome; and there he ended his mortal career by a death which he had long

expected, and which he was prepared to meet not only with resignation to

the Divine will, but even with joy and gladness. His Epistles are

written with much of the florid colouring of Asiatic eloquence; but they

have all the raciness of originality, and they glow with that Christian

fervour and charity which compels us to love him as a father and a

friend, a father and friend in Christ. The remains of this apostolic

father I have carefully studied, with the single view of ascertaining

whether any vestige, however faint, might be traced in him of the

invocation of saints and angels; but I can find none. Neither here, nor

in the case of any of the apostolical fathers, whose remains we are

examining, have I contented myself with merely ascertaining that they

bear no direct and palpable evidence; I have always endeavoured to find,

and then thoroughly to sift, any expressions which might with {86} the

slightest plea of justification be urged in testimony of primitive

belief and practice sanctioning the invocation of saints. I find none.

Brethren of the Church of Rome, search diligently for yourselves; "I

speak as to wise men: Judge ye what I say."

The remains of Ignatius offer to us many a passage on which a Christian

pastor would delight to dwell: but my province here is not to recommend

his works to the notice of Christians; I am only to report the result of

my inquiries touching the matter in question; and as bearing on that

question, the following extracts will not be deemed burdensome in this

place:--

In his Epistle to the Ephesians, exhorting Christians to united prayer,

he says, "For if the prayer of one or two possesses such strength, how

much more shall the prayer both of the bishop and of the whole Church?"

[Page 13. § 5-7.] "For there is one physician of a corporeal and a

spiritual nature, begotten and not begotten; become God in the flesh,

true life in death, both from Mary and from God; first liable to

suffering, and then incapable of suffering." [In the majority of the

manuscripts the reading is, "in an immortal true life."]

Here we must observe that these Epistles of Ignatius have come down to

us also in an interpolated form, abounding indeed with substitutions and

additions, but generally resembling paraphrases of the original text. Of

the general character of that supposititious work, two passages

corresponding with our quotations from the genuine productions of

Ignatius may give a sufficiently accurate idea. The first passage above

quoted is thus paraphrased: "For if the prayer of one or two possesses

{87} such strength that Christ stands among them, how much more shall

the prayer both of the bishop and of the whole Church, ascending with

one voice to God, induce him to grant all their requests made in Jesus

Christ?" [Page 47. c. 5.] The paraphrase of the second is more full:

"Our physician is the only true God, ungenerated and unapproachable; the

Lord of all things, but the Father and Generator of the only-begotten

Son. We have also as our physician our Lord God, Jesus Christ, who was

before the world, the only-begotten Son and the Word, but also

afterwards man of the Virgin Mary; 'for the Word was made flesh.' He who

was incorporeal, now in a body; he who could not suffer, now in a body

capable of suffering; he who was immortal in a mortal body, life in

corruption--in order that he might free our immortal souls from death

and corruption, and heal them, diseased with ungodliness and evil

desires as they were." [Page 48. c. 7.]

It must here be observed, that though these are indisputably not the

genuine works of Ignatius, but were the productions of a later age, yet

no trace is to be found in them of the doctrine, or practice, of the

invocation of saints. In this point of view their testimony is nothing

more nor less than that of an anonymous paraphrast, who certainly had

many opportunities of referring to that doctrine and practice; but who

by his total silence seems to have been as ignorant of them as the

author himself whose works he is paraphrasing.

To return to his genuine works: In his Epistle to the Magnesians we find

these expressions: "For as the Lord did nothing without the Father,

being one with {88} him, neither by himself, nor by his Apostles; so

neither do ye any thing without the bishop and priests, nor attempt to

make any thing appear reasonable to yourselves individually. But at one

place be there one prayer, and one supplication, one mind, one hope in

love, in blameless rejoicing: Jesus Christ is one; than which nothing is

better. All, then, throng as to one temple, as to one altar, as to one

Jesus Christ, who proceeded from one Father, and is in one, and returned

to one." [Page 19. § 7.] Again he says, "Remember me in your prayers,

that I may attain to God. I am in need of your united prayer in God, and

of your love."

In his Epistle to the Trallians, he expresses himself in words to which

no Anglican Catholic would hesitate to respond: "Ye ought to comfort the

bishop, to the honour of God, and of Jesus Christ, and of the Apostles."

[Page 25. § 12.] He speaks in this Epistle with humility and reverence

of the powers and hosts of heaven; but he makes no allusion to any

religious worship or invocation of them.

The following extract is from his Epistle to the Philadelphians: "My

brethren, I am altogether poured forth in love for you; and in exceeding

joy I make you secure; yet not I, but Jesus Christ, bound in whom I am

the more afraid, as being already seized[30]; but your prayer to God

will perfect me, that I may obtain the lot mercifully assigned to me.

Betaking myself to the Gospel as to the flesh of Jesus, and to the

Apostles as the presbytery of the Church; let us also love the prophets,

because they also have proclaimed the Gospel, and hoped in him, and

waited for him; in whom also {89} trusting, they were saved in the unity

of Jesus Christ, being holy ones worthy of love and admiration, who have

received testimony from Jesus Christ, and are numbered together in the

Gospel of our common hope." [Page 32. § 5.]

[Footnote 30: This clause is very obscure, and perhaps

imperfect.]

I am induced to add the paraphrase on this passage also. "My brethren, I

am very much poured out in loving you, and with exceeding joy I make you

secure; not I, but by me, Jesus Christ, in whom bound I am the more

afraid. For I am yet not perfected, but your prayer to God will perfect

me; so that I may obtain that to which I was called, flying to the

Gospel as the flesh of Jesus Christ, and to the Apostles as the

presbytery of the Church. And the prophets also I love, as persons who

announce Christ, as partaking of the same spirit with the Apostles. For

just as the false prophets and false apostles have drawn one and the

same wicked and deceitful and seducing spirit, so also the prophets and

the apostles, one and the same holy spirit, good, leading, true, and

instructing. For one is the God of the Old and the New Testament. One is

Mediator between God and man, for the production of the creatures endued

with reason and perception, and for the provision of what is useful, and

adapted to them: and one is the Comforter who wrought in Moses and the

prophets and the apostles. All the saints therefore were saved in

Christ, hoping in him, and waiting for him; and through him they

obtained salvation, being saints worthy of love and of admiration,

having obtained a testimony from Jesus Christ in the Gospel of our

common hope." [Page 81. § 5.]

In his Epistle to the Romans he speaks to them of his own prayer to God,

and repeatedly implores them {90} to pray for him. "Pray to Christ for

me, that by these instruments [the teeth of the wild beasts] I may

become a sacrifice of God. I do not, as Peter and Paul, command you:

they were Apostles, I am a condemned man. They were free; but I am still

a servant. Yet if I suffer, I shall become the freedman of Jesus Christ,

and shall rise again free: and now in my bonds I learn to covet

nothing." [Page 28. § 4.] Again he says, "Remember the Church in Syria

in your prayers." [Page 30. § 9.] He prays for his fellow-labourers in

the Lord: he implores them to approach the throne of grace with

supplications for mercy on his own soul. Of prayer to saint or angel he

says nothing. Of any invocation offered to them by himself or his

fellow-believers, Ignatius appears entirely ignorant.

* * * * *

SAINT POLYCARP.

The only remaining name among those, whom the Church has reverenced as

apostolical fathers, is the venerable Polycarp. He suffered martyrdom by

fire, at a very advanced age, in Smyrna, about one hundred and thirty

years after his Saviour's death. Of Polycarp, the apostolical bishop of

the Catholic Church of Smyrna, only one Epistle has survived. It is

addressed to the Philippians. In it he speaks to his brother Christians

of prayer, constant, incessant prayer; but the prayer of which he speaks

is supplication addressed only to God [31]. He marks out for our

imitation the good example of St. Paul and the other Apostles; assuring

us that they had not run in vain, {91} but were gone to the place

prepared for them by the Lord, as the reward of their labours. But not

one word does he utter bearing upon the invocation of saints in prayer;

he makes no allusion to the Virgin Mary.

[Footnote 31: [Greek: deaesesin aitoumenoi ton pantepoptaen

Theon]. Sect. 7.]

Before we close our examination of the recorded sentiments of the

apostolical fathers on the immediate subject of our inquiry, we must

refer, though briefly, to the Epistle generally received as the genuine

letter from the Church of Smyrna to the neighbouring Churches, narrating

the martyrdom of Polycarp. It belongs, perhaps, more strictly to this

place than to the remains of Eusebius, because, together with the

sentiments of his contemporaries who witnessed his death and dictated

the letter, it purports to contain the very words of the martyr himself

in the last prayer which he ever offered upon earth. With some

variations from the copy generally circulated, this letter is preserved

in the works of Eusebius. [Euseb. Paris, 1628, dedicated to the

Archbishop by Franciscus Vigerus.] On the subject of our present

research the evidence of this letter is not merely negative. So far from

countenancing any invocation of saint or martyr, it contains a

remarkable and very interesting passage, the plain common-sense

rendering of which bears decidedly against all exaltation of mortals

into objects of religious worship. The letter, however, is too well

known to need any further preliminary remarks; and we must content

ourselves with such references and extracts as may appear to bear most

directly on our subject.

"The Church of God, which is in Smyrna, to the Church in Philomela, and

to all the branches [Greek: paroikais] {92} of the holy Catholic Church

dwelling in any place, mercy, peace, and love of God the Father, and our

Lord Jesus Christ be multiplied." [Book i. Hist. iv. c. xv. p. 163.]

"The Proconsul, in astonishment, caused it to be proclaimed thrice,

Polycarp has confessed himself to be a Christian. On this they all

shouted, that the Proconsul should let a lion loose on Polycarp. But the

games were over, and that could not be done: they then with one accord

insisted on his being burnt alive."

Polycarp, before his death, offered this prayer, or rather perhaps we

should call it this thanksgiving, to God for his mercy in thus deeming

him worthy to suffer death for the truth, "Father of thy beloved and

blessed Son Jesus Christ, by whom we have received our knowledge

concerning thee, the God of angels and power, and of the whole creation,

and of the whole family of the just, who live before thee; I bless thee

because thou hast deemed me worthy of this day and this hour to receive

my portion among the number of the martyrs, in the cup of Christ, to the

resurrection both of soul and body in the incorruption of the Holy

Ghost; among whom may I be received before thee this day in a rich and

acceptable sacrifice, even as thou, the true God, who canst not lie,

foreshowing and fulfilling, hast beforehand prepared. For this, and for

all I praise thee, I bless thee; I glorify thee, through the eternal

high-priest Jesus Christ thy beloved Son, through whom to thee, with him

in the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and for future ages. Amen."

(I cannot help suggesting a comparison between the prayer of this

primitive martyr bound to the stake, with the prayer of Thomas Becket,

of Canterbury, as stated in the ancient services for his day, when he

was murdered in his own cathedral, to which we shall hereafter refer at

length. The comparison will impress us with the difference between

religion and superstition, between the purity of primitive Christian

worship, and the unhappy corruptions of a degenerate age. "To God and

the Blessed Mary, and Saint Dionysius, and the holy patrons of this

Church, I commend myself and the Church.") {93}

After his death, the narrative proceeds, "But the envious adversary of

the just observed the honour put upon the greatness of his testimony,

[or of his martyrdom [Greek: to megethos autou taes marturias],] and his

blameless life from the first, and knowing that he was now crowned with

immortality, and the prize of undoubted victory, resisted, though many

of us desired to take his body, and have fellowship with his holy flesh.

Some then suggested to Nicetes, the father of Herod, and brother of

Dalce, to entreat the governor not to give his body, 'Lest,' said he,

'leaving the crucified One they should begin to worship this man [Greek:

sebein];' and this they said at the suggestion and importunity of the

Jews, who also watched us when we would take the body from the fire.

This they did, not knowing that we can never either leave Christ, who

suffered for the salvation of all who will be saved in all the world, or

worship any other." [The Paris translation adds "ut Deum."] "For him

being the Son of God we worship [Greek: proskunumen], but the martyrs,

as disciples and imitators of our Lord, we worthily love[32], because of

their pre-eminent [Greek: anuperblaeton] good-will towards their {94}

own king and teacher, with whom may we become partakers and

fellow-disciples."

[Footnote 32: [Greek: axios agapomen]. Ruffinus translates it by

"diligimus et veneramur," and it is so quoted by Bellarmin.]

"The centurion, seeing the determination of the Jews, placed him in the

midst, and burnt him as their manner is. And thus we collecting his

bones, more valuable than precious stones, and more esteemed than gold,

we deposited them where it was meet. There, as we are able, collecting

ourselves together in rejoicing and gladness, the Lord will grant to us

to observe the birth-day of his martyrdom, for the remembrance of those

who have before undergone the conflict, and for exercise and preparation

of those who are to come." [Greek: hos dunaton haemin sunagomenois en

agalliasei kai chara parexei ho Kurios epitelein taen tou martyriou

autou haemeran genethlion, eis te ton proaethlaekoton mnaemaen, kai ton

mellonton askaesin te kai hetoimasian.]

In this relic of primitive antiquity, we have the prayer of a holy

martyr, at his last hour, offered to God alone, through Christ alone.

Here we find no allusion to any other intercessor; no commending of the

dying Christian's soul to saint or angel. Here also we find an explicit

declaration, that Christians offered religious worship to no one but

Christ, whilst they loved the martyrs, and kept their names in grateful

remembrance, and honoured even their ashes when the spirit had fled.

Polycarp pleads no other merits; he seeks no intercession; he prays for

no aid, save only his Redeemer's. Here too we find, that the place of a

martyr's burial was the place which the early Christians loved to

frequent; but then we are expressly told with what intent they met

there,--not, as in later times, to invoke the departed spirit of the

martyr, but to call to mind, in grateful remembrance, the sufferings of

those who had already endured the awful struggle; and by {95} their

example to encourage and prepare other soldiers of the cross thereafter

to fight the good fight of faith; assured that they would be more than

conquerors through Him who loved them.

* * * * *

We have now examined those works which are regarded by us all, whether

of the Roman or Anglican Church, as the remains of apostolical

fathers,--Christians who, at the very lowest calculation, lived close

upon the Apostles' time, and who, according to the firm conviction of

many, had all of them conversed with the Apostles, and heard the word of

truth from their mouths. I do from my heart rejoice with you, that these

holy men bear direct, clear, and irrefragable testimony to those

fundamental truths which the Church of Rome and the Church of England

both hold inviolate--the doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity, with its

essential and inseparable concomitants, the atonement by the blood of a

crucified Redeemer, and the vivifying and sanctifying influences of the

Holy Spirit.

Supposing for a moment no trace of such fundamental doctrines could be

discovered in these writings, would not the absence of such vestige have

been urged by those who differ from us, as a strong argument that the

doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity was an innovation of a later date;

and would not such an argument have been urged with reason? How, in

plain honesty, can we avoid coming to the same conclusion on the subject

of the invocation of saints? If the doctrine and the practice of praying

to saints, or to angels, for their succour, or even their intercession,

had been known {96} and recognised, and approved and acted upon by the

Apostles, and those who were the very disciples of the Apostles, not

only deriving the truth from their written works, but having heard it

from their own living tongue,--in the nature of things would not some

plain, palpable, intelligible, and unequivocal indications of it have

appeared in such writings as these; writings in which much is said of

prayer, of intercessory prayer, of the one object of prayer, of the

subjects of prayer, of the nature of prayer, the time and place of

prayer, the spirit in which we are to offer prayer, and the persons for

whom we ought to pray? Does it accord with common sense, and common

experience, with what we should expect in other cases, with the analogy

of history, and the analogy of faith, that we should find a profound and

total silence on the subject of any prayer or invocation to saints and

angels, if prayer or invocation of saints and angels had been

recognised, approved, and practised by the primitive Church?

At the risk of repetition, or surplusage, I would beg to call your

attention to one point in this argument. I am far from saying that no

practice is apostolical which cannot be proved from the writings of

these apostolical fathers: that would be a fallacy of an opposite kind.

I ground my inference specifically and directly on the fact, that these

writers are full, and copious, and explicit, and cogent on the nature

and duty of prayer and supplications, as well for public as for private

blessings; and of intercessions by one Christian for another, and for

the whole race of mankind no less than for mercy on himself; and yet

though openings of every kind palpably offered themselves for a natural

introduction of the subject, there is in no one single instance any

reference or allusion to the {97} invocation of saint or angel, as a

practice either approved or even known.

When indeed I call to mind the general tendency of the natural man to

multiply to himself the objects of religious worship, and to create, by

the help of superstition, and the delusive workings of the imagination,

a variety of unearthly beings whose wrath he must appease, or whose

favour he may conciliate; when I reflect how great is the temptation in

unenlightened or fraudulent teachers to accommodate the dictates of

truth to the prejudices and desires of those whom they instruct, my

wonder is rather that Christianity was so long preserved pure and

uncontaminated in this respect, than that corruptions should gradually

and stealthily have mingled themselves with the simplicity of Gospel

worship. That tendency is plainly evinced by the history of every nation

under heaven: Greek and Barbarian, Egyptian and Scythian, would have

their gods many, and their lords many. From one they would look for one

good; on another they would depend for a different benefit, in mind,

body, and estate. Some were of the highest grade, and to be worshipped

with supreme honours; others were of a lower rank, to whom an inferior

homage was addressed; whilst a third class held a sort of middle place,

and were approached with reverence as much above the least, as it fell

short of the greatest. In the heathen world you will find exact types of

the dulia, the hyperdulia, and the latria, with which unhappily the

practical theology of modern Christian Rome is burdened. Indeed, my

wonder is, that under the Christian dispensation, when the household and

local gods, the heathen's tutelary deities, and the genii, had been

dislodged by the light of the Gospel, saints and angels had not at a

much {98} earlier period been forced by superstition to occupy their

room.

We shall be led to refer to some passages in the earliest Christian

writers, especially in Origen, which bear immediately on this point,

representing in strong but true colours the futility of deeming a

multitude of inferior divinities necessary for the dispensation of

benefits throughout the universe, whose good offices we must secure by

acts of attention and worship. I anticipate the circumstance in this

place merely to show that the tendency of the human mind, clinging to a

variety of preternatural protectors and benefactors, was among the

obstacles with which the first preachers of the Gospel had to struggle.

In the proper place I shall beg you to observe how hardly possible it

would have been for those early Christian writers, to whom I have

referred above, to express themselves in so strong, so sweeping, and so

unqualified a manner, had the practice of applying by invocation to

saints and angels then been prevalent among the disciples of the Cross.

We may, I believe, safely conclude, that in these primitive writings,

which are called the works of the Apostolical Fathers, there is no

intimation that the present belief and practice of the Church of Rome

were received, or even known by Christians. The evidence is all the

other way. Indeed, Bellarmin, though he appeals to these remains for

other purposes, and boldly asserts that "all the fathers, Greek and

Latin, with unanimous consent, sanction and teach the adoration of

saints and angels," yet does not refer to a single passage in any one of

these remains for establishing this point. He cites a clause from the

spurious work strangely ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, which was

the forged production, as the learned are all {99} agreed, of some

centuries later; and he cites a pious sentiment of Ignatius, expressing

his hope that by martyrdom he might go to Christ, and thence he infers

that Ignatius believed in the immediate transfer of the soul from this

life to glory and happiness in heaven, though Ignatius refers there

distinctly to the resurrection. [Epist. ad Rom. c. iv. See above, p.

90.] But Bellarmin cites no passage whatever from these remains to

countenance the doctrine and practice of the adoration of saints and

angels. {100}

* * * * *

CHAPTER IV.

SECTION I.--THE EVIDENCE OF JUSTIN MARTYR.

Justin, who flourished about the year 150, was trained from his early

youth in all the learning of Greece and of Egypt. He was born in

Palestine, of heathen parents; and after a patient examination of the

evidences of Christianity, and a close comparison of them with the

systems of philosophy with which he had long been familiar, he became a

disciple of the Cross. In those systems he found nothing solid, or

satisfactory; nothing on which his mind could rest. In the Gospel he

gained all that his soul yearned for, as a being destined for immortal

life, conscious of that destiny, and longing for its accomplishment. His

understanding was convinced, and his heart was touched; and regardless

of every worldly consideration, and devoted to the cause of truth, he

openly embraced Christianity; and before kings and people, Jews and

Gentiles, he pleaded the religion of the crucified One with unquenchable

zeal and astonishing power. The evidence of such a man on any doctrine

{101} connected with our Christian faith must be looked to with great

interest.

In the volumes which contain Justin's works we find "Books of

Questions," in which many inquiries, doubts, and objections, as well of

Jews as of Gentiles, are stated and answered. It is agreed on all sides

that these are not the genuine productions of Justin, but the work of a

later hand. Bellarmin appeals to them, acknowledging at the same time

their less remote origin. The evidence, indeed, appears very strong,

which would lead us to regard them as the composition of a Syrian

Christian, and assign to them the date of the fifth century; and as

offering indications of the opinions of Christians at the time of their

being put together, they are certainly interesting documents. When

fairly quoted, the passages alleged in defence of the invocation of

saints, so far from countenancing the practice, assail irresistibly that

principle, which, with other writers, Bellarmin himself confesses to be

the foundation of that doctrine. For these Books of Questions assert

that the souls of the faithful are not yet in glory with God, but are

reserved in a separate state, apart from the wicked, awaiting the great

day of final and universal doom. In answer to Question 60, the author

distinctly says:--"Before the resurrection the recompense is not made

for the things done in this life by each individual." [Quæstiones et

Responsiones ad Orthodoxos, p. 464.]

In reply to the 75th Question, inquiring into the condition of man after

death, this very remarkable answer is returned:--

"The same relative condition which souls have with the body now, they

have not after the departure from the body. For here all the

circumstances of the union {102} are in common to the just and the

unjust, and no difference is in them in this respect,--as to be born and

to die, to be in health and to be in sickness, to be rich and to be

poor, and the other points of this nature. But after the departure from

the body, forthwith takes place the distinction of the just and the

unjust: for they are conducted by the angels to places corresponding

with their deserts: the souls of the just to paradise, where is the

company and the sight of angels and archangels, and also, by vision, of

the Saviour Christ, according to what is said, 'Being absent from the

body, and present with the Lord;' and the souls of the unjust to the

places in hades, according to what is said of Nebucodonosor king of

Babylon, 'Hades from beneath hath been embittered, meeting thee.'--And

in the places corresponding with their deserts they are kept in ward

unto the day of the resurrection and of retribution." [Page 469.]

I much regret to observe that Bellarmin omits to quote the latter part

of this passage, stopping short with an "&c." at the words _hades_, or

_inferorum loca_, although the whole of the writer's testimony in it

turns upon the very last clause. [Bellarmin, c. iv. p. 851. "Improborum

autem ad inferorum loca."]

The next question (76) runs thus: "If the retribution of our deeds does

not take place before the resurrection, what advantage accrued to the

thief that his soul was introduced into paradise; especially since

paradise is an object of sense, and the substance of the soul is not an

object of sense?

"Answer. It was an advantage to the thief entering into paradise to

learn by fact the benefits of the faith by which he was deemed worthy of

the assembly of the {103} saints, in which he is kept till the day of

judgment and restitution; and he has the perception of paradise by that

which is called intellectual perception, by which souls see both

themselves and the things under them, and moreover also the angels and

demons. For a soul doth not perceive or see a soul, nor an angel an

angel, nor a demon a demon; except that according to the said

intellectual perception they see both themselves and each other, and

moreover also all corporeal objects." [Page 470.]

On this same point I must here subjoin a passage from one of Justin's

own undisputed works. In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, sect. 5, he

says, "Nevertheless I do not say that souls all die; for that were in

truth a boon to the wicked. But what? That the souls of the pious remain

somewhere in a better place, and the unjust and wicked in a worse,

waiting for the time of judgment, when it shall be: thus the one

appearing worthy of God do not die any more; and the others are punished

as long as God wills them both to exist and to be punished." [Page 107.]

Not only so; Justin classes among renouncers of the faith those who

maintain the doctrine which is now acknowledged to be the doctrine of

the Church of Rome, and to be indispensable as the groundwork of the

adoration of saints. In his Trypho, sect. 80, he states his sentiment

thus strongly: "If you should meet with any persons called Christians,

who confess not this, but dare to blaspheme the God of Abraham, the God

of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and say there is no resurrection of the

dead ([Greek: nekron]), but that their souls, at the very time of their

death, are taken up into heaven; do not regard them as Christians."

[Page 178.] {104}

This, according to Bellarmin's own principle, is fatal evidence: if the

redeemed and the saints departed are not in glory with God already, they

cannot intercede with him for men. On the subject, however, of worship

and prayer, Justin Martyr has left us some testimonies as to the

primitive practice, full of interest in themselves, independently of

their bearing on the points at issue. At the same time I am not aware of

a single expression which can be so construed as to imply the doctrine

or practice among Christians of invoking the souls of the faithful. He

speaks of public and private prayer; he offers prayer, but the prayer of

which he speaks, and the prayer which he offers are to God alone; and he

alludes to no advocate or intercessor in heaven, except only the eternal

Son of God himself. In his first Apologia (or Defence addressed to the

Emperor Antoninus Pius) he thus describes the proceedings at the baptism

of a convert:--

"Now, we will explain to you how we dedicate ourselves to God, being

made new by Christ.... As many as are persuaded, and believe the things

which by us are taught and declared to be true, and who promise that

they can so live, are taught to pray and implore, with fasting,

forgiveness of God for their former sins, we ourselves joining with them

in fasting and prayer; and then they are taken by us to a place where

there is water, and by the same manner of regeneration as we ourselves

were regenerated, they are regenerated; for they undergo this washing in

the water in the name of God the Father and Lord of all, and of our

Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost." [Apol. i. sect 61, page

79.]

The following is his description of the Christian {105} Eucharist,

subsequently to the baptism of a convert: "Afterwards we conduct him to

those who are called brethren, where they are assembled together to

offer earnestly our united prayers for ourselves and for the enlightened

one [the newly baptized convert], and for all others every where, that

we, having learned the truth, may be thought worthy to be found in our

deeds good livers, and keepers of the commandments, that we may be saved

with the everlasting salvation. Having ceased from prayers, we salute

each other with a kiss; and then bread is brought to him who presides

over the brethren, and a cup of water and wine; and he taking it, sends

up prayer and praise to the Father of all, through the name of the Son

and the Holy Spirit; and offers much thanksgiving for our being thought

by him worthy of these things. When he has finished the prayers and

thanksgivings, all the people present respond, saying, 'Amen.' Now, Amen

in the Hebrew tongue means, 'So be it.' And when the presider has given

thanks, and all the people have responded, those who are called Deacons

among us give to every one present to partake of the bread and wine and

water that has been blessed, and take some away for those who were not

present." [Sect. 65. p. 82.]

The following is Justin's account of their worship on the Lord's day:

"In all our oblations we bless the Creator of all things, through his

Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Spirit. And upon the day called

Sunday, there is an assembly of all who dwell in the several cities or

in the country, in one place where the records of the apostles, or the

writings of the prophets are read, as time allows. When the reader has

ceased, {106} the presider makes a discourse for the edification of the

people, and to animate them to the practice of such excellent things [or

the imitation of such excellent persons]. At the conclusion we all rise

up together and pray; and, as we have said, when we have ceased from

prayer, the bread and wine and water are brought forward, and the

presider sends up prayer and thanksgiving alike, to the utmost of his

power. And the people respond, saying, Amen. And then is made to each

the distribution and participation of the consecrated elements ([Greek:

eucharistauthenton]). And of those who have the means and will, each

according to his disposition gives what he will; and the collected sum

is deposited with the presider, and he aids the orphans and widows, and

those who through sickness or other cause are in need, and those in

bonds, and strangers; and, in a word, he becomes the reliever of all who

are in want." [Sect. 67. p. 83.]

* * * * *

In Justin Martyr I am unable to find even a single vestige of the

invocation of Saints. With regard to Angels, however, there is a very

celebrated passage, to which Bellarmin and others appeal, as conclusive

evidence that the worship of them prevailed among Christians in his

time, and was professed by Justin himself.

Justin, in his first Apology, having stated that the Christians could

never be induced to worship the demons, whom the heathen worshipped and

invoked, proceeds thus[33]: "Whence also we are called Atheists, {107}

[men without God]; and we confess that with regard to such supposed gods

we are atheists, but not so with regard to the most true God, the Father

of justice and temperance, and of the other virtues without any mixture

of evil. But both HIM and the SON, who came from Him, and taught these

things to us, and THE HOST OF THE OTHER GOOD ANGELS ACCOMPANYING AND

MADE LIKE, and THE PROPHETIC SPIRIT, we reverence and worship, honouring

them in reason and truth; and without grudging, delivering the doctrine

to every one who is willing to learn as we were taught." [Page 47.]

Governing the words "the host of the other good angels," as much as the

words "Him" and "His Son," and "the prophetic Spirit," by the verbs "we

reverence and worship," Bellarmin and others[34] maintain, that Justin

bears testimony in this passage to the worship of angels. That this

cannot be the true interpretation of Justin's words will be

acknowledged, I think, by every Catholic, whether Anglican or Roman,

when he contemplates it in all its naked plainness; all will revolt from

it as impious and contrary to the principles professed by the most

celebrated and honoured among Roman Catholic writers. This

interpretation of the passage, when analysed, implies the awful thought,

that we Christians pay to the host of angels, God's ministers and our

own fellow-servants, the same reverence, worship, and honour which we

pay to the supreme Father, and his ever-blessed Son, and the Holy

Spirit, without any difference or inequality. No principles of

interpretation can avoid that inference.

[Footnote 33: The genuineness of this passage has been doubted.

But I see no ground for suspicion that it is spurious. It is

found in the manuscripts of Justin's works; of which the most

ancient perhaps are in the King's Library in Paris. I examined

one there of a remote date.]

[Footnote 34: The Benedictine Editor puts this note in the

margin, "Justin teaches that angels following the Son are

worshipped by Christians."--Preface, p. xxi.] {108}

"Him the most true Father of righteousness we reverence and worship,

honouring him in reason and truth."

"The Son who came from him, and taught us these things, we reverence and

worship, honouring him in reason and truth."

"The army of the other good angels accompanying and assimilated, we

reverence and worship, honouring them in reason and truth."

"The Prophetic Spirit we reverence and worship, honouring him in reason

and truth."

Is it possible to conceive that any Christian would thus ascribe the

same religious worship to a host of God's creatures, which he would

ascribe to God, as GOD? "We are accused," said Justin, "of being

atheists, of having no God. How can this be? We do not worship your

false gods, but we have our own most true God. We are not without a God.

We have the Father, and the Son, and the Good Angels, and the Holy

Spirit." If Justin meant that they honoured the good angels, but not as

GOD, that would be no answer to those who called the Christians

atheists. The charge was, that "they had no God." The answer is, "We

have a God;" and then Justin describes the God of Christians. Can the

army of angels be included in that description? If they are, then they

are made to share in the adoration, worship, homage, and reverence of

the one only God Most High; if they are not, then Justin does not answer

the objectors[35].

[Footnote 35: And surely if Justin had intended to represent the

holy angels as objects of religious worship, he would not so

violently have thrust the mention of them among the Persons of

the ever-blessed Trinity, assigning to them a place between the

second and third Persons of the eternal hypostatic union.] {109}

To evade this charge of impiety, some writers (among others, M. Maran,

the Benedictine editor of Justin,) have attempted to draw a distinction

between the two verbs in this passage, alleging that the lower degree of

reverence expressed by the latter applies to the angels; whilst the

former verb, implying the higher degree of worship, alone relates to the

Godhead. But this distinction rests on a false assumption; the two words

being used equally to convey the idea, of the highest religious

worship[36].

[Footnote 36: For example, the first word ([Greek: sebometha]),

"we reverence," is used to mean the whole of religious worship,

as well with regard to the true God, as with reference to Diana

[Acts xviii. 7. 13; xix. 27.]; whilst the second word ([Greek:

proskunoumen]), "we worship," is constantly employed in the same

sense of divine worship, throughout the Septuagint [Exod. xxxiv.

14. Ps. xciv. (xcv.) 6. I Sam. (1 Kings) xv. 25. 2 Kings (4

Kings) xvii. 36. Heb. i. 6.], (with which Justin was most

familiar,) and is used in the Epistle to the Hebrews to signify

the worship due from the angels themselves to God, "Let all the

angels of God worship him." The very same word is also soon

after employed by Justin himself (sect. xvi. p. 53) to mean the

whole entire worship of the Most High God: "That we ought to

worship ([Greek: proskumein]) God alone, Christ thus proves,"

&c. Moreover, the word which Justin uses at the close of the

sentence, "honouring them" ([Greek: timontes]), is the identical

word four times employed by St. John [John v. 23.], in the same

verse, to record our Saviour's saying, "That all men might

honour the Son, even as they honour the Father; he that

honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father, who hath sent

him."]

But in determining the true meaning of an obscure passage, grammatically

susceptible of different acceptations, the author himself is often his

own best interpreter. If he has expressed in another place the same

leading sentiment, yet without the same obscurity, and free from all

doubt, the light borrowed from that passage {110} will frequently fix

the sense of the ambiguous expression, and establish the author's

consistency. On this acknowledged principle of criticism, I would call

your attention to a passage in the very same treatise of Justin, a few

pages further on, in which he again defends the Christians against the

same charge of being atheists, and on the self-same ground, "that they

worship the Father who is maker of all; secondly, the Son proceeding

from Him; and thirdly, the Holy Spirit." In both cases he refers to the

same attributes of the Son as the teacher of Christian truth, and of the

Holy Ghost, as the Prophetic Spirit. His language throughout the two

passages is remarkably similar, and in the expressions on the true

meaning of which we have already dwelt, it is most strikingly identical;

but by omitting all allusion to the angels after the Son, his own words

proving that the introduction of them could have no place there, (for he

specifies that the third in order was the Holy Spirit,) Justin has left

us a comment on the passage under consideration conclusive as to the

object of religious worship in his creed. The whole passage is well

worth the attention of the reader. The following extracts are the only

parts necessary for our present purpose:--

"Who of sound mind will not confess that we are not Atheists,

reverencing as we do the Maker of the Universe.... and Him, who taught

us these things, and who was born for this purpose, Jesus Christ,

crucified under Pontius Pilate.... instructed, as we are, that He is the

Son of the True God, and holding Him in the second place; and the

Prophetic Spirit in the third order, we with reason honour." [Sect.

xiii. p. 50.] {111}

The impiety apparently inseparable from Bellarmin's interpretation has

induced many, even among Roman Catholic writers, to discard that

acceptation altogether, and to substitute others, which, though

involving no grammatical inaccuracy, are still not free from

difficulty.[37] After weighing the passage with all the means in my

power, and after testing the various interpretations offered by writers,

whether of the Church of Rome or not, by the sentiments of Justin

himself, and others of the same early age, I am fully persuaded that the

following is the only true rendering of Justin's words:

"Honouring in reason and truth, we reverence and worship HIM, the Father

of Righteousness, and the Son (who proceeded from Him, and instructed in

these things both ourselves and the host of the other good angels

following Him and being made like unto Him), and the Prophetic Spirit."

[Footnote 37: Le Nourry (Apparatus ad Bibliothecam Maximam

Veterum Patrum. Paris, 1697. vol. ii. p. 305), himself a

Benedictine, rejects Bellarmin's and his brother Benedictine

Maran's interpretation, and conceives Justin to mean, that the

Son of God not only taught us those truths to which he was

referring, with regard to the being and attributes of God, but

also taught us that there were hosts of spiritual beings, called

Angels; good beings, opposed to the demons of paganism. Bishop

Kaye, in his excellent work on Justin Martyr, which the reader

will do well to consult (p. 53), tells us he was sometimes

inclined to think that Justin referred to the host of good

angels who should surround the Son of God when he should come to

judge the world. The view adopted by myself here was recommended

by Grabe and by Langus, called The Interpreter of Justin; whilst

Petavius, a Jesuit, though he does not adopt it, yet

acknowledges that the Greek admits of our interpretation. Any

one who would pursue the subject further may with advantage

consult the preface to the Benedictine edition referred to in

this work. Lumper Hist. Part ii. p. 225. Augustæ Vindelicorum,

1784. Petavius, Theologicorum Dogmatum tom. vi. p. 298. lib. xv.

c. v. s. 5. Antwerp, 1700.

The whole passage is thus rendered by Langus (as read in

Lumper), "Verum hunc ipsum, et qui ab eo venit, atque ista nos

et aliorum obsequentium exæquatorumque ad ejus voluntatem

bonorum Angelorum exercitura docuit, Filium, et Spiritum ejus

propheticum, colimus et adoramus."]

This interpretation is strongly confirmed by the professed sentiments

both of Justin and of his contemporaries, {112} with regard to the Son

of God and the holy angels.

It was a principle generally received among the early Christians, that

whatever the Almighty did, either by creation or by the communication of

his will, on earth or in heaven, was done by the Eternal Word. It was

God the Son, the Logos, who created the angels[38], as well as

ourselves; it was He who spoke to Moses, to Abraham, and to Lot; and it

was He who conveyed the Supreme will, and the knowledge of the only true

God, to the inhabitants of the world of spirits. Agreeably to this

principle, in the passage under consideration, Justin affirms (not that

Christians revered and worshipped the angels, but), that God the Son,

whom Christians worshipped as the eternal Prophet, Angel, and Apostle,

of the Most High, instructed not only us men on earth, but also the host

of heavenly angels[39], in these eternal verities, {113} which embrace

God's nature and the duty of his creatures. [Trypho, § 141. p. 231.]

[Footnote 38: Thus Tatian (p. 249 in the same edition of

Justin), "Before men were prepared, the Word was the Maker of

angels."]

[Footnote 39: "The OTHER good angels." Justin (Apol. i. sect.

lxiii. p. 81.) reminds us that Christ, the first-begotten of the

Father, Himself God, was also an Angel (or Messenger), and an

Apostle; and here Christ, as the Angel of the Covenant and the

chief Apostle, is represented as instructing THE OTHER ANGELS in

the truths of the economy of grace, just as he instructed his

Apostles on earth,--"As my Father hath sent me, even so send I

you."]

It is evident that Justin himself considered the host of angels to be

equally with ourselves in a state of probation, requiring divine

instruction, and partaking of it. It is also evident that many of his

contemporaries entertained the same views; among others, Irenæus and

Origen. [Irenæus, book ii. c. 30. p. 163. Origen, Hom. xxxii. in Joann.

§ 10. vol. iv. p. 430.] I will not swell this dissertation by quoting

the passages at length; though the passages referred to in the margin

will well repay any one's careful examination. But I cannot refrain from

extracting the words in which each of those writers confirms the view

here taken of Justin's sentiments.

Irenæus, for example, says distinctly, "The Son ever, anciently and from

the beginning co-existing with the Father, always reveals the Father

both to angels and archangels, and powers, and excellencies, and to all

to whom God wishes to make a revelation[40]." And not less distinctly

does Origen assert the same thing,--"Our Saviour therefore teaches, and

the Holy Spirit, {114} who spake in the prophets, teaches not only men,

but also angels and invisible excellencies."

[Footnote 40: So far did some of the early Christians include

the hosts of angels within the covenant of the Gospel, that

Ignatius (Epist. ad Smyrn. § 6. p. 36.) does not hesitate to

pronounce that the angels incur the Divine judgment, if they do

not receive the doctrine of the atonement: "Let no one be

deceived. The things in heaven, and the glory of angels, and the

powers visible and invisible, if they do not believe on the

blood of Christ--for them is judgment." They seem to have

founded their opinion on the declaration of St. Paul (Eph. iii.

10): "That now to the principalities and powers in heavenly

places might be made known through the Church the manifold

wisdom of God."]

I will only add one more ancient authority, in confirmation of the view

here taken of Justin's words. The passage is from Athenagoras[41] and

seems to be the exact counterpart of Justin's paragraph.

[Footnote 41: Athenagoras presented his defence, in which these

words occur, to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, and his son

Commodus, in the year 177.]

"Who would not wonder on hearing us called Atheists? we who call the

Father God, and the Son God, and the Holy Ghost, showing both their

power in the unity, and their distinction in order. Nor does our

theology rest here; but we say, moreover, that there is a multitude of

angels and ministers whom God, the Maker and Creator of the world, BY

THE WORD PROCEEDING FROM HIM, distributed and appointed, both about the

elements, and the heavens, and the world, and the things therein, and

the good order thereof." [Sect. 10. p. 287. edit. Just. Mart.]

I have already stated my inability to discover a single word in Justin

Martyr which could be brought to sanction the invocation of saints; but

his testimony is far from being merely negative. He admonishes us

strongly against our looking to any other being for help or assistance,

than to God only. Even when speaking of those who confide in their own

strength, and fortune, and other sources of good, he says, in perfect

unison with the pervading principles and associations of his whole mind,

as far as we can read them in his works, without any modification or any

exception in favour of saint or angel: "In that Christ {115} said, 'Thou

art my God, go not far from me,' He at the same time taught, that all

persons ought to hope in God, who made all things, and seek for safety

and health from Him alone" [Trypho, § 102, p. 197.]

* * * * *