Hieron. ad ART. relics were fpread. St. Jerome, in his careless way, fays, XXII. they followed the Lamb whitherfoever he went, and seems to make no doubt of their being, if not every where, yet in feveral places at once. But St. Austin, who could follow a confequence much further in his thoughts, though he doubted not but that men were much the better for tuis, c. 16. the prayers of the martyrs, yet he confeffes that it passed the ftrength of his understanding to determine, whether they heard those who called upon them at their memories, or wherefoever elfe they were believed to have appeared, or not. But the devotions that are spoken of by all of that age, are related as having been offered at their memories; fo that this feems to have been the general opinion, as well as it was the common practice of that age, though it is no wonder if this conceit once giving fome colour and credit to the invocating them, that did quickly increase itself to a general invocation of them every where. And thus a fondnels for their relics, joined with the opinion of their relation and nearnefs to them, did in a fhort time grow up to a direct worshipping of them; and, by the fruitfulness that always follows fuperftition, did fpread itfelf further, to their clothes, utenfils, and every thing else that had any relation to them. Aug. de There was caufe given in St. Auftin's time to fufpect opere mo- that many of the bones which were carried about by nach. c. 28. monks, were none of their bones, but impoftures, which very much shakes the credit of the miracles wrought by. them, fince we have no reason to think that God would fupport fuch impoftures with miracles; as, on the other hand, there is no reason to think that falfe relics would have paffed upon the world, if miracles had been believed to accompany true ones, unless they had their miracles likewife to atteft their value: fo let this matter be turned which way it may, the credit both of relics, and of the miracles wrought by them, is not a little fhaken by it. But in the following ages we have more than prefumptions, that there was much of this false coin that went abroad in the world. It was not poffible to diftinguish the false from the true. The freshness of colour and smell, so often boafted, might have been easily managed by art; the varieties of those relics, the different methods of discovering them, the fhinings that were faid to be about their tombs, with the smells that broke out of them, the many apparitions that accompanied them, and the fignal cures that were wrought by them, as they grew to fill the world with many volumes of legends, many more lying yet in the manufcripts in many Churches, than have been publifhed: lifhed: all thefe, I fay, carry in them fuch characters of ART. fraud and impofture on the one hand, and of cruelty and XXII. fuperftition on the other; fo much craft, and fo much folly, that they had their full effect upon the world, even in contradiction to the cleareft evidence poffible; the fame faints having more bodies and heads than one, in different places, and yet all equally celebrated with miracles. A great profufion of wealth and pomp was laid out in honouring them, new devotions were ftill invented for them and though thefe things are too palpably falfe to be put upon us now, in ages of more light, where every thing will not go down because it is confidently affirmed; yet as we know how great a part of the devotion of the Latin Church this continued to be for many ages before the Reformation, fo the fame trade is ftill carried on, where the fame ignorance, and the fame fuperftition, does ftill continue. I come now to confider the laft head of this Article, which is the Invocation of Saints, of which much has been already faid by an anticipation: for there is that connection between the worship of relics and the invocation of faints, that the treating of the one does very naturally carry one to fay fomewhat of the other. It is very evident that faints were not invocated in the Old Teftament. God being called fo oft, the God of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, feems to give a much better warrant for it, than any thing that can be alleged from the New Teftament. Mofes was their Lawgiver, and their Mediator and Interceffor with God; and his interceffion, as it had been very effectual for them, fo it had fhewed itself in a very extraordinary inftance of his defiring that his name might be blotted out of the book which he had written, ra- Exod. ther than the people thould perish; when God had offered xxxii. 32. to him, that he would raise up a new nation to himself, out of his pofterity. God had alfo made many promises to that nation by him: fo that it might be natural enough, confidering the genius of fuperftition, for the Jews to have called to him in their miferies, to obtain the performance of thofe promises made by him to them. We may upon this refer the matter to every man's judgment, whether Abraham and Mofes might not have been much more reasonably invocated by the Jews according to what we find in the Old Teftament, than any faint can be under the New: yet we are fure they were not prayed to. Elijah's going up to heaven in fo miraculous à manner, might also have been thought a good reason for any to have prayed to him; but nothing of that kind was then practifed. ART. practifed. They understood prayer to be a part of that XXII. worship which they owed to God only: fo that the praying to any other, had been to a certain degree the having another God before, or befides the true Jehovah. They never prayed to any other, they called upon him, and made mention of no other: the rule was without exPfal. 1. 15. ception, Call upon me in the time of trouble; I will hear thee, and thou shalt glorify me. Upon this point there is no dispute. In the New Teftament we fee the fame method followed, with this only exception, that Jefus Chrift is propofed as our Mediator; and that not only in the point of redemption, which is not denied by thofe of the Church of Rome, but even in the point of interceffion; for when St. Paul is treating concerning the prayers and fupplications that are to be offered for all men, he concludes that Tim.ii. 5. direction in these words: For there is one God and one Mediator between God and man, the man Chrift Jefus. We think the filence of the New Teftament might be a fufficient argument for this: but these words go farther, and imply a prohibition to addrefs our prayers to God by any other Mediator. All the directions that are given us of trusting in God, and praying to him, are upon the matter prohibitions of trusting to any other, or of calling on any Rom. 1.14. Other. Invocation and faith are joined together: How Shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? So that we ought only to pray to God, and to Chrift, acJohn xiv. 1. cording to thofe words, Ye believe in God, believe alfo in me. We do alfo know that it was a part of heathenish idolatry to invocate either demons, or departed men, whom they confidered as good beings fubordinate to the Divine Effence, and employed by God in the government of the world; and they had almoft the fame speculations about them, that have been fince introduced into the Church, concerning angels and faints. In the condemning all idolatry, no referve is made in Scripture for this, as being faulty, only because it was applied wrong; or that it might be fet right when directed better. On the conCol. ii. 18. trary, when fome men, under the pretence of humility and of will-worship, did, according to the Platonic notions, offer to bring in the worship of angels into the Church of Coloffe, pretending, as is probable, that those spirits who were employed by God in the miniftry of the Gospel, ought, in gratitude for that fervice, and out of refpect to their dignity, to be worshipped: St. Paul condemns all this, without any referves made for lower degrees of worVer. 8, 9, fhip; he charges the Chriftians to beware of that vain phi 10. lofophy, lofophy, and not to be deceived by those shews of humility, ART. Rev. xxii. 9. As angels are thus forbid to be worshipped, fo no mention is made of worshipping or invocating any faints that had died for the faith, fuch as St. Stephen and St. James. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, they are required to re- Heb. xiii. 7. member them which had the rule over them, and to follow their faith; but not a word of praying to them. So that if either the filence of the Scriptures on this head, or if plain declarations to the contrary could decide this matter, the controverfy would foon be at an end. Chrift is always proposed to us as the only perfon by whom we come unto God: and when St. Paul fpeaks against the worshipping of angels, he fets Chrift out in his glory in oppofition to it. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Col. ii.. Godhead bodily; and ye are complete in him, which is the 10. head of all principality and power; pursuing that reason in a great many particulars. From the Scriptures, if we go to the first ages of Chriftianity, we find nothing that favours this, but a great deal to the contrary. Irenæus difclaims the invocation of angels. The memorable paffage of the Church of Smyrna, formerly cited, is a full proof of their fenfe in this matter. Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian do often mention Clem. the worship that was given to God only by prayer; and Protrep. fo far were they at that time from praying to faints, that they prayed for them, as was formerly explained: they thought they were not yet in the prefence of God, so they could not pray to them as long as that opinion continued. That form of praying for them is in the Apoftolical Conftitutions. In all that collection, which feems to be a /work Tertul. Apol. c. 17. ART. work of the fourth or fifth century, there is not a word XXII. that intimates their praying to faints. In the Council of Laodicea a, there is an exprefs condemnation of those who invocated angels; this is called a fecret idolatry, and a forfaking of our Lord Jefus Chrift. The first apologifts for Christianity do arraign the worship of demons, and of fuch as had once lived on earth, in a style that shewed they did not apprehend that the argument could be turned against them, for their worshipping either angels or departed faints. When the Arian controverfy arose, the invocation of Chrift is urged by Athanafius, Bafil, Cyril, and other Fathers, as an evident argument that he was neither made nor created; fince they did not pray to angels, or any other creatures; from whence they concluded that Chrift was God. Thefe are convincing proofs of the doctrine of the three first, and of a good part of the fourth century. Max. 1. 13. c. 4. Aug. de Civ. Dei, 1. 8. c. 27. It is true, as was confeffed upon the former head, they began with martyrs in the end of the fourth century. They fancied they heard thofe that called to them; and upon that it was no wonder, if they invocated them, and fo private prayers to them began. But, as appears both by the Conftitutions, and several of the writers of that time, the public offices were yet preferved pure. St. Auftin Aug. con. fays plainly, The Gentiles built temples, raised altars, orSerm. Ar. dained priests, and offered facrifices to their Gods: but we c. 29. con. do not erect temples to our martyrs, as if they were Gods; but memories as to dead men, whofe fpirits live with God: nor do we erect altars, upon which we facrifice to martyrs; but to one God only do we offer, to the God of martyrs, and our God; at which facrifice they are named in their place and order, as men of God, who in confeffing him have overcome the world; but they are not invocated by the priest that facrifices. It feems the form of praying for the faints mentioned in the Conftitutions, was not ufed in the Churches of Afric in St. Auftin's time: he fays very pofitively, that they did not pray for them, but did praise God for them: and he fays in exprefs words, Let not the worship of dead men be any part of our religion; they ought fo to be honoured, Rel. c. 55. that we may imitate them, but not worshipped. God was indeed prayed to, in the fifth century, to hear the interceffion of the faints and martyrs; but there is a great 1. 22. c. 10. Aug. de vera • Con. Laod. c. 35. Juft. Mart. Apol. 2. Iren. 1. 2. c. 35. Orig. con. Celf. 1. 8. Tert. de Orat. c. 1. Athanaf. cont. Arian. Orat. 1, 3, 4. Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 40. Greg. Niff. in Bafil. cont. Eunap. Bafil. Hom. 27. cont. Eunom. 1. 4. Epiph. Hæref, 64, 69, 78, 79. Theod. de Hær. Fabul. 1. 5. c. 3. Chry. foft. de Trinit. difference |