and worshipped them, and asked that in them God would hear his prayers, it would have been gross superstition, and there would have been even danger of falling into idolatry, as in the worship of the golden calf. But the moment God directed these to be raised, and called them his mercy seat, and said that from it He would hear the prayers of His servants, and before it the high priest was ordered to bring his gifts, that instant it became a means appointed by God, and there was no superstition in placing a trust in its instrumentality. Had precious stones been worn on the breast, and inscribed with certain letters for oracular purposes, without a divine assurance, it would have been a charm, or whatever you please; but so soon as God orders the Urim and Thummim to be made; or when David applies to the Ephod to learn what he should do,* knowing that God had appointed it for that purpose, there is no longer any superstition. This is a distinction to be clearly kept in view, because it goes to confute the popular imputation of superstition to Catholics.

If an ignorant man prays before any object, or goes by preference to any certain place, in consequence of an experience having produced conviction in his mind, no matter whether justly or not, that his prayers are more effectual there than elsewhere, certainly, by acting on that feeling, he commits no act of superstition; for he attributes all that special efficacy to the appointment of God, whereof he has become convinced. In other religions, the same idea may be found. Is it not common for a person to think, that he can pray with more devotion in a certain part of his house, or in one oratory or chapel, rather than in another? And yet who says that such a one is superstitious? It is from no idea that the building or walls will bring down a blessing on his prayers but from a conviction that in that place he prays better; and that, consequently, his prayers are better heard; and surely that is not superstition. Precisely in the same manner, why do some go to hear the preaching of one clergyman rather * 1 Reg. xxiii. 9.

than another's, though, in reality, he is not more eloquent? And yet perhaps, if you ask them, they cannot tell you why; only they feel that when he speaks, his words go more to their hearts, and they receive more satisfaction. Would it be said, that this was attaching a virtue to the man, that it supposed some individual efficacy to reside in him? Consider the matter in the simplest form, that it pleases God to make that person an instrument of His work, and it loses the character of superstition, and the glory given is referred to God alone.

Apply these considerations to the relics of the saints, to those memorials of them which we Catholics bear about our persons, or preserve with care, with the feeling that they are a sort of pledge, or symbol of the saints' protection and intercession,- -that they serve to record our devotion, and to remind us of the virtues that distinguished those servants of God; so long as we believe that there is no virtue in them, independently of a bestowal from the goodness and power of God this cannot be called superstition. The belief of the

Catholic simply is, that as it has pleased God to make use of such objects as instruments for performing great works, and imparting great benefits to His people, they are to be treated with respect, and reverenced in the humble hope, that He may again so use them in our favour; and thus, we consider them as possessing that symbolic virtue which I have described. Now, we do find that God has made use of such instruments before. In the Old Law, he raised up a dead man, by his coming in contact with the bones of one of his prophets. The moment he was cast into the tomb-the moment he touched the holy prophet's bones, he arose, restored to life. What did God thereby show, but that the bones of His saints were sometimes gifted by Him with a supernatural power; and that, on an occasion when, apparently, there was no expectation of such an extraordinary miracle? We read, that upon handkerchiefs, which had touched the body of St. Paul, being taken to the sick, they were instantly restored to 4 Reg. xiii. 21.

*

health; and those were relics, in the Catholic sense of the word. We read, that a woman was cured who touched the hem of our Saviour's garment;† that the very skirts of His raiment were impregnated with that power which issued from Him, so as to restore health, without His exercising any act of His will. These examples prove, that God makes use of the relics of His saints as instruments for his greatest wonders. Here is the foundation of our practice, which excludes all idea of superstition. We have the express authority of God, that He chuses to make use of these means, and, consequently, there can be no superstition in the belief that He may use them so again.

Nor can it be said that there was more authority for the expectation of such assistance in these cases, than there is at present. It was nowhere told to the faithful that handkerchiefs or aprons were to be applied to the person of Paul, to receive virtue from the contact, or that, if they were so used, they would heal the sick. It is no less evident that the woman who touched our Saviour's dress, did it not in consequence of

act:

any invitation or encouragement, nor from the actual experience of others; for, manifestly, it was the first experiment. Jesus attributes her cure to the faith which accompanies the "Be of good heart, daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole." Now, if these persons were not superstitious by trusting for the first time to the efficacy of such means, and if, instead of being reprehended, they were praised, on account of the faith which actuated them to try them; how much less will the accusation hold, where the same faith, the same feeling, has the encouragement of the former success, and the sanction of those formal approbations.

After these examples from Scripture, after this groundwork in the word of God, I have nothing to do but to show you again, that, from the beginning of the Church, ours was the universal belief and practice. We find the demonstration of this, in the care and anxiety with which the Christians *Acts xix. 11, 12. † Mat. xix. 20.

sought to save the bodies of the martyrs from destruction. We read throughout ecclesiastical history, what eagerness the Christians displayed to snatch up their relics, and sometimes at considerable expense, to bribe the guards to give up their mangled limbs for honourable burial. This spirit carried them still further; they gathered up all their blood, as well as they could, and preserved it in vessels placed in their tombs. St. Prudentius describes a painting, which he saw in one of the catacombs, of the martyrdom of St. Hippolytus, who was dragged to death at the heels of horses; because bearing the same name as the person fabled to have been so treated, his judge ordered him to undergo that punishment. The body of the saint is described as torn in pieces, and a crowd of Christians followed, gathering up, not only the fragments of his body, but every particle of his blood, with sponges or linen cloths, to preserve it. And in fact, we frequently find sponges or phials, tinged with blood, on the tombs of the martyrs. Another species of relic also found there, are the instruments of torture, whereby they were put to death. There is an apartment attached to the Vatican library at Rome, called the Museum of Christian antiquities, in which all such instruments are carefully preserved, after having been accurately authenticated. The Christians, therefore, it appears, collected all such instruments, and buried them with the martyrs' bodies. Another way in which they testified their respect for the relics of the martyrs, was, by always erecting their oratories, or churches, where they had suffered; and the tombs of the martyrs were their altars. Not only is this proved by the liturgy in which the relics of martyrs are mentioned as necessarily present in the altar, and from the fact of every old church at Rome being built over the shrine of a martyr, but it is expressly enacted in the Council of Carthage, held in 398, wherein the following decree was issued:— "Let those altars be overturned by the bishop of the place, which are erected about the fields and the roads, as in memory of martyrs, in which is no body, nor any relics-Care also must be taken

to ascertain genuine facts. For altars, which are raised from dreams and the idle fancies of men, must not be supported."* We have a beautiful letter of the holy Archbishop of Milan, St. Ambrose, to his sister Marcellina, wherein he relates, how when, on a certain occasion, he announced to his flock his intention of dedicating a new church, several of them cried out that he must consecrate it, as he had done the Roman Basilica. To whom he replied, "I will, if I can discover the bodies of martyrs." Whereupon, seized with a holy ardour, he commanded a search to be made, and discovered the bodies of SS. Gervasius and Protasius, with their blood, and other evidences of authenticity. They were solemnly translated to the Ambrosian basilica, and on the way a blind man recovered his sight. He then gives his sister the substance of his sermon on the occasion.†

Nothing remains but, according to my practice, to read a few out of many passages, to show you that the ancient Christians believed all regarding relics that we do. We begin with the church of Smyrna, one of the seven mentioned in the Apocalypse, and one founded by St. John; St. Polycarp, its bishop, was one of the last who had seen that evangelist, and was his personal disciple, under whom, consequently, we cannot suppose that the doctrine taught by Christ and his apos tles was completely obscured. After his death, the Christians of the Church of Smyrna wrote a letter, preserved by Eusebius, giving an account of what took place on that occasion, in which is this passage:- "Our subtle enemy, the devil, did his utmost, that we should not take away the body, as many of us anxiously wished. It was suggested that we should desert our crucified master, and begin to worship Polycarp. Foolish men! who know not that we can never desert Christ, who died for the salvation of all men; nor worship any other. Him we adore as the Son of God; but we show deserved respect to the martyrs, as his disciples and followers. *Can. xiv. Conc. Gen. T. ii. p. 1217.

Epistolar. Lib. vii. ep. lvi.' Oper. Tom. v. p. 315, Par. 1632.