monuments of curious workmanship; though dead, they can still do much; they can impart favours." St. Austin makes the same distinction, when he says, "The Christian people celebrate the memories of martyrs, in order that they may be aided by their prayers; but to no martyrs do we raise altars, for who was ever heard to say, To thee Peter, to thee Paul, or to thee Cyprian, do we make this offering; to God alone is the sacrifice offered." The distinction in these two passages, and in many others, is precisely the same; it means, they offered sacrifices, supreme homage to God alone; but they are the intercessors, and they are invoked as such.

What are we to say to these testimonies? Nothing can be more manifest, than that the doctrine which these fathers believed, was precisely the same as I have laid down to you, as you will find it laid down in the council of Trent, or in the catechisms used by our children. Are we to say, therefore, that these were all involved in the same idolatry as ourselves? If this dogma be overturned, the consequences you see are most serious.

It might be said, that in some respects some errors had been admitted into the church-I mean, speaking in the sense of those who differ from us--but when it is a doctrine which involves us in idolatry, it is a very serious thing to say, that the whole of the church, during the first, second, third, and fourth centuries, in the East and West; in Italy, in Greece, in Syria, and in Mesopotamia, was universally once more plunged into idolatry.

Is it not, in the first place, a most frightful presumption to say, that a few individuals in one country, or a small church, or a collection of churches, in one island of the globe, and, perhaps, a comparatively small number of Christians, of the same belief in other countries, are alone the possessors, after eighteen hundred years, of the true faith of Christ, to such an extent, as to suppose, that for the first and second centuries the whole of the church plunged itself once more into idolatry, and did not emerge from thence till the superior light of this small remnant was able to see Christianity in its purity, in such a way as to shame all those men who died for Christ, and others who were ready to have died for him; and who show, in their writings, that they had been animated with the purest zeal for his glory? Who will refuse to call such men as Basil, Gregory, Irenæus, Jerome, and Ambrose, saints? Who will refuse to give them that title, who has read their lives and perused their works? How can any one imagine that they were saved, that they were the great supporters of the church of Christ, if they were all plunged in what the Book of Homilies calls, degrading idolatry, and in which all men were immersed for eighteen hundred years? Is it not on the testimony of their writings, that many of the dogmas, considered most essential to Christianity, are supported? Is it not to those very

N

writers that men appeal, who wish to demonstrate the divinity of Christ-who wish to demonstrate a Trinity in God? Do they not allow, that it is their writings which have preserved these doctrines pure and uncontaminated from age to age? And then, after that to say, that they could have been so grossly degraded, as to have given in to a doctrine which then, as now, must have been considered the very lowest abyss of idolatry. Here, then, is an important problem to solve, in those, not merely who charge us with the odious crime; but in those who deny it is a true doctrine of the primeval church, and, consequently, the true doctrine of Christ. Their difficulties become greater and greater at every step; for not only must we suppose these men so fallen, and with them the whole church of Christ, but what are you to say of the power with which Christ came to establish religion upon earth; if, in less than two hundred years, while the blood of the martyrs was yet flowing, the record of their having died for him should be written in terms expressive of that very idolatry in whose condemnation they died; and that the martyrs should have laid down their lives for a refusal to offer up incense to, or recognise a false god; while, at the same time, they were themselves showing divine honours to the souls of men, and were themselves committing that very enormous crime, which they were martyrs for refusing to commit? Surely these are difficulties which must be overcome: and more than that, is it not making the power of Christ to say, that he who came down to cast a fire on earth with willingness (for when he said, "I will," it was as much as to say-" it shall be "—that is, "fire shall be kindled"), and that fire was the fire of charity, and of faith; and yet, that after this expression, at its early consummation, the fire should have been extinguished so soon; that the truth should have been thrown out by the very ministry he came to establish-that the idolatry which he came to uproot, should have been of more powerful growth than the seed of the word, and should have choaked it even before it came to maturity? Is not this an insult? Is it not a mockery of Christ, and of his saving power, to suppose, that his church could have been in this state? And yet this must be allowed to have been the case, if you suppose these fathers, holding these doctrines, were necessarily involved in the same crime whereof we are accused.

Nor can it be said that they did not understand the common and popular objections-that by this means the interest of Christ's mediatorship is annihilated. They must have known that the prayers offered to the saints could not interfere with that mediatorship; they must on the contrary have felt what we feel, and what I before expressed, that there cannot be greater homage possibly paid to God than to consider it necessary that even his saints in bliss, and secured in the enjoyment of final happiness, should have still to appear before him as intercessors or

as suppliants. So far were they from feeling any of that scruple which now is so common regarding applying the same phrases to God and his saints, that we have very remarkable instances of the manner in which they are joined constantly in the prayers and the forms of supplication used of old. But I will cite, as an example of this, an inscription which was only discovered two years ago, and which must have been erected by a person of considerable consequence, since he is constantly mentioned in other inscriptions as having been the supreme govenor of a district round Rome. The inscription is in these words: "Anicius Auchenius Bassus, who had enjoyed the consular dignity"--that is, one who had been a consular-" and his wife Honorata, with their children, devout to God and the saints:"-putting therefore together "devout to God and to the saints." This inscription is for no other purpose; it does not relate to any other event. It was probably over some oratory, but it shows sufficiently what was the feeling thenthat they might be devout to the saints, joining it even to God, and yet assuredly not derogating from the honour of God.

Thus far then, brethren, regarding the saints themselves. Such is the Catholic doctrine, such is its consistency, and such are its proofs.

Another point intimately connected with this, is the respect which is paid by Catholics to the RELICS of the saints. Catholics believe that any thing which has belonged to men that have been distinguished by their love of God, and by what they have done and suffered in his cause, deserve that respect and that honour which is constantly shown in ordinary life, to that which has belonged to any great, or celebrated, or good man. Nothing is more common than to see such respect shown every where. We are told even that things very nearly approaching to what we should call relics are observed at this day in the Established Church. We are told that in the Church of Lutterworth, there is preserved the chair of Wickliffe, his desk, and a portion of his cloak. These are precisely what the Catholic means by relics; they are kept by those who honour the memory of that man, who consider him to have been a great and good man; and the things that belonged to him form a sort of connexion, a link between him and those who come in after times, and consequently they show them outward respect. And Catholics go farther than this. They do believe that it pleases God, through the instrumentality of these things to manifest his goodness in their behalf, for the purpose of honouring the saints, and consequently inciting us to the imitation of their example.

I would ask, in the first place, Is there any thing superstitious in this? There is no word more common than that of superstition, and yet there are few words more difficult to be defined. What is superstition? It is the believing that any virtue, and energy, or supernatural power depends upon any thing independently of God's voluntary and free conferring of any such virtue. The moment you introduce God-the

moment you hope or believe, because you have reason to suppose that God has been pleased to make use of any instrument, superstition ceases. So long as you have a right to suppose that God makes use of any instrument for his favours and mercies, whether in the natural or the supernatural world, you refer the virtue to God. If any man, for instance, believes that the carrying about him a charm will cure him, will do him some good, will preserve him from any danger-if he believes it because he supposes there is in that charm, as it were, some innate virtue, some power of its own, it is rank superstition. If he believes that God has given it that power without any reason for thinking so, it is still superstition, because the belief being without grounds is consequently no belief at all. But if I take a medicine from the conviction that it has a natural power, inasmuch as it has combined with it a power through the laws of nature, which God has given to it, and I believe it has to act by a natural law inherent in it instituted by God in the universe, there is no superstition in my mode of acting. In the same way with regard to any thing instituted by God, or believed to be instituted by him-where there is ground or reason for it-superstition ceases. It would have been superstition for the Jews to imagine that by looking at a piece of brass they could have been healed; but the moment God says, Put up the brazen serpent, and whoever looks at it shall be healed, the act of superstition ceases, though the act is precisely the same; but being grounded upon the conviction that God makes use of the material instrument, it becomes a look towards God who has given it that power, and the superstition instantly ceases. Had mankind raised up two images of Cherubim, and placed between them the Ark, and deposited in it the most precious object you can conceive, and have bowed down before it, and worshipped in the belief, the idea, that it was an instrument to show that God heard prayers, it would have been superstition; perhaps they would even have been in danger of being idolaters, like the worshippers of the golden calf. But the moment God says it is his mercy-seat-that in that spot he will hear their prayers— that before it the high priest is to bring his gifts, the outward instrument, as such, becomes an instrument appointed by God; and consequently there is no superstition in believing that through its instrumentality, however material it may be, God communicates his benefits. If any one should go and make precious stones into a breastplate, and should say, that by looking at that you shall know what it is that God wills to be done, it would be a charm, or whatever you please-in short, it would be superstition. But when God orders the Urim and Thummim to be made, and declares through it his will; and when, by means of the ephod, he declares to David, or others, what he is to do-the person knowing that God had instituted the means which he made use of for that purpose, there is no superstition in making use of these out

ward means. This is a distinction to be kept constantly in view, because it at once destroys all the ordinary outcry and clamour about Catholic superstition, as it is called. If a poor man, an ignorant man, goes to a certain place to pray, from a conviction grounded on experience (or any other ground of experience), such as to have produced an innate conviction in his mind, that God in such a place has been pleased, or is pleased to hear his prayer better than any where else—that person, by doing that act, certainly commits no act of superstition: otherwise you may say, that in every religion the same accusation is to be formed. Is it not a common thing for almost every one to find, for instance, that he can pray with more devotion in a certain place, in a certain part of his house which he has set apart for that purpose-in one church or chapel rather than in another? Do we not hear persons of different religions acknowledge continually that they do find themselves some way or other excited to feelings of greater devotion, that their prayers are better heard when they are in one oratory or place of congregation rather than in another, and that they go to it on that account? And who characterizes this as superstition? It is superstitious if there is an idea that the building, or any thing about the construction of the place has power or efficacy to bring down the blessing of God on the prayers. But if their own conviction has satisfied their minds, that by praying in that place it pleases God to hear them better, or they find that they pray better in consequence of being in that oratory, assuredly it is not superstitious, and it is not so considered. Precisely in the same way, why do some go to hear the preaching of one man more than another, though in reality he may not be more eloquent. If you ask such a person what is the reason of it, he replies, "I cannot tell, but when he preaches, when he prays, God comes to my heart; I find his prayers more satisfying to myself; they have a touching virtue. This is Catholic practice, but considered in other ways. It pleases God to make it an instrument of greater good in your soul; you go, therefore, on that account; and it loses its character of superstition, because the agency is referred to God.

In coming down, therefore, to the subject of relics, or things which have belonged to the saints which Catholics wear about them, carry about their bodies, in the hope that they are a sort of pledge, a species of symbol of the saints' protection, or of his intercession, that some to excite devotion by reminding them, from time to time, of the virtues for which the saint was distinguished, so long as they do not believe in the thing itself operating independently of the power of God, the thing is perfectly just and perfectly lawful. The belief of Catholics, then, regarding relics is simply this: it having pleased God to make use of these as instruments for performing great works, imparting great benefits to those who have faith in him, these things are to be treated with respect;