Gibson on Article XXII: Of Purgatory

This Article differs in one important point from the original one as first published in 1553, for in that the teaching condemned was termed ” the doctrine of school-authors” (doctrina scholasticorum). The effect of the substitution of ” the Eomish doctrine ” (doctrina Romanensium) for this is to make the Article condemn a present current form of teaching rather than the formal system of doctors whose day was past.^

There is another matter in the history of the Article which deserves to be noticed, viz. that in the Article as originally drafted was included a condemnation of the scholastic doctrine de precatione pro defunctis. These words are found in the MS. signed by the six royal chaplains,^

• The edition of 1553 has ” perniciose contradicit” ; but the adverb was struck out in 1563, there being nothing corresponding to it in the English Article.

’ See above, p. 629, and vol. i. p. 13.

but they disappeared before tlie Article was published, — a fact which is highly significant, as it shows that the Church of England deliberately abstained from seeming to express any condemnation of the practice of praying for the departed, and that it is impossible to strain the words of this Article on Purgatory to indicate such a condemnation.^

With regard to the doctrines here condemned, it is important to bear in mind that when the Article was originally drawn up, and even when it was revised and republished in 1563, none of them liad been considered by the Council of Trent. The Article cannot, then, have been deliberately aimed at the formal decrees of that Council ; and, as a matter of fact, the decrees on these particular subjects, which were published during the last session of the Council in December 1563, were drawn up with studied moderation, and some of the strong language of our Article could hardly be truthfully said to apply to the doctrine as stated in them, though it certainly was not one whit too strong in its condemnation of the current practice and teaching which the Eeformers had before them. It will be convenient at this point to quote so much of the Tridentine decree as bears on the subject before us, as the language used in it bears striking testimony to the existence of the errors which called forth the vigorous protest of our own Eeformers.

On Furgcdory the decree simply lays down that ” there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there retained are relieved by the suffrages of the faithful, but chiefly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar.” It then proceeds : “Among the uneducated vulgar, let the more difficult and subtle questions, and those which tend not to edifi-

cation, and seldom contribute aught towards piety, be kept back from popular discouraes. Neither let them suffer the public mention and treatment of uncertain points, or such as look like falsehood. But those things which tend to a certain kind of curiosity or superstition, or which savour of filthy lucre, let them prohibit as scandals and stumbling-blocks of the faithful.” ^

With regard to Pardons, it was stated that as the power of granting indulgences was granted by Christ to His Church, the use of them was to be retained ; and those were to be anathematised who either assert that they are useless, or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them. ” In granting them, however, it desires that, according to the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed, lest by excessive facility ecclesiastical discipline be enervated. And desiring the amendment and correction of the abuses which have crept into these matters, and by occasion of which this excellent name of indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, it ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining of them, whence a most abundant cause of abuses among Christian people has been derived, be utterly abolished. But as regards other matters which have proceeded from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from any other cause,

• “Cum Catholica Ecclesia … docuerit Purgatorium esse, animasque ibi detentas, fidelium suffragiis, potissimum vero acceptabili altaris sacrificio juvari ; praecipit sancta Synodus Episcopis ut sanam de Purgatorio doctrinam, a Sanctis Patribus et sacris Conciliis traditam, a Christi fidelibus credi, teneri, doceri, et ubique praedicari, diligenter studeant. Apud rudem vero plebeni difficiliores ac subtiliores quaestiones, quaeque ad aedificationem non faciunt, et ex quibus plerumque nulla fit pietatis accessio, a popularibus concionibus secludantur. Incerta item, vel quae specie falsi laborant, evulgari, ac tractari non pemiittant. Ea vero, quae ad curiositatem quamdam, aut superstitionem spectant, vel turpe lucrum sapiant, tanquani scandala, et fidelium oftendicula prohibeant.”— Cowc. Trid., Sess. XXV., Deeretum de Purgatorio.

since, by reason of the manifold corruptions in the places and provinces where the said abuses are committed, they cannot conveniently be specially prohibited ; it commands all bishops diligently to collect all abuses of this nature, and report them in the first provincial synod,” etc.^

On the adoration of images and relics it says that due honour and veneration is to be awarded to the images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and the sixints, ” not that any virtue or divinity is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to be worshipped ; or that anything is to be asked of them ; or that confidence is to be reposed in images, as was done of old by the heathen, who placed their hope in idols; but because the honour which is shown to them is referred to the prototypes which they represent; so that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ, and venerate the saints whose similitude they bear… . And if any abuses have crept in amongst these holy and salutary observances, the holy

• “Cum potestas confercndi Indulgentias a Christo ecclesiaj coiiccssa sit, atque hujusmodi potestate, divinitus sibi tradita, autiquissiiiiis etiara teniporibus ilia usa fuerit ; sacrosancta Synodus indulgentiarum usum, Christiano populo maxime salutarem et sacrorum Concilionim auctoritatc probatum, in ecclesia retinendum esse docet, et praecipit, eosque anatliemate daninat, qui aut inutiles esse asserunt, vel cas concedeudi in ecclesia potestatem esse negaut. In his tamen concedendis moderationem juxta veterem et probatam in ecclesia consuetudinem adhiberi cupit ; ne niniia facilitate ecclesiastica disciplina enervetur. Abusus vero, qui in his irrepserunt, quorum occasione insigne hoc Indulgentiarum nomen ab haereticis blasphematur, emendates et correctos cujaens, praesenti decreto generaliter statuit pravos qusestus omnes pro his consequendis, unde plurima in Christiano populo abusuum causa fluxit, omnino obolendos esse. Cseteroe vero, qui ex superstitione, ignorantia, irrevereutia, aut aliunde quomodocuraque proveneruut, cum ob multiplices locorum et provinciarum, apud quas hi committuntur, corruptelas commode nequeaut 8i)ecialiter prohiberi ; mandat omnibus Episcopis, ut diligenter quisque hujusmodi abusus ecclesiae suae colligat, eosque in prima synodo i)rovinciali referat,” etc.— Cow- tinucUio Sessionis xxv., Decretum de IndiUgentiis.

Synod earnestly desires that they be utterly abolished ; in such wise that no images conducive to false doctrine, and furnishing occasion of dangerous error to the uneducated, be set up… . Moreover, in the invocation of saints, the veneration of relics, and the sacred use of images, every superstition shall be removed, all filthy lucre be abolished, finally all lasciviousness be avoided ; in such wise that figures shall not be painted or adorned with a wantonness of beauty, nor shall men pervert the celebration of the saints and the visitation of relics into revellings and drunkenness; as if festivals were celebrated to the honour of saints by luxury and wantonness.” 1

So on the subject of invocation of saints the Council enjoins that the people be taught ” that the saints reigning with Christ offer their prayers for men to God, and that it is good and useful to invoke them as suppliants, and to resort to their prayers, aid, and help for obtaining benefits from God through His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our Redeemer and Saviour ; and that

• “Imaginibus Christi, Deii^anc Virginis, et aliorum sanctorum in templis pnesertim habcndas et retinendas, cisquo debitum honorem et venerationem imiKjrtiendam, non quod credatur inessc aliqna in iis Divinitas, vel virtus, propter quani sint colendae ; vel quod ab eis sit aliquid i>etenduni ; vel quod liducia in imaginibus sit Agenda, veluti olim tiebat a gentibus, quae in idolis spem suam coUocabant; sed (juoniam honos qui eis exhibetur, refertur ad prototypa, quae illae repraeseutant : ita ut per imagines quae osculamur, et coram quibus caput aperimus et procumbimus, Christum adoremus, et sanctos, quorum illae similitudinem gerunt vcneremur. … In has autem sanctas et salutares observationes, si qui abusus irrepserint, eos prorsus aboleri sancta Synodus vehementer cupit, ita ut nullae falsi dogmatis imagines, et rudibus periculosi erroris occasionem praebentes, statuantur… . Onmis porro superstitio in sanctorum invocatione, Reliquiarum veneratione, et imaginum sacro usu tollatur, omnis turpis quaestus eliminetur, omnis denique lascivia vitetur, ita ut procaci venustate imagines non pingantur, nee ornentur, et sanctorum celebratione, et reliquiarum visitatione homines ad comessationes atque ebrietates non abutantur, quasi festi dies in honorem sanctorum per luxum, ac lasciviam agantur.” — Sess. xxv. De InvocatioTie, etc.

54?,

they thiuk impiously who deny that the saints, who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven, are to be invoked ; or who assert either that they do not pray for men, or that the invocation of them to pray for each of us in particular is idolatry ; or that it is repugnant to the word of God, and is opposed to the honour of the one Mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus ; or that it is a fond thing to supplicate orally or inwardly those who reign in heaven.”^

It is impossible to read these extracts without feeling how gross must have been the abuses which called forth such language, and it would be unfair to neglect to take into account the fact that our own Article was drawn up prior to these definitions and the practical reforms which the Council of Trent endeavoured to bring about. We proceed now to the consideration of the “Romish doctrines ” condemned in the Article. Four of them are specified.

1. Purgatory.

2. Pardons.

3. Adoration of images and relics.

4. Invocation of saints.

I. Purgatory,

The Romish doctrine of Purgatory … is a

• … *’ Docentes eos, sanctos tma cum Christo regnantes, orationes suas pro hominibus Deo offerre : bonuni at<iue utile esse suppliciter eos invocare, et ob beneficia impetranda a Deo per filiuni ejus Jesum Christum Dorainum nostrum, qui solus uoster Redemptor, et Salvator e^t, ad eorum orationes, opem, auxiliumque confugere : illos vero, qui negant sanctos leterna felicitate in ccelo fruentes, invocandos esse ; aut qui asserunt, vel illos pro hominibus non orare, vel eorum, ut pro nobis etiam singulis orent, invocationem esse idolatriam, vel pugnarc cum verbo Dei, adversarique honori unius mediatoris Dei et hominum Jesu Christi ; vel stultum esse, in (wlo regnantibus voce vel mente supplicare, impie sen tire,” etc. — Ih.

fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant

to the word of God. It will be convenient to consider this subject under the two following heads : {a) the history of the doctrine ; {b) the scriptural arguments on the subject.

(a) The History of tlie Doctrine. — During the first three centuries there are only to be found a few traces of a belief in anything like a purgatory between death and judgment. Three indications of such a belief are all that can fairly be claimed during this period, two of which come to us from the same quarter and from a Montanistic source.

Tertullian in his treatise De Anima, written after he had joined the Montanists, says that in Hades (penes inferos) there are rewards and punishments, as may be learnt from the parable of Dives and Lazarus ; and as he interprets the words, ” Thou shalt not come out thence till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing,” to mean that ” small offences must be expiated by delay of resurrection,” it is probable that he looked on the punishments as, at any rate, to some extent purgatorial.^

To the same period belong the Acts of the martyr Perpetua and her companions, and in one of Perpetua’s visions we have what is generally taken to be an indication of a belief in something like a purgatory. Perpetua in her vision sees her brother Dinocrates, who had died early from a gangrene in the face, in a dark place, hot and thirsty, dirty and pale, with the wound still in his face. He is trying in vain to get at the

[…]

I”

III

water in a ” piscina,” the rim of which is above his head. Perpetua, grieving for her brother, prays much for him, and in a subsequent vision she sees him cle^insed, well clothed, and refreshed. Only the scar remains where the wound was. The rim of the piscina is lowered to his waist ; he drinks out of a golden goblet that never fails, and departs to play after the manner of children with glee. “Then,” she adds, “I understood that he was released from punishment.” ^

This certainly looks very much like a belief in a purgatory, and it is so understood by Augustine.2 But this interpretation of the vision is not unquestioned, as some take it to mean that Dinocrates had died unbaptized, and was therefore in a place of torment.^ If, however, we admit what appears the more probable view, that it does refer to a purgatory, a vision such as this must be allowed to be a very precarious ground on which to base the doctrine.

The third passage is in the writings of Clement of Alexandria (200), where, in speaking of Hades, he says that ” the punishments of God are saving and reformatory, and lead to repentance.” *

Beyond these it is thought that no passage can fairly be quoted as implying a belief in a purgatory between death and judgment till we come to the fourth century. For though Origen undoubtedly believed in temporary chastisements after death, and in a cleansing by fire, yet this does not seem to have been placed by him he/are the judgment. Rather, it is the judgment, through which men have to pass, and by which those in need of

^ Passio S. Perpetuoc, cs. vii. viii. » De Anima ad Eoiatum, I. x.

Mt is so taken by Prof. J. Armitage Robinson, Texts and Studies, I. p. 29. *

[…]

purification are at once both chastened and healed.* But there can be no doubt, (1) that the whole Church from the very first practised and encouraged prayers for the departed; and (2) that the judgment day was commonly regarded as a fiery ordeal, such as that spoken of by S. Paul in 1 Cor. iii. 13, through which all would have to pass, some passing through the fire unharmed, others suffering loss, but none failing who were built on the right foundation. This, however, is very different from purgatory. Not only is it placed at the judgment, whereas the purgatorial fire is regarded as cleansing those subjected to it before the final award is made at the judgment day, but, further, it is an ordeal through which all, the greatest saints and the greatest sinners, will have to pass, while purgatory is not for the saints, who are supposed to pass straight to the beatific vision, nor for those who die out of a state of grace, whose final condemnation is assured, but only for those who die in grace, but in a state of imperfect sanctification.

Nor does prayer for the departed by any means involve of necessity a belief in purgatory. Indeed, many of the prayers of the early Christians are quite inconsistent with it, for they include petitions for the Blessed Virgin and other great saints, whom no one would venture to maintain were in purgatory.

Passing on to the fourth century we still find but few traces of a belief in the doctrine in question, nor is there anything authoritative laid down concerning it. Indeed, the hesitating and varying language employed by S. Augustine early in the fifth century shows clearly that he did not regard it as a formal doctrine of the Church, but only at best as a “pious opinion.” Thus in his FncJieiridion, published in 416, he speaks of it as “not

t*

incredible.”* But in his great work, De Civitate Dei, issued a few years later (426), he speaks more strongly in favour of it, though even here his language is not altogether consistent. In Book xxi. c. xiii., after speaking of the opinion of some who ” would have all punishments after death to be purgatorial,” he says definitely that ” temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then ; but all of them before the last and strictest judgment. But of those who suffer temporary punishments after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment ; for to some, as we have already said, what is not remitted in this world is remitted in the next, that is, they are not punished with the eternal judgment of the world to come.” ^ But after speaking thus positively he elsewhere utters a note of hesitation on the subject, for in c. xxvi. of the same book he writes as follows : ” If it be said that in the interval of time between the death of this body and that last day of judgment and retribution which shall follow the resurrection, the spirits of the dead shall be exposed to a fire of such a nature that it shall not affect those who have not in this life indulged in such pleasures and pursuits as shall be consumed like wood, hay, stubble, but shall afl’ect those others who have carried with them structures of that kind — if it be said that such worldliness, being venial, shall be consumed in the fire of tribulation here

^ EiuJiciridio/L ml Laureuf. v. Ixix.

[…]

only, or here and hereafter both, or here that it may not be hereafter, I do not argue against it, for perhaps it is true.” * Plainly there was no formal doctrine of the Church on the subject when a Father of the weight and learning of Augustine could write in this way; and not till a century and a half after his death do we find anything approaching to an assertion with any claim to authority. At the close of the sixth century Gregory the Great, in his ” Dialogues,” lays down distinctly that ” a purgatorial fire before the judgment for lighter faults is to be believed.” 2 But even so this is only a passing statement by a single writer, however great his authority, and it would seem that there is nothing which can be regarded as in any way a judgment of the Church upon the subject till we come to the Council of Florence in 1439. At this Council the representatives of the Greeks were persuaded to admit that ” the middle sort of souls were in a place of torment, but whether that were fire or darkness and tempest, or something else, they would not contend,” ^ and accordingly, when the decree of union was drawn up, it was asserted in it that ” if such as be truly penitent die in the grace of God before they have made satisfaction for their sins by

-” Sed t44men de quibusdam levibus rulpis esse ante judicium purgatorius ignis credendus est. Sed tamen hoe de parvis minimisqu*- peccatis lieri posse credenduni est ; sicut est assiduus otiosus sermo, immoderatus […] IV. e. xxxix.

[…]

illr

fe

If

«;. »

if;’^(

worthy fruits of penance, their souls are purged after death with purgatorial punishments.” ^ But long before this decree was issued the doctrine had been universally accepted throughout the West, and had assumed a prominence which led to the gravest practical results. The original teaching had been strangely and terribly corrupted. ” It had come to take the place of a living faith in the eternal pains of hell in the case of most men : there was a perfect traffic in masses for the souls, and men fancied that by leaving money to the Church at the hour of death and at the expense of their heirs, they might purchase mitigation or exemption from pains which in degree, though not in duration, were said to equal the pains of hell.” 2 it is, unhappily, only too easy to illustrate the truth of these words from known and admitted facts of history and from documents which were before those who drew up our Articles ; but smce the existence of such abuses in connection with the doctrine is so universally acknowledged, there is no need to cite evidence of it here.

(b) The Scriptural arguments on the subject. — It is now generally admitted by Eoman Catholic writers that

’ *’ Si vere poenitentes in Dei charitate decesserint, antequam dignis pcenitentiae fnictibus de commissis satisfecerint et omissis, eorum animas pcenis purgatoriis post mortem purgari. ”— Engenii IV. Bulla Unionis, Labbe and Cossart, vol. vii. p. 422. On the Council of Florence see Plumptre’s Spirits in Prison, p. 296 seq., and Creigliton’s History of the Papacy, vol. ii. p. 179 seq. It is well known how the represenUtives of the Greeks were received on their return to Constantinople, and how the decrees were rejected throughout the East. But in spite of this the Greek Church of the present day, though not formally committed to a doctrine of purgatory, and while guarding itself against the notion of a viaterial fire, appears generally to teach that there is a process of purification after death, and that the soiUs of the departed profit by the Eucharists, i>rayers, and alms of the living, and are thereby freed from the bonds of Hades. See Plumptre, I.e., and Winer, Confesnons of ChristeTuJUym, p. 312. 2 Bp. Forbes On the Articles, p. 309.

there is but little in Holy Scripture which can be quoted as bearing directly upon the doctrine. Of the ” twenty passages ” of which Bellarmine boasts,^ there are very few which any controversialist would venture to cite at the present day. Indeed, some of them are so weak {e.g. “We went through fire and water, and Thou broughtest out into a wealthy place ”) that they only indicate into what desperate straits the man who could urge them as serious arguments was driven in order to find any scriptural proof whatever. It is not too much to say that, when once it is recognised that prayer for the departed does not necessarily involve any belief in purgatory ,2 there are not more than three or four passages which require any consideration whatever.

The following are perhaps the most important, and are sometimes quoted at the present day, as implying a terminable punishment, which is said to be purgatorial only, after death : —

S. Matt. V. 26: ” Thou shalt by no means come out thence till thou hast paid the last farthing.” Cf. S. Luke xii. 59.

S. Matt, xviii 34: “His lord delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due. So likewise shall also my heavenly Father do unto you,” etc.

S. Matt. xii. 32 : ” It shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come.”

• 2 Mace, xii 44 certainly shows the belief of the ancient Jews in the efficacy of prayer for the depaited in the first or second century B.C.

In the case of the first two passages cited, it is urged that they place a term to the punishment, and therefore imply a purgatory from which men will at some time be delivered. But such an inference is extremely precarious, and those who rely on it would probably be the last to apply a similar method of arguing to the parallel phrase in S. Matt. i. 25. The exegesis of S. Chrysostom is surely sound, which takes it as a form of expression intended to indicate the perpetual duration of the penalty, Tovreari SiijviKco^, ovhiirto yap diroBaxreL^ While in the case of the third passage, the form of expression is evidently intended as an emphatic way of stating the irremediableness of the condition, and there is nothing in it to warrant the inference that some sins are forgiven in the world to come which are not forgiven in this world.^

There remains the passage in 1 Cor. iii. 10-15 ; and this, if carefully considered, will be seen to have no bearing whatever on the doctrine. It stands as follows in the Eevised Version : —

” According to the grace of God which was given unto me, as a wise master-builder I laid a foundation ; and another buildeth thereon. But let each man take heed how he buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. But if any man buildeth on this foundation gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, stubble, each man’s work shall be made manifest ; for the day shall declare it, because it is revealed in fire ; and the fire itself shall prove each man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work shall abide, which he built thereon, he shall receive a reward.

• Horn, in loe. Cf. Augustine, ’ * Miror si non earn significat poenam quae vocaturaeterna.”— Z)e Sermone Domini in Monte, I. xi.

If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss : but he himself shall be saved ; yet so as through fire.”

It is probable that it is from this passage, more than from any other, that the idea of a purgatorial fire has arisen. But, as a matter of fact, whatever the passage may mean, — and there are different interpretations of it which are possible, — the one thing it cannot refer to is a purgatory between death and judgment. According to the Apostle, it is ” the day ” which ” is to be revealed in fire ” (eV irvpl aTroKaXvirreTai), and such an expression is never used of the intermediate state. It can only refer to the judgment day, or to the day of persecution in this life. It appears to signify the former here ; and if so, the Apostle is here regarding the day of judgment as a fiery ordeal which wQl test the work of Christian ministers. If the structure they have reared be durable, *‘it shall abide.” If, however, through weakness and incompetence, they have buQt one of perishable material, it shall be burnt, and the careless builder shall ” suffer loss,” even though (since he built on the right foundation) “he himself shall be saved ; yet so as by fire.”i This appears to be the general drift of the passage ; and, as was said above, it cannot fairly be used in support

^ Cf. Bp. Lightfoot, Notes on the Epistles of S. Paul, p. 193 : ’* That the Apostle does not intend any purgatorial fire by this expression will appear from the following considerations :—(l) Fire is here simply regarded as a destructive agency ; there is no trace here of the idea of refining or purging, an attribute elsewhere given to it, as in Mai. iii. 3, though even there the prophet seems to speak of purging the whole nation by destroying the wicked, not of purging sin in the individual man. (2) The whole image implies a momentary effect, and not a slow, continuous process. The Lord shall appear in a flash of light and a flame of fire. The light shall dart its rays into the innermost recesses of the moral world. The flame shall reduce to ashes the superstructure raised by the careless or unskilful buUder. The builder himself shall flee for bis life. He shall escape, but scorched, and with the marks of the flames about him.”

n:

. (

of the doctrine we are now considering. The fire is probatory^ not purgatorial ; and it is placed at the last day, not in the interval between death and judgment

Since, then, these passages, which have sometimes been urged in favour of the doctrine, have broken down, it is now generally acknowledged that there is little or nothing directly bearing on the subject in Scripture. The question must, therefore, be decided by broad considerations, and by reference to the general tenor of Scriptural teaching on the state after death, and man’s relation to God. In this the following points, which bear on the matter before us, seem to stand out clearly : —

1. This life is the time of man’s probation; and no countenance is given to the view that a ” second chance,” or time of probation, is to be looked for after death.^ ” We must all be made manifest before the judgment-seat of Christ ; that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad ” (2 Cor. v. 10). The award will, then, be made for things done in the body,

i.e. in this life.

2. The ” dead which die in the Lord ” are in a state of peace; “they rest from their labours” (Rev. xiv. 13). So for S. Paul ” to depart ” is ” to be with Christ ” (Phil. i. 23). But the dead are not yet made perfect. The souls of the martyrs are represented as ” under the altar,” and crying unto God — “and there was given them to each one a white robe ; and it was said unto them that they should rest yet for a little time, until their fellow-servants also, and their brethren, which should be killed even as they were, should be fulfilled” (Rev. vi. 9-11 ; cf. Heb. xi. 40).

The teaching summed up under this last head seems

entirely inconsistent with any notice of a purgatory of pain, to be endured by the great majority of those who die in grace, before they are admitted to the rest of Paradise. But we are told that ” without holiness no man shall see the Lord” (Heb. xii. 14); and since the vast mass of the faithful pass out of this life in a state of very imperfect holiness, it is inferred that there is ” a place in which souls who depart this life in the grace of God suffer for a time because they still need to be cleansed from venial, or have still to pay the temporal punishment due to mortal, sins, the guilt and the eternal punishment of which have been remitted.” ^ In this form the doctrine is stated by modern Romanists. But even in this form (which is very different from the current medieval teaching) it must be rejected as wanting in Scriptural and Patristic authority, as well as because it involves a purgatory of imin. That there is progress after death would seem to be implied in Scripture ; - and it is probable that this may involve a process of gradual jDurification, only it cannot be said that so much is actually revealed. The possibility remains, that the stains of sin, which cling even to the best, may be removed in the moment of death, so that the sanctification may be complete, ” without which no man shall see the Lord.” But to many minds it will appear far more probable, and far more in accordance with what we know of God’s dealings with men, that as the stains were gradually acquired, and were gradually being removed during this life, so still after death their removal should be gradual. Such a view is certamly not condemned by the terras of the Article before us.^ But

■‘I

m.

even though it should appear to be highly probable, it cannot be regarded as revealed doctrine. It is but a ” pious opinion,” and not a matter which ought to be taught as part of God’s certain truth. We may fairly conclude, with Bishop Andrews : ” Whatever has not a stronger basis in Holy Scripture may have a place among the opinions of the school, which are not without fear of the contrary being true ; but among Articles of faith it cannot. Let it therefore occupy its own place ; let it be an opinion … but let it not pertain to the faith, nay, let it not even be accounted an ecclesiastical doctrine.” ^

IL Pardons (Lidulgentice).

The Romish doctrine of pardons is so closely

connected with the theory of ” works of supererogation,” that in discussing the fourteenth Article it was necessary to anticipate much that would naturally have found a place here. There is no need to repeat the sketch there given of the growth of the system of granting indulgences; or of the Scriptural arguments against the practice. All that seems to be required here is (a) to give an explanation of the word ” indulgences,” and (h)

I think, can be clearer than that the Article does 7wt condemn all doctrine that may be called a doctrine of purgatory. … * Purgatory * is not a word that I should myself spontaneously adopt, because it is associated with Ronaan theories about the future state for which I see no foundation. But the idea of purgation, of cleansing as by fire, seems to me insei^arable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements ; and though little is said directiy respecting the future state, it seems to me incredible that the Divine chastisements should in this respect change their chai-acter when this visible life is ended. Neither now nor hereafter is there reason to suppose that they act mechanically as by an irresistible natural process, irrespectively of human will and acceptance.” Reference may also be made to Plumptre’s Spirits in Prison, p. 307 scq. * Jiesponsio ad Bellamiinum, c. viii. p. 287 (A. C. Lib.).

to add a brief description of the “Komish doctrine” against which the terms of the Article are directed.

(a) The word […] The word ” indulgentia,” which was originally used of gentleness and tenderness, had come in the language of the Latin jurisconsults to signify definitely a remission of taxation or of punishment;^ and in all probability this suggested the technical use of the word which grew up in course of time within the Christian Church. But for centuries before any such technical use can be traced, the word had been a familiar one in Christian circles, in the sense of God’s pardon and forgiveness. It is used in the Vulgate in Is. IxL 1, “to proclaim liberty to the captives ” (et prsedicarem captivis indidgentiam), as well as in a few other passages ; ^ and is a common word in the writings of the Christian Fathers from the earliest times : ^ indulgentia, relaxatio, remissio, and venia, all being used generally of the pardon and forgiveness of God, sometimes in connection with the penitential system, and sometimes not. It was shown under Article XIV. that all these words were employed of the formal grants of ” pardon ” or ” indulgence ” dispensed by the Pope from the eleventh century onwards; and (probably for the reason stated above) the word “indulgentise ” became in course of time the technical name by which they were known.

In England we find both words, ” pardon ” and

[…]

^ Viz. Judith viii. 14 ; Is. Ixiii. 7, 9 ; 1 Cor. vii. 6.

’ TertuUian has it more than once : Dc Exhort. Cast. iii. ; Adv. FalerU. xxix. ; Adv. Marc. IV. xxix. ; and Cyprian uses it, not only of ” favour” and “goodness,” but definitely of “forgiveness.” Be bono patierUicef viii. (indulgentia criminis) ; De lapsis, xvi. (remittere aut donare indulgentia sua) ; £p. Iv. § 7. See Stadia Biblica et Ecdesiastica, vol. iv. p. 248.

fe

“indulgence,” freely used from the days of Langland downwards.

(b) The Romish doctrine of pardons conderaned in the Article. — The sketch which has been already given of the growth of the system will have shown pretty clearly what the claims made for the indulgences granted by Tetzel and the preachers were.^ Luther in his famous theses (1517) was prepared to admit them as a relaxation of canonical penance, but no further.^ But, as is well known, this was totally insufficient for the ecclesiastical authorities. The decree of Leo x. (1518) reasserted the medieval doctrine, and the papal Bull of excommunication (Uxsurge Domine, 1520) condemned as pestiferous, pernicious, and scandalous the assertions of Luther on this subject.^ The Council of Trent (1563), as we have seen, retained the custom, though frankly acknowledging the abuses. But unhappily the Roman Church still stands committed to the view that they can avail to help the souls in purgatory, though, as formally held, only per modum sitffragii ; and though the worst scandals have disappeared since the Tridentine decrees were issued, yet it is clear that Rome has retained only too much of the medieval system, and that the indulgences still granted are far more than a mere remission of ecclesiastical penance imposed by the Church. They differ, then, entirely from their original form, having practically little or nothing to do with ecclesiastical censures on the living, but being mainly concerned with God’s chastisement in the intermediate state. And while we frankly admit the power of ” binding and loosing ” which belongs

• The theses are given in full in SchaflTs Histanj of the {Lutheran) Reformation^ vol. i. p. IttO seq,

• See the Bull itself in Sohaff, op. cit. p. 235.

to the Church, we are compelled to reject altogether the theological defence for indulgences constructed by the schoolmen, and with it the whole practical system of granting them which it was constructed to support.

III. The Jdoration of Images and Belies,

In considering the Romish doctrine … of the worshipping and adoration, as well of images

as of reliques, it will once more be convenient to make a further division, and to consider separately (a) the history of the practice, and (b) the Scriptural arguments concerning it.

(a) The history of the practice. — In the earliest ages of the Church there was some not unnatural hesitation as to the use of art in connection with Christian worship.^ It had been so steeped in the spirit of an impure heathenism, that the Church was shy of consecrating it for religious purposes. The Catacombs, however, reveal to us the beginnings of a Christian art ; and we find from Tertullian that, by the end of the second century, it was customary to paint the figure of the Good Shepherd on the Eucharistic chalice.^ In the fourth century, pictures began to be more freely introduced into the churches, though not without protest from various Fathers ; ^ and

^ The language of Irenaeus on the followers of Carjwcrates does not look as if he approved of religious images and pictures, or as if such were usual among Christians: “Etiam imagines, quasdem quidem depictas, quasdam auteni et de reliqua materia fabricatas habent, dicens formam Christi factam a Pilato, illo in tempore quo fuit Jesus cum hominibus. Kt has ooronant, et proponunt eas cum imaginibus mundi philosophorum, videlicet cum imagine Pythagorae, et Platonis, et Aristotelis, et reli-quorum ; et reliquam observationem circa eas similiter ut gentes faciunt.” — Adv. Hcer. I. xx.

[…]

’ E.g. Epiphanius (390) describes how he found a painting of Christ or

it «

I V

from this time forward the cultus of both images and relics seems steadily to have increased. A great impetus was given to the latter by S. Helena’s discovery of the remains of the true cross in 326. By the close of the fourth century it was believed that miracles were wrought by the relics of the saints and martyrs ; ^ and by the eighth century, in spite of protests raised from time to time,- the practice of paying ” worship ” and ” adoration ” to images and relics had reached such a height that a reaction set in, and a vigorous protest was made against it Whereas originally pictures and images had been but the ” books of the unlearned,” by this time they had come to be regarded with such superstitious reverence, and such acts of homage and ” worship ” were paid to them, that the Church could with difficulty be cleared from the charge of idolatry. Hence the great ” iconoclastic controversy ” of the eighth century, in which for the most part the Emperors at Constantinople (e.g. Leo the Isaurian and Con stan tine Copronymus) took the lead in destroying the images, and the Popes at Rome constituted themselves the champions of the cultus. Into the dreary history of the controversy there is no need to enter here.^ It will be sufficient to mention that the

some saint on a curtain in a church at Anablatha in Palestine, and tore it down because it was contrary to the authority of the Scriptures, in S. ffieronymi EpistolcB, li. 9. So the Council of Elvira (a.d. 305) forbade pictures to be placed in churches: “Placuit picturas in Ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus dcpingatur.” — Canon xxxvi. This was “evidently not directed against a prospective or imaginary danger, but against an actual and proba>)ly a growing practice.” — Westcott, Epp. of S. John^ p. 329.

^ See Augustine, Ik Civitate Dei, XXII. viii., and ConfemUms, IX. vii., for notices of some of these.

2 See the letters of Gregory the Great to Serenus, Epp. VII. ii. 3, and IX. iv. 9.

decisions of the iconoclastic Council of 754 at Constantinople (which claimed to be a general one) were reversed by the Council of Nicaea in 787, which has been finally accepted by both Greeks and Latins as the seventh General Council. At this the worship of images was decreed, and the following canon was passed : —

” With the venerable and life-giving Cross shall be set up the venerable and holy images, whether in colour, in mosaic work, or any other material, within the consecrated churches of God, on the sacred vessels and vestments, on the walls, and on tablets, on houses, and in highways — the images, that is to say, of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of the immaculate mother of God, of the honoured angels, of all saints and holy men. These images shall be treated as holy memorials, woi-shipped, kissed, only without that peculiar adoration (Xdrpeia) which is reserved for the Invisible, Incomprehensible God.” ^

Even after this the struggle lasted a short time longer. In 814 a Council was held at Constantinople under the Emperor Leo the Armenian, which confirmed the decrees of the previous Council of 754 and anathematised the image worshippers. But, finally, in the reign of Michael Porphyrogenitus (840) the iconoclastic j>arty entirely coUapsed, and the ” feast of orthodoxy ” was established to commemorate the triumph of their

[…]

Ii

(f

opponents. From this time forward we hear but little of any opposition to image worship,^ and the practice was generally accepted without question in both East ^ and West, until S. Thomas Aquinas lays down definitely that ” the same reverence should be displayed towards an image of Christ and towards Christ Himself; and seeing that Christ is adored with the adoration of latria, it follows that His image is to be adored with the adoration of l€U7’ia ” ; and again, ” the Cross is adored with the same adoration as Christ, that is, with the adoration of latria, and for that reason we address and supplicate the Cross just as we do the Crucified Himself.” ^ In accordance with this we find in the Roman Missal an office for the adoration of the Cross on Good Friday, in which full directions are given for the adoration of the Cross, and an antiphon is sung, beginning, ” Crucem tuam adoramus

[…]

Domine ” ; ^ and in our own country the Constitutions of Archbishop Arundel, in 1408, emphatically urge the practice. ” From henceforth let it be taught commonly, and preached by all, that the Cross and the image of the Crucified, and the rest of the images of the saints, in memory and honour of them whom they figure, as also their places and relics, ought to be worshipped (venerari) with processions, bendings of the knees, bowings of the body, incensings, kissings, offerings, lightings of candles, and pilgrimages, together with all other manners and forms whatsoever as hath been accustomed to be done in our predecessors’ times.” ^ It is needless to add illustrations of the gross abuses and superstitions, such as that of the ” Rood of Boxley,” ^ which had been exposed in the early years of the sixteenth century, — abuses which afford a painfully strong justification of the vigorous language in condemnation of this worshipping and adoration of images and relics contained in the Article before us.*

(h) The Scriptural arguments concerning the practice. — It might have been supposed that it would be sufficient to quote the language of the second commandment as entirely prohibiting worship in any form being offered to

^ Missale Roinanum, Feria vi. in Parasceve.

-“Ab omnibus deinceps doceatur communiter atque praedicetur, crucem et imaginem crucifixi cseterasque imagines sanctorum, in ipsorum memoriam et honorem quos figurant, ac ipsorum loca et reliquias, processionibus, genuflexionibus, inclinationibus, thurificationibus, deosculationibus, oblationibus, luminarium accensionibus, et peregrinationibus, nee non aliis quibuscunque modis et formis quibus nostris et predecessorum nostrorum temporibus fieri consuevit, venerari debere.”— See Johnson’s English Canoris, vol. ii. p. 469, and Lyndwood’s Provinciale, V. De haeret. cap. NuUus quoque^

• It should also be mentioned that in the Second Book of the Homilies there is a lengthy Homily on this subject, entitled “Against Peril of Idolatrj”

(?

images ; ^ but since it has appeared to Roman Catholics that the Scriptures contain instances of image worship and exhortation to it, it may be well to examine the passages alleged by them. The action of David in dancing before the ark (2 Sam. vi.) has been referred to, but it is difficult to see what justification there is for the assertion that any worship, be it latria or dulia, was paid by him to it. But it is said that the 99 th Psalm contains a direct charge to ” adore His footstool, for it is holy,” and that the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us that Jacob ” adored the top of his rod.” ^ These two instances shall be considered, and if nothing stronger is forthcoming it may safely be concluded that there is not a shred of evidence in favour of the practice to be adduced from Holy Scripture, or to be set against the emphatic condemnation of it in the Decalogue.^

^ It need hardly be said that the second commandment cannot be strained into a condemnation of images and pictures as works of art, or for purposes of instruction. Had this been so, the figures of the cherubim, oxen, and lions would never have found place in the Tabernacle or Temple.

• Both of these passages are referred to as authorising ’* relative honour to the images of Christ and the saints ” in a table of references at the end of a copy of the Douay Bible lying before me ; and to the passage in Heb. xi. 21 is appended the following note: “The apostle here follows the ancient Greek Bible of the Seventy interpreters (which translates in this manner Gen. xlvii. 31), and alleges this fact of Jacob, in paying a relative veneration to the top of the rod or sceptre of Joseph as to a figure of Christ’s sceptre and kingdom, as an instance and argument of his faith. But some translators, who are no friends to this relative honour, have corrupted the text by translating it, he worshippedy leaning upon the top of his staff: as if this circumstance of leaning upon his staff were any argument of Jacob’s faith, or worthy the being thus particularly taken notice of by the Holy Ghost.” The remarks above will show who are the real “corrupters of the text.”

^ It is, to say the least, unfortunate that in the great majority of Roman Catholic Catechisms the Commandments are given in an abbreviated form, and, since according to the reckoning which obtains among them our firsA and second commandments form but one, the condemnation of image worship is practically unknown by the vast mass of the laity among them.

Ps. xcix. 5 in the English version stands as follows : ” Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship at His footstool, for it is holy ” (RV., He is holy). In the ” Douay version,” however, which is commonly used by Roman Catholics, it stands thus : ” Adore His footstool, for it is holy.” The origin of the difference is this. The English version is taken from the Hebrew, and adequately represents the original 7 innpn. The Douay version is translated from the Vulgate (Ps. xcviii 5), where the preposition is ignored and the words rendered, ” Adorate scabellum pedum ejus quoniam sanctum est.” Thus the argument rests entirely on a mistranslation. The same is true of the passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews (xi. 21). Here again the Vulgate, ” adoravit fastigium virgoe ejus,” entirely misrepresents the meaning of the original. The Greek is irpoareKvvrjaev iirl ro dxpop rq pdffBov avTov, words which can only mean that Jacob worshipped upon i.e. as the A.V. and E.V. “leaning upon ”) the top of his staff. With regard to the Scriptural argument for the adoration of relics, from the miracle wrought by the bones of Elisha (2 Kings xiii. 21) and the ” handkerchiefs and aprons ” brought from the body of S. Paul (Acts xix. 1 2), it cannot be said that they are worth anything. Neither the bones nor the handkerchiefs were preserved to be adored ;2 and until

^ The construction in the original is precisely the same as in ver. 9, where both the Douay version and the Vulgate render correctly enough “Adore at His holy mountain,” “Adorate in monte sancto ejus.” Whereas, if only they were consistent, the mountain would have to be adored as well as the footstool.

[…]

^m\

vW

i ti

U I

h.”

v/

something stronger is adduced by our opponents, we may safely rest satisfied that nothing stronger can be found

III. The InvoccUion of Saints,

Once more we must consider separately (a) the history of the practice, and (h) the Scriptural argument concerning it.

(a) The history of the practice. — In tracing out the growth of the custom of invoking the saints at rest, it will be well to start from the fact that the early Church undoubtedly believed that they were still engaged in interceding for those whose warfare was not yet accomplished,^ and very generally prayed to God to be benefited by a share in the prayers of the saints.^ But there can also be no doubt that the early Christians did not think it right directly to ask the saints to use those intercessions, in whose efficacy she yet believed. The only writer during the first three centuries who has been quoted in favour of direct invocation is Origen (220), and it seems almost certain that in the passage in question he is really referring, not to the saints at rest, but to those still on earth. His words are these : ” It is not improper to offer supplication, intercession, and thanksgiving to saints : and two of these — I mean intercession and thanksgiving — not only to saints, but to mere men ; but supplication to saints only, if any Peter or Paul can be found, that they may help us : making us worthy to enjoy the licence which was granted them of forgiving sins.”^ This passage, says Dean Luckock,

’ Such prayers are found in all the ancient Liturgies, in which there is no direct invocation of the saints themselves.

[…]

“seems to have been quite unjustly claimed in favour of addressing petitions to departed saints. It is next to certain, as the whole context shows, that he had in his mind none but living saints.” ^ And this explanation is confirmed by words which he uses elsewhere, saying of the ” ten thousand sacred powers ” which men ” have on their side when they pray to God,” that uninvoked (aKXrjroi), these pray with them and bring help to our perishable race, and, if I may so speak, take up arms alongside of it.” ^

It is, then, only in the latter part of the fourth century that the evidence for direct invocation really begins.^ The Fathers of this age who have been cited in favour of the practice are these : in the East, S. Basil the Great (370), Gregory Nazianzen (370) and Gregory Nyssen (370), Ephraem the Syrian (370) and S. Chrysostom (390). In the West, S. Ambrose (380) and S. Augustine (400). Their testimony has been carefully examined by Dean Luckock in his volume After DecUh, and the conclusion at which he arrives is that “S. Chrysostom’s contradictions are such as to invalidate his evidence, that S. Gregory Nazianzen speaks doubtfully, that S. Ambrose, in the little which he has said upon the subject, is inconsistent with himself ; but that the testimony of SS. Basil, Gregory Nyssen, Ephraem, and Augustine remains so far unshaken.” * Some of the

[…]

’ It ought to be mentioned that such prayers are found (undated) in the Catacombs.

•^ ^

passages in these Fathers certainly appear to be nothing more than rhetorical appeals, which can scarcely have been intended to be taken as seriously implying that the person so addressed was expected to be cognisant of the utterance, — as when S. Gregory Nazianzen apostrophises Constantius : ” Hear, O soul of great Constantius (if thou hast any faculty of perception), and ye souls of all the kings who before him loved Christ.” ^ Concerning the intention of others, however, there is no room for doubt ; ^ and it cannot be denied that by the time of Augustine the practice of directly invoking the saints was firmly established as a popular onCy though even so there is no trace of such invocations bemg admitted into the formal services of the Church. Rather, it would appear from the language of Augustine that they were not allowed ; for in a passage in which he is speaking of the miracles wrought by the martyrs, ” or rather,” as he corrects himself, by ” God who does them, while they pray and assist,” he says, ” we do not erect altars at these monuments that we may sacrifice to the martyrs, but to the one God of the martyrs and of ourselves, and in this sacrifice they are named in their own place, and rank as men of God who conquered the world by confessing Him, hut they are not invoked by the sacrificing priest ” (non tamen a sacerdote qui sacrificat invocantur).^ After this time it would seem

• Adv. Jul. Imp. Invect, i. Oral. iv. 3.

’ Thus S. Basil says : ’ * I accept also the holy apostles, prophets, and martyrs, and I invoke them (^irt/caXoO/xat) for their supplication to God, that by them, that is, by their mediation, the merciful God may take compassion upon me, and that there may be granted to roe redemption for mine oflFences.” — Ex epist. ad Julian Apost. ccclx. ; cf. De Mart. MaTnante, Horn, xxiii. and Horn, in xl. Mart. § 8. These and the other passages from the Fathers mentioned in the text are all quoted in full in Luckock, oj). cit.

that the custom grew apace. The practice having once estabUshed itself spread throughout the East and West,! and became part of the system of the Church. By the eighth century the invocations were introduced mto the Litanies of the Church,^ the only public authorised service in which they have ever been prominent, except later devotions in honour of the Blessed Virgin. Nor, unhappily, did the system long remain what it had been at first, i.e. merely asking the saints to pray for us. In time the saints were often invoked as if they were the authors of benefits ; and the Blessed Virgin, in particular, was addressed in language which (with every wish to be charitable) it is impossible to avoid stigmatising as blasphemous and idolatrous. Thus in Bonaventura’s Crown of the Blessed Virgin Mary we read : ” 0 Empress and our most kind lady, by the authority of a mother command thy most beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ, that He would vouchsafe to lift up our minds,” etc.^ Much more of the same character may be found in the Psalter oftJoe Blessed Virgin,”^ attributed to the same writer. And it cannot be doubted that in the sixteenth century

twenty martyrs, begging in a distinct voice that he might be heard.” Ihe sequel was evidently regarded by Augustine as a direct answer to his petition. Cf. also De Cura pro morluis, c. iv.

/^At the present day the doctrine of the Eastern Church on this subject dilfers in uo respect from the formal teaching of the Latin Church. See Winer s Cmifes»iom of Christendom, p. 70, where’citations are given from the ••Orthodox Confession ” of 1643, and that of Metrophanes Critopulus (162o). CI. also the Lmiger Catechism of the liuss-ian Church (translated by R. W. Blackmore), p. 78.

• It is hard to say exactly when they were introduced ; but it was certeinly some time before the middle of the eighth century. See the seventeenth canon of the Council of Clovesho (a.d. 747), which ordei* the name of Augustine to be introduced into the Litany, “postSancti Gregoni vocationem.” Haddan and Stubbs, vol. iii. p. 368.

» See Usher’s Ansicer to Jesuit, p. 424, where this aud much more of the same kind is quoted. * Usher, I.e.

-r— ^

the practical system connected with the invocation of saints was grossly superstitious.^ It naturally excited the indignation of our Reformers, and hence the emphatic condemnation of the ” Komish doctrine ” on the subject in the Article before us, and the vigorous polemic contained in the Homily ” Concerning Prayer ” which was issued in the reign of Elizabeth.^

(b) The Scriptural argument concerning invocation of saints. — In considering the teaching of Scripture on this subject, it is well to remember that it is admitted by all parties that to regard the saints as the authors of the benefits which they are asked to obtain is wrong,’ and contrary to Scripture, which distinctly forbids the worship of a creature, and contains striking instances of the refusal of worship by both men and angels. Thus in Acts x. 25 we read : ” When it came to pass that Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet and

• Thus Erasmus writes : “I call it superstition when all things are asked from the saints as if Christ were dead ; or when we implore the aid of the saints with the idea that they are more easily intreated than God ; or when we seek some particular thing from each, as if S. Catherine could bestow what S. Barbara could not ; or when we call upon them, not as intercessors, but as authors of those good things which God grants us. I think that it may seem impious to thee to animadvert upon these things, but I well know that it would not seem superfluous, if thou knewest the prodigious superstition of our fellow-counti-ymen on this matter.” — Epist. ad Jac. Sadolet, quoted in Forbes, Coiisiderationes Modesto:, vol. ii. p. 310. Cf. the “Ten Articles” of 1536, where, though direct invocation is retained, a caution is added, that “it be done without any vain superstition, so as to think that any saint is more merciful, or will hear us sooner than Christ, or that one saint doth serve for one thing more than another, or is patron of the same.” — FonmUaries of Faith, p. 15.

’-^See the “second jwrt of the Homily Concerning Prayer,” Thf. Homilies, p. 341 (S.P.C.K.).

• Bellarmine says, that as far as words go, it is lawful to say : ” S. Peter pity me, save me, open for me the gate of heaven”; also “give me health of body, patience, fortitude,” etc., provided that we mean “save and pity me by praying for me ” ; ” Grant me this or that by thy prayers and merits.”

worshipped him (TrpoaeKvprjaev). But Peter raised him up, saying. Stand up; I myself also am a man.”i So in the Eevelation, twice over S. John “fell down before the feet of the angel to worship him” (irpoa- tcvpTfo-ai), and twice over the angel refuses the worship. ” See thou do it not ; I am a fellow-servant with thee and with thy brethren that hold the testimony of Jesus” (xix. 10). “See thou do it not: I am a fellow-servant with thee, and with thy brethren the prophets, and with them which keep the words of this book : worship God ” (xxii. 9). The advocates of the invocations would not attempt to justify more than the ” Ora pro nobis ” or its equivalent (since they explain away the far stronger language habitually used in their popular devotions). And even here they are compelled to admit that there is nothing in Scripture which directly sanctions the practice. It is based by them (1) on the evidence that the saints at rest are engaged in interceding for us, and (2) on the admitted power of intercessory prayer. To these arguments we re^ly, first, that it may be freely conceded that Holy Scripture does appear to imply that the saints at rest do pray for those still on earth,2 and

Acts xiv. ISseq., which is sometimes quoted against the invocation of saints, seems really not to bear upon the subject, for the men of Lystra desired to offer to the apostles divine honour, as to heathen deities ; which under no circumstances could they have accepted. It is very different, therefore, from the passages cited in the text.

• This was certainly the belief of the Jews, as is shown by more than one passage in the Apocrypha. See 2 Mace. xv. 12-14 : ** And this was his vision : that Onias, who had been high priest … holding up his hands prayed for the whole body of the Jews. This done, in like manner there appeared a man with grey hairs, and exceeding glorious, who was of a wonderful and excellent majesty. Then Onias answered, saying. This is a lover of the brethren, who prayeth much for the people, and for the holy city, to wit, Jeremias, the prophet of God.” Cf. Tobit xii. 12, where Raphael, ”one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints,” speaks of *’ bringing the remembrance” of Tobit’s prayers •• before the Holy One.” Cf. also Rev. viii. 3, 4, and v. 8.

-rr:

that therefore it cannot he wrong to ask God for a share in their prayers. But when we are asked to go further, and address the saints themselves, we may well hesitate ; for though, secondly, we fully believe in the power of intercessory prayer, yet if we wish to ask an earthly friend to exercise it for us, we take care that our words can reach him ; and so, before asking the saints to do the same, we require evidence that they are cognisant of our prayers. With Bishop Richard Montague (1624) we say : ” Demonstrate unto me infallibly by reason, Scripture, authentic tradition, that saints departed are all of them, or any of them, interested ordinarily rehxis viventium ; that by either evening or morning knowledge, natural endowment, or acquired accruments, by Divine revelation, angelical revelation, or other means, they do or can know and understand my necessities, exigencies, prayers, or practice in any time or place when I call upon them, or unto them, and I will unfeignedly join hands of fellowship, and say, * Saint FeteVy Saint Paul, pray for me.’ Until that, itrix’, and so I think will any desire to be excused for invocation ; for to be persuaded, as some have told me that in their opinion saints nor do nor can be privy unto my necessities, nor hear my prayers, and yet to pray unto them, is to my understanding so poor a part of piety that it is without wan-ant of common sense.”

It does not appear that there is any evidence in Holy

1 Cf. Field, Of the Church, I3k. iii. Appendix: “That the saints do pray for us in gcncre, desiring God to be merciful to us, and to do unto us whatsoever in any kind He knoweth needful for our good, there is no question made by us ; and therefore this prayer wherein the Church desireth God to be gracious to her and to grant the things she desiretli, the rather for that the saints in heaven also are suppliant for her, will not be found to contain any point of Romish doctrine disliked by us.”

• A Treatise of the Invocation, of Saints, p. 218, quoted in H. R. Percival’s Invocation of Saints, p. 111.

Scripture that the saints are already admitted to the beatific vision, or that they are cognisant of our prayers, such as would warrant us in addressing them.^ Nor can it be said that there has been any certain and consistent tradition of the Church on the subject which would justify us in regarding it as ” a Catholic practice.” As we have already seen, there is no trace of direct invocation before the last half of the fourth century. In the fifth century S. Augustine uses language which betrays considerable doubt when discussing the question whether the saints know what is passing on earth.^ In the twelfth century, all that Peter Lombard, the Master of the Sentences, can say with regard to the theory which obtains most widely at the present day, is that ” it is 7Wt hicredihle that the souls of the saints, which in their secret dwelling rejoice in the illumination of the true light of the face of God, do in the contemplation thereof understand the things which are done in this outer world, as much as pertaineth either to them for joy or to us for aid. For as to the angels, so also to the saints, who stand before God, our petitions are made known in the word of God which they contemplate.” ^ Still later. Dun Scotus maintains “that it does not belong to the essence of blessedness that the blessed

• It would be precarious in the extreme to build anything upon Heb. xii. 1, where tlie word for “witnesses” is fiafjrvpes.

[…]

hear our prayers, though it is prohahle that God reveals them to them”;^ and even so late as the sixteenth century Cardinal Cajetan is forced to admit that ” we have no certain knowledge as to whether the saints are aware of our prayers, though we piously believe it” ^

In the absence, therefore, of any distinct revelation, and in the face of so much doubt and uncertainty, it would appear that the Church of England is amply justified (1) in removing from the public services of the Church all traces of such direct invocations, including the ” Ave Maria” as well as the ” Ora pro nobis”;* and (2) in condemning in round terms in the Article before us the current teaching and practice, which can be abundantly

shown to be a fond^ thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God.

[…]

’ When the English Litany was first published in 1544, all the invocations of saints (which had formed so prominent a feature in this service) were deleted, except three clauses, namely —

” Saint Mary, mother of God our Saviour Jesu Christ, pi-ay for us.

“All holy angels and archangels, and all holy orders of blessed spirits, pray for us.

“All holy patriarchs and prophets, apostles, martyrs, confessors and virgins, and all the blessed company of heaven, pray for us.”

On the publication of the first Prayer Book of Edward vi. in 1549 these three clauses were omitted, and all trace of the direct invocation of the saints was removed from the public offices of the English Church.

• Fond {inanis)f i.e. foolish. Shakespeare uses the word in the same sense —

*’ Thou fond mad man, hear me but speak a word.”

Jiomeo and, Juliet, III. iii. 62. ” And for his dreams, I wonder he is ao fond To trust the mockery of unquiet slumber.”

Hichnrd III. III. ii. 26.

Notes

• “The words ‘Romanenses’ and * Romanistas* were already used as far back as 1520 by Luther and Ulrich von Hutten, to designate the extreme mediaeval party.”— Hard wick, p. 410.
• It follows from this that the subject of pi-ayer for the departed docs not come l)efore us for consideration here. Reference may, however, l)e made to an article on “the Church of England and Prayers for the Dejuirtpd” in the Church Quarterly RevieAr, vol. x. p. 1.
• See Bp. Westcott in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. iv. p. 138.
• “Post istius sane corporis mortem, donee ad ilium veniatur, qui post i-esurrectionem corporum futurus est damnationis et remunerationis ultimus dies, si hoc temjioris intervallo spiritus defunctorum ejusmodi igncm dicuntur i)eri)cti, quem non sentiant illi qui non habuerunt tales mores et amores in liujus corporis vita, ut eonmi ligna, ftcnum, stipula consumatur, alii vero sentiant qui ejusmodi secum a;dificia portaverunt, sive ibi tantum, sive et hie et ibi, sive ideo hie ut non ibi, sfccularia, quam-yis a damnatione venalia, concremantem ignem transitoriae tribulationis inveniant, non redarguo, quia forsitan verum est.”— 0/?. clt. c. xxvi.
• De Purgaiorio, I. c. xv. The twenty passages are these,— ten from the Old Testament and ten from the New Testament,— 2 Mace. xii. 44 ; Tobit iv. 17 ; 1 Sam. xxxi. 13 ; Ps. xxxviii. 1, Ixvi. 12 ; Is. iv. 4,’ ix. 18; Mic. vii. 8, 9 ; Zech. ix. 11 ; Mai. iii. 3 ; S. Matt. xii. 32 ; 1 Cor. iii! 12-15, XV. 29 ; S. Matt. v. 25, 26, v. 22 ; S. Luke xvi. 9, xxiii. 43 ; Acte ii. 24 ; Phil. ii. 10 ; Rev. v. 3. See the discussion of them in op. cU. c. ui.-vm.
• See Salmond’s Christian Doctrine of Immortality, p. 380, for a good statement of this.
• On 1 Pet. iii. 18, which is sometimes referred to in this connection, see vol. i. p. 170 seq.
• Addis and Arnold, A Catlwlic Dictionary, p. 706. - See Phil. i. 6 : ** Being confident of this very thing, that He which began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Jesus Christ,” ” Cf. The Life and Letters of F. J. A. Hort, vol. ii. p. 336 : ” Nothing,
• Cf. also Creighton’s History of tJte Papticy, vol. v. p. 68 seq., for an admirable sketch of the development of practice and teaching concerning indulgences.
• See Milman’s LcUin Christianity y vol. ii. p. 339 seq., and the excellent lecture in Archbp. Trench’s Medieval Church Hist<yry, Lect. vii.
• The Council of Frankfort (794), however, rejected the second Council of Niciea, and the Caroline books absolutely condemned any adoration or worship of images. See Palmer, Treatise <wi tits Churchy vol. ii. p. 153 seq.
• See Dixon, History of the Church of England, vol. ii. p. 52 seq.
• See Origen, In Jesu Nave, Horn. xvi. c. 5; In Cant., Lib. iii. ; Ep. ad Bom., Comment, ii. 4 ; Cyprian, Ep. Ix. ; De Mortalitate, ad Jin. etc. ; and cf. Luckock, After Death, part II. c. i.
• After Death, p. 187.
• Op. cit. p. 197.
• De Civit. Dei, Bk. xxii. c. x. : *‘Just before this (c. viii.) Augustine has told a story of a tailor who had lost his coat, and had prayed to the
• The question is discussed by Augustine in De cura pro mortuis, c. xiiL seq. ; and though Augustine believed that the martyrs were able to help the living, he confesses that he is utterly unable to solve the question how they are made aware of what passes on earth.
• “Non esse ex ratione beatitudinia, quod beati audiant orationes nostras, probabile tamen esse quod Deus ipse revelat.”— /n Sent IV. dist. xlv. q. 4, quoted in Forbes, Gonsid. Modest, vol. ii. p. 178.