Green on Article XXII: Of Purgatory

Another change was also made in the wording of the Article at the revision in 1563. The adverb “ pernitiose,” which stood before the verb “contradicit” in the Latin text of 1553, was struck out.

§ 2 .—OBJECT.

To repudiate the teaching of the Church of Rome on the heads named in the Article. It should be remembered, however, that the decree of the Council of Trent which deals with the subjects treated of in this Article bears date December 4, 1563, so that the framers of our Article (1553) could not have had this in their mind, but were rather referring to the current corrupt teaching of the Latin Church in the times immediately preceding the Re¬ formation. This is, indeed, sufficiently indicated by the wording of the original Article, which speaks of “ the doctrine of the School-

1 The words ‘ Romanenses ’ and ‘Romanistae’ occur as early as 1520, being used by Luther, and by Ulrich von Hutten (the author of the ‘Epistolae Obscurorum Virorum ’), to designate the extreme Mediaeval party.

authors.” The change of this expression to “ Romish doctrine ” in the Elizabethan revision is significant ; it was doubtless made because our Reformers were realising that the Church of Rome, at the Council of Trent, was adopting the teaching of the later Schoolmen as its own. The decrees of the Council upon the particular subjects in hand could not, however, have been before the revisers at the time when the change in the wording of our Article was made.

§ 3. — EXPOSITION.

This Article condemns the Romish doctrine on the following heads, as not satisfying the test which has been already laid down, viz., that doctrine decreed by the Church must have the warrant of Holy Scripture. On the contrary, it is affirmed of the doctrine here dealt with, that it is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

(1.) Purgatory.

The doctrine of Purgatory depends upon the distinction between the temporal and the eternal punishment of sin, to which every man is liable. It is held that God does indeed, for the sake of the merits and intercession of our Lord Jesus Christ, pardon sin, and at the same time remit the eternal punishment due to it. The sinner is, however, still liable to temporal punishment,1 which he must expiate by acts of penance in this life. Whatever is not expiated in this life must be expiated after death ; the soul, there¬ fore, continues to bear, in the next world, the temporal punish¬ ment of its sins. In order to shorten this purgatorial punishment, the prayers and supererogations of men on earth, and especially the offering of masses, are of great efficacy. Such is the “ Romish doctrine,” which led to serious results both in practice and doctrine. The souls of those that depart hence in the Lord are conceived as lying in flames, enduring torments equal to those of the lost, for a longer or shorter period between death and the day of judgment.2 Their friends on earth may obtain mitigation of their

1 The Council of Trent (Session XIV.) declares : —

“ Falso omni no esse et a verbo Dei alienum, culpam a Domino nunquam remitti, quin universa etiam poena condonetur.”

Cf Canon XIII. on the Sacrament of Penance (the same Session) : —

[…]

2 1 Cor. iii. 1 1— 1 5 is sometimes quoted in support of this.

punishment by prayers, and by paying the priest to say mass for their souls ; hence arose a most shameful traffic in holy things. Serious doctrinal consequences also followed. Purgatory was often so taught as to invalidate the power of the Passion of Christ, and to imply that there is an expiatory virtue in human suffering and merit ; 1 so much sin must be atoned for by just so much suffering, either inflicted upon the sinner by God, or voluntary penal visita¬ tions upon himself, or possibly the balance may have to be made up from the supererogatory works of saints. It is this popular doctrine of Purgatory which is justly condemned in our Article.

The Council of Trent affirmed the doctrine of Purgatory, but at the same time made an attempt to clear away abuses connected with it. See Session XX V. (December 1563): —

“ Cum Catholica ecclesia, a Spiritu Sancto edocta ex sacris litteris et antiqua patrum traditione, in sanctis conciliis et novissime in hac oecumenica synodo 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 sanctis conciliis traditam, a Cliristi fidelibus credi, teneri, et ubique praedicari diligenter studeant : apud rudem vero plebem 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 permittant ; ea vero, quae ad curiositatem quandam ant superstitionem spectant vel turpe lucrum sapiunt, tanquam scandala et fidelium offendicula prohibeant.”

We must not, of course, understand that when the compilers of our Article censured ‘ the Romish doctrine of Purgatory/ they at the same time intended to reject the doctrine of the Primitive Church concerning the Intermediate State. Those who depart this life in a state of grace go to be with Christ (Phil. i. 23), and pass into a state of blessed rest and peace (Rev. xiv. 13); 2

1 The Council of Trent saw the danger involved, and attempted to guard against it : —

“Accedit, quod dum satisfaciendo patimur pro peccatis, Christo, qui pro peccatis nostris satisfecit, conformes efficimur… . Neque vero ita nostra est satisfactio haec, quam pro peccatis nostris exsolviirms, ut non sit per Chris¬ tum ; nam qui ex nobis tanquam ex nobis nihil possumus, eo co-operante omnia possumus. Ita non habet homo unde glorietur, sed omnis gloriatio nostra in Christo est” (Session XIV.).

2 Cf. the words of the prayer in the Burial Service : —

“ Almighty God, with Whom do live the spirits of them that depart hence in the Lord, and with Whom the souls of the faithful, after they are delivered from the burden of the flesh, are in joy and felicity.”

but we must not conceive of them as altogether inactive, or as though asleep ; 1 the work of grace, begun in this life, goes on in their souls, they attain to higher and higher degrees of perfection, till at last they will, with joy, behold the Face of God in Heaven. It is obvious that in many at the time of their departure from this life there is much good, mingled with much evil as yet un¬ subdued. We cannot for a moment think of such as lost souls ; neither, on the other hand, can we imagine them as fitted, at the moment of death, for the Beatific Vision of Heaven. Should we not, therefore, conclude that the good work begun in them will be con¬ tinued in the waiting state beyond the grave, the evil being, by the continued operation of the Spirit of God, purged away, till they too are fitted, with all saints, to behold the Face of God with joy ?

Further, we should not forget that the members of Christ who have departed this life are still, by virtue of the common union with the living Lord, in close communion with us on earth ; the Church Militant here and the Church Expectant in Paradise are vitally and indivisibly one, so that our brethren who have been taken from us into Paradise still have their part in the mutual offices of the members of the One Body. Of all the mutual helps we enjoy in the Body of Christ, there is nothing that binds us so closely to one another as the ministry of prayer. We pray continually for those we love in Christ while they are living here, and natural impulse and deep instinct of piety alike prompt us to continue to pray for them when they have passed from our sight to join the waiting Church beyond the grave.

1 This error was revived Ly some at the Reformation period, and was ex¬ pressly condemned by the 40th of the XLII. Articles of 1553 : —

[…]

Qui anirnas defunctorum praedicant usque ad diem judicii absque omni sensu dormire, aut illas asserunt una cum corporibus mori, et extrema die cum illis excitandas, ab orthodoxa fide, quae nobis in sacris litteris traditur, prorsus dissentiunt.

See also Reformatio Legum, ‘De Haeresibus,’ Cap. 12:

“ Quidam impie philosophantur animas hominum ex hac vita migrantium, quando semel ex corporibus excesserunt, usque ad supremum ultimi judicii tempus, vel soinno involvi, vel prorsus ad nihilum recidere ; turn autem cum extremi judicii dies erit, illas rursus vel a somno excitari, vel cum propriis corporibus ab interitu resurgere.”

T5°

There is abundant evidence which goes to prove that the prac¬ tice of Prayer for the Dead prevailed in the Primitive Church.1 (a) The ancient Liturgies all contain commemoration of and intercession for the departed. A few quotations are here given : —

The Greek Liturgy of S. James of Jerusalem 2 :

[…]

The Clementine Liturgy 3 :

[…]

S. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Lectures on the Mysteries4 (v. 9), thus speaks :

[…]

The Greek Liturgy of S. Mark 5 :

[…]

1 We may refer to 2 Tim. i. 16-18 as indicative of Apostolic practice. It is generally agreed by commentators that Onesiphorus, for whom S. Paul there prays, was dead at the time when the Epistle was written. Cf iv. 19, where it is noteworthy that greeting is sent, not to Onesiphorus himself, but to his household.

2 Dating from the earlier part of the fourth century, and adopted throughout the patriarchate of Antioch.

3 Embodied in the Apostolical Constitutions, and dating, perhaps, from the middle of the third century.

4 Delivered about the middle of the fourth century.

5 This dates very probably from the fourth century, and was used in the patriarchate of Alexandria.

6 There can be no doubt that the custom of Prayer for the Dead passed from the Jewish to the Christian Church. 2 Macc. xii. 39-45 testifies to the use of prayers for the dead amongst the Jews about two centuries before our Lord’s

I51

(b) Inscriptions in the Catacombs also afford valuable incidental testimony to the practice of the primitive Christians, and show us that in early times death was not conceived as forming a barrier to the prayers which the living offered for their loved ones who had gone before.

Typical examples of such inscriptions are the following : —

[…]

(ii.) Domine ne quando ADUMBRETUR spiritus veneres de

(iii.) Erenea vivas in Deo. A. R.

That our Reformers did not intend in the present Article to ceusure the Primitive practice of Prayer for the Dead will appear more clearly if we attentively consider the history of the text of the Article itself. The leading divines of our Church in Edward YI.’s reign 1 were apparently divided on the question. Some of those who had come more immediately under the in¬ fluence of the Swiss school of Continental Reformers2 condemned the practice of praying for the dead, and classed it with Mediaeval corruptions which should be swept away.3 This view of the matter prevailed in the first draft of the Article as it stood in October 1552, when the text ran thus : — “ Scholasticorum cloctrina de Purgatorio, de precatione pro defunctis ” &c. ; but the

coming; and we are assured by the most competent Jewish scholars that during the time of our Lord’s earthly ministry prayers for the dead were con¬ tinually offered in the synagogue services, as they still are to-day. Sacrifices were also offered in the Temple for the departed, and vicarious ablutions under¬ taken by the living on behalf of those who had died while in a condition of cere¬ monial defilement (cf. 1 Cor. xv. 29). Our Lord Himself during His sojourn upon earth, and His Apostles too, who were loyal observers of the traditions of their fathers, must often have joined in prayers for the departed.

1 The earlier English formularies, issued in the reign of Henry VIII., had commended the practice. See, e.g., the King’s Book : —

“And truly it standeth with the very order of charity, a Christian man to pray for another, both quick and dead, and to commend one another in their prayers to God’s mercy, and to cause other to pray for them also, as well in masses and exequies” (Formularies of Faith, p. 375).

2 The line taken up by the Swiss school of Reformers may be gathered from the Second Helvetic Confession, Art. XXVI.

“Credimus enim fideles recta a morte corporea migrare ad Christum, ideoque viventiuin suffragiis aut precibus pro defunctis, denique illis suis officiis nihil indigere. Credimus item infideles recta praecipitari in Tartara, ex quibus nullus impiis aperitur, ullis viventium officiis, exitus.”

3 Thus in the ninth of a series of Articles drawn up by Bishop Hooper we find that “the doctrine of the schoolmen of purgatory, pardons, prayers for them that are departed out of this world,” are alike condemned.

words italicised were deliberately struck out before the Articles were published.1

(2.) Pardons, or Indulgences.

The theory of Indulgences was so uncertain that in 1552 the Cardinals dissuaded Pope Adrian VI. from issuing any decree on the subject. It is said that they grew out of what was originally a remission, either wholly or in part, of ecclesiastical censures or dispensation from ecclesiastical rules of discipline. Pope Urban II. (1088) granted c Indulgence ’ to all who fought for the Holy Sepulchre. His successors extended this to all who, not being able to go in person, maintained a soldier to go in their place. At a later period this was extended by Innocent III. to those who joined in crusade against heretical Christians. Pope Julius II., in order to raise money for rebuilding S. Peter’s at Rome, pub¬ lished c Indulgences ’ to all who would make contributions, a practice which was continued by his successor, Leo X. As regards the popular doctrine of Indulgences, the distinction between the temporal and eternal punishment due to sin, which underlies the doctrine of Purgatory, underlies it also. The superabundant merits of Christ and the supererogatory works of the Saints form a sort of treasury of merit, upon which the Pope may draw, and apply it to individual Christians for the remission of such temporal punishments and penances for sin as remain to be inflicted after the sins themselves and their eternal punishment have been remitted.

Bellarmine gives expression to the “ Romish doctrine ” of Indulgences censured by our Article : —

“Ecclesia et scholae theologorum indulgentias vocant remis- siones poenarum, quae saepe remanent eluendae post remissionem

1 We may here note that in two passages in the Communion Service we have regard to the departed.

(i.) We commemorate the faithful dead in the Prayer for the Church

Militant : —

“ And we also bless Thy holy Name for all Thy servants departed this life in Thy faith and fear ; beseeching Thee to give us grace so to follow their good examples, that with them we may be partakers of Thy heavenly kingdom.”

(ii.) In the prayer of Oblation we beseech —

“That by the merits and death of Thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in His blood, we and all Thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of His passion.”

The phrase “all Thy whole Church,” taken in its full and proper sense, includes those members waiting in Paradise.

culparum et reconciliationem in Sacramento poenitentiae adeptam, qnas remissiones sumnii pontifices ex paterna lenitate … certis temporibus, et non sine jnsta aliqua et rationabili causa concedere solent” (De Indulgentiis, I. Cap. i).

“Exstat in ecclesia thesaurus satisfactionum ex Chris ti pas- sionibus infinitus, qui nunquam exhauriri poterit… . Ad hunc thesaurum superfluentium satisfactionum pertinent etiam passiones beatae Mariae virginis et omnium aliorum sanctorum, qui plus passi sunt, quam eorum peccata requirerent ” (Ibid., Cap. 2).

“ Indulgentia proprie est absolutio judiciaria, annexam habens solutionem ex thesauro” (Ibid., Cap. 5).

“Per indulgentias non tollitur nisi reatus poenae temporalis, qui remanet culpa dimissa… . Indulgentiae liberant homines a reatu poenae non solum coram ecclesia, sed etiam coram Deo ” (Ibid., Cap. 7).

“Res certissima est, et apud Catliolicos indubitata, indul¬ gentiis juvari posse animas, quae in purgatorio poenas luunt ” (Ibid., Cap. 14).

The Council of Trent on this subject decreed (Session XXY.) as follows : —

“Synodus indulgentiarum usurn, christiano populo maxime salutarem et sacrorum conciliorum auctoritate probatum, in ecclesia retinendum esse docet et praecipit; eosque anathemate damnat, qui aut inutiles esse asserunt, vel eas concedendi in ecclesia potes- tatem esse negant. In his tamen concedendis moderationem juxta veterem et probatam in ecclesia consuetudinem adhiberi cupit, ne nimia facilitate ecclesiastica disciplina enervetur. Abusus vero, qui in his irrepserunt, quorum occasione insigne hoc indulgen¬ tiarum nomen ab haereticis blasphematur, emendatos et correctos cupiens, praesenti decreto generaliter statuit, pravos quaestus omnes pro his consequendis, unde plurima in christiano populo abusuum causa fluxit, omnino abolendos esse.”

Thus, while the Council affirmed that the Church has the power to grant Indulgences, and that the use of them is salutary, it at the same time strongly condemned abuses connected with them, and made a real attempt at reform in the matter. Since the sale of Indulgences was, on any theory, an abuse, the office of quaestor was abolished by the Council.

(3.) The Worshipping and Adoration of Images.

It is only too true that in the times preceding the Reformation there was a great deal of superstitious veneration, and even actual worship of images in and for themselves. This our Church strongly

u

and justly condemns. We have the express word of God on the subject in the Second Commandment, which directly forbids ns to make any graven image for the purpose of worshipping it.

The Council of Trent (Session XXV.) speaks somewhat guardedly with reference to the honour to be paid to images : —

“ Imagines porro Christi, deiparae virginis et aliorum sancto¬ rum in templis praesertim habendas et retinendas, eisque debitum honorem et venerationem impertiendam, non quod credatur inesse aliqua in iis divinitas vel virtus, propter quam sint colendae, vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendum, vel quod fiducia in imaginibus sit Agenda, veluti olim fiebat a gentibus, quae in idolis spem suam collocabant : sed quoniam honor, qui eis exhibetur, refertur ad prototypa, quae illae repraesentant : ita ut per imagines, quas osculamur, et coram quibus caput aperimus et procumbimus, Christum adoremus, et sanctos, quorum illae similitudinem gerunt, veneremur.” 1

The teaching of schoolmen and great divines of the Roman Church, however, certainly comes under the condemnation of our Article ; e.g. —

(a) Thomas Aquinas declares that the same reverence should be displayed towards an image of Christ, and towards Christ Himself ; and seeing that Christ is adored with the adora¬ tion of latria,2 it follows that His image is to be adored with the adoration of latria.3

(b) Bellarmine (De Imaginibus, II. Cap. 2 i) writes as follows: —

“Imagines Christi et sanctorum venerandae sunt, non solum per accidens vel improprie, sed etiam per se et proprie, ita ut ipsae terminent venerationem ut in se considerantur, et non solum ut vicem gerunt exemplaris.”

As to the usage of the Primitive Church, the Christians of the first ages, through fear of idolatry, did not use images of Christ, but only emblematical representations, such as the Lamb and the Good Shepherd, besides the sign of the Cross. In the time of

1 The Council recognised the prevalence of abuses in connection with images by taking measures for reform in the matter : —

“ Omnis porro superstitio in Sanctorum invocatione, Reliquiarum venera- tione, et imaginum sacro usu tollatur : omnis turpis quaestus eliminetur, omnis denique lascivia vitetur : ita ut procaci venustate imagines non pin- gantur nec ornentur, et Sanctorum celebratione, ac Reliquiarum visitatione homines ad comessationes atque ebrietates non abutantur.”

2 \arpeia is the technical term for the highest kind of veneration or worship, due to God alone, as distinct from dovXda, which may be rendered to creatures.

3 Summa Theologiae, III. xxv.

15S

Gregory the Great ( [i.e ., at the close of the sixth century) the custom of setting up representations of sacred subjects in churches had become common, and we find that Pope advocating the con¬ tinuance of the custom for the better instruction of the minds of the ignorant. The Eastern Church was agitated by a keen con¬ troversy on the subject of images during the eighth century, which issued in the decrees of the Second Council of Nictca (787). It was then decided that the sign of the Cross, and images of our Lord, the Blessed Virgin, saints, and angels, might be set up in churches.1

The proper and edifying use of images and pictures is not condemned by our Article. As Gregory the Greft says, “ It is one thing to worship an image, quite another thing to learn by it what is to be worshipped ; ” and it cannot be denied that images and pictures are of very great value in keeping great truths or facts continually before the minds of Christian people. The deplorable ignorance of very large numbers in this country concerning the fundamentals of our most holy Religion is doubt¬ less owing, to a very considerable extent, to the neglect by our Church of that most effective method of teaching — by the eye. The strong language of the Homilies against images was justified by the circumstances of the time, but is felt to be not altogether applicable to the conditions of to-day. Recent restorations in our churches have furnished us with beautiful representations of the infant Christ in the arms of the Blessed Virgin, of the Crucifixion, and of our Lord in glory. Thus the great foundation truths of the Incarnation and the Atonement, together with the glorious issue of our Religion, the glorification of humanity in Christ upon the Divine Throne in Heaven, are constantly set forth before all.

How far images or pictures may be safely introduced into churches without danger of idolatry is a question that may be left to the discretion of the Church in each age and country.

The reaction from the Mediaeval abuse of images led some of the Reformers on the Continent, especially those of the Swiss school,2 not merely to condemn the abuse of images, but to altogether exclude and forbid any use of them.

1 In the Eastern Church at the present day all statues and carved images are rigidly excluded from churches, the Second Commandment being adhered to in its strictly literal sense. Painted representations of our Lord, of the Mother of God, and of the Saints, called Icons, are, however, retained, and play a very im¬ portant part in the devotions of the faithful.

2 Luther did not object to the use of images, considering them as in them¬ selves indifferent. Thus the Crucifix was retained by his followers, and is regu¬ larly used in Lutheran worship at the present day.

Tetrapolitan Confession, XXII. :

“ Et in statuas denique atque imagines, nostri sacras orationes strinxerunt, eo potissimum, quod aperte coli et adorari coeperunt, inanesque sumptus in eas fieri, qui esurienti et sitienti, et nudo Christo debebantur, quod denique et cultu illarum sumptuque, quamlibet cum verbo Dei pugnante, merita apud Deum quaerunt.

… Per se quidem liberum esse usum imaginum et nostri fatentur, sed quantumvis liber sit, Christiano spectandum est quid expediat, quid aedificet, et eo loci, eaque ratione imaginibus uti, ut nemini objiciat offendiculum.”

Saxon Confession, Art. XXII. :

“ Alii apud alias statuas existimantur esse magis propitii. Hi furores cum palam similes sint ethnicorum, et haud dubie valde irritent iram Dei, et a docentibus taxandi sunt, et a piis magi- stratibus severe puniendi.”

Second Helvetic Confession, Art. IY. :

“ Rejicimus itaque non modo Gentium idola, sed et Chris- tianorum simulacra. Tametsi enim Christus humanam assurnp- serit naturam, non ideo tamen assumpsit, ut typum praeferret statuariis atque pictoribus… . Spiritu suo se nobis perpetuo afi’uturum promisit. Joan xvi., 2 Cor. v. Quis ergo crederet umbram vel simulacrum corporis aliquam conferre piis utilitatem ?

… Ut vero instituantur homines in religione, admoneanturque rerum divinarum et salutis suae, praedicare jussit Evangelium Dominus, Marc xvi., non pingere et pictura laicos erudire.”

(4.) The Worshipping and Adoration of Relics.

We cannot wonder that our Church in the present Article strongly condemns the worship of relics, when we recall the disgusting spectacles of degrading superstition and of insatiable avarice afforded by the numerous pilgrimages to noted shrines in the times immediately preceding the Reformation. The ridiculous impostures to which the demand for relics gave rise are alluded to in some of the formularies and writings of the period. See, e.r/., SCHMALKALD ARTICLES (p. 3 I O) I -

“ Reliquiae sanctorum refertae multis mendaciis, ineptiis et fatuitatibus. Canum et equorum ossa ibi saepe reperta sunt. Et licet aliquid forte laudandum fuisset, tamen propter imposturas istas, quae diabolo risurn excitarunt, jam dudum damnari debuis- sent, cum praesertim careant verbo Dei, et non necessariae et inutiles sint.”

Cf. Homily against Peril of Idolatry (Third Part): —

“And, because relics were so gainful, few places were there

\ but they had reliques provided for them. And, for more plenty

of reliques, some one Saint had many heads, one in one place, and another in another place. Some had six arms and twenty-six fingers. And, where our Lord hare His cross alone, if all the pieces of the reliques thereof were gathered together, the greatest ship in England would scarcely hear them… . And not only the hones of the Saints, but everything appertaining to them was an holy relique. In some place they offer a sword, in some the scabbard, in some a shoe, in some a saddle that had been set upon some holy horse, in some the coals wherewith St. Laurence was roasted, in some place the tail of the ass which our Lord Jesus Christ sat on, to be kissed and offered to for a relique. For, •rather than they would lack a relique, they would offer you a horse bone instead of a virgin’s arm, or the tail of the ass, to be kissed and offered unto for reliques. 0 wicked, impudent, and most shameless men, the devisers of these things ! 0 seely, foolish, and dastardly daws, and more beastly than the ass whose tail they kissed, that believe such things ! ”

The Council of Trent recognised the prevalence of serious abuses in connection with the practice of the veneration of relics ; 1 while an attempt was made to remove these, the practice itself was commended (Session XXY.) : —

“ Sanctorum quoque martyrum et aliorum cum Christo viventium sancta corpora, quae viva membra fuerunt Christi, et templum Spiritus sancti, ab ipso ad aeternam vitam suscitanda et glorifi- canda, a fidelibus veneranda esse per quae multa beneficia a Deo hominibus praestantur ; ita ut affirmantes, sanctorum reliquiis venerationem atque honorem non deberi, vel eas aliaque sacra monumenta a fidelibus inutiliter honorari, atque eorum opis im- petrandae causa sanctorum momorias frustra frequentari, omnino damnandos esse, prout jam pridem eos damnavit, et nunc etiam damnat eeclesia.”

We may hold much the same position with regard to relics as in relation to images. It is one thing carefully to treasure precious relics, quite another thing to worship them. The latter action is justly condemned by our Article, but the former is due to a beautiful instinct of natural piety, in accordance with which we cherish, in the home, relics of loved friends departed, and, as a nation, carefully preserve in museums and public buildings relics and mementoes of national heroes and public benefactors. Such relics, whether of our own personal friends or of great men

of history, may often arouse within us lofty and noble thoughts, leading to high purposes and great resolves. In a similar manner, the contemplation of relics of the Saints of the Church may be most helpful to us who strive to follow in their train. From the time of the earliest persecutions relics of martyrs have been held in great respect by Christians. It was the general custom for the faithful to meet at the tombs of the martyrs, as in the Cata¬ combs at Rome, for worship ; and it was this, doubtless, which led to the practice in later times, when churches were built in other lands, of preserving within the altar a relic of some saint or martyr, in imitation of those first tombs of the martyred saints. From the period that the Empress Helena discovered the true Cross, relics occupied a very prominent position in the thoughts and affections of Christendom. An excellent statement of the true Christian position is afforded by the declaration of the Church at Smyrna after the martyrdom of Polycarp, when the Jews desired that his body should be entirely consumed lest the Christians should worship his relics : —

[…]

1 Eusebius, “Hist, Eccles,” IV. Cap. xv.

I59

The Reformers of the Swiss School were not merely against the veneration of relics of the saints, but were opposed to pre¬ servation of such relics at all. See, e.g. —

Second Helvetic Confession, Art. Y. :

[…]

(5.) Invocation of Saints.

Finally, our Article condemns the corrupt practice of the Latin Church in the times preceding the Reformation, when Invocation of Saints was carried on in such a way that only too often the common people worshipped the creature instead of the Creator.1 Theoretically, of course, a distinction was kept between prayers addressed to God Himself as the Author and Giver of all good, and invocations of the saints, asking for their intercessions, in the name of Christ, on behalf of the suppliant. Thus, in theory, the prerogative of God as the one only independent Author of good, and the sole Mediatorship of Christ, was guarded. It is obvious, however, that in practice these two great truths might, with unlearned people, easily be obscured, as in fact they were, and that to such an extent that it is scarcely too much to say that by the sixteenth century’ invocation of the saints had taken the form of a grotesque polytheism. Thus Erasmus writes 2 concerning the prevailing custom of the day : —

“ Some worship divers gods with divers ceremonies. This man every day salutes Christopher and visits his image, with what object? Because he persuades himself that if he does so he* will that day be safe from an evil death. Another adores a certain Rochus. Why ? Because he believes he will drive away the plague. Another mutters prayers to Barbara or George, that he

1 Of. Saxon Confession, Art. XXII. :

“Maria Mater gratiae, Tu nos ab hoste protege, In hora mortis suscipe.” Hos versiculos audivimus doctorem theologiae monachum praefari morienti, et saepe repetere, cum quidem nullam Christi mentionem faceret, et possent exempla multa recitari.

2 I11 the “ Encomium Moriae.”

i6o

may not fall into the hands of the enemy. This man fasts to Apollonia, that he may escape the toothache. Another visits the image of S. Job, that he may avoid the itch. In fact, as many things as there are that we either fear or wish for, so many gods have we made for them.”

The decree of the Council of Trent on this subject (Session XXV.) runs as follows : —

“Mandat sancta Synodus omnibus episcopis … ut … fideles diligenter instruant, docentes eos, Sanctos una cum Christo regnantes, orationes suas pro hominibus Deo offerre, bonum atque utile esse suppliciter eos invocare ; et ob beneficia impetranda a Deo per Eilium ejus Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum, qui solus noster Redemptor et Salvator est, ad eorum orationes opem auxiliumque confugere : illos vero qui negant Sanctos, aeterna felicitate in coelo fruentes, invocandos esse : aut qui asserunt, vel illos pro hominibus non orare, vel eorum, ut pro nobis etiam singulis orent, invocationem esse idololatriam, vel pugnare cum verbo Dei, adversarique honori unius mediatoris Dei et hominum Jesu Christi, vel stultum esse in coelo regnantibus voce vel mente supplicare, impie sentire.”

As in the case of its decrees on Purgatory and on the use of Images, the Council worded its declaration on the Invocation of Saints cautiously. That the saints pray for us who are members of the Church Militant is not, of course, to be denied,1 but the practice of invoking them is justly censured by our Article, especially in view of the serious evils which are seen to result from the custom. It will be noticed that the Tridentine decree affirms that Invocation of Saints is not repugnant to the Word of God, and in no way interferes with the Mediatorial office of Christ, Who is the only Mediator between God and man. What¬ ever may be said or thought about the theory, such affirmation could scarcely be made with respect to the popular practice either of the pre-Reformation Church, or of the Church of Rome at the present day, for in Roman Catholic devotions which have autho¬ ritative sanction, more supplications are sometimes addressed to deceased human beings than to God the Father or to Christ ; the Mediation of Christ is altogether out of sight, and the saints are addressed as though they were themselves independent dispensers of the blessings prayed for.

A few examples are here given : —

(a) From the “Raccolta”:1

“We fly beneath thy shelter, 0 holy Mother of God; despise not onr petitions in our necessities, and deliver us always from all perils, 0 glorious and blessed Virgin.”

• ••••••

“ Leave me not, my Mother, in my own hands, or I am lost. Let me but cling to thee. Save me, my Hope; save me from hell.”

“ Michael, glorious prince, chief and champion of the heavenly host, … vouchsafe to free us all from every evil, who with full confidence have recourse to thee.”

• e […] •

“Benign Joseph, our Guide, protect us and the holy Church.”

( b ) The following passages from Liguori’s “ Glories of Mary ” 2 may be compared in this connection : —

“ Often we shall be heard more quickly, and be thus preserved, if we have recourse to Mary and call upon her name, than we should be if we called on the Xame of Jesus our Saviour.”

[…] •

“ Many things are asked from God, and are not granted ; they are asked from Mary, and are obtained.”

*••••••

“At the command of the Virgin all things obey, even God.”

“ Mary has only to speak and her Son executes all.”

With such utterances as those above quoted we may contrast these passages of Scripture, S. Matt. xi. 28 ; S. John xiv. 6, 14 ; Acts iv. 12; 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6; Heb. vii. 25. We recall, more¬ over, how that angels are recorded in the New Testament to have promptly refused and forbidden acts of reverence done to them¬ selves ; see Rev. xix. 10, xxii. 8, 9.

1 The prayers which this contains have Papal sanction, being specially “ indulgenced.” The passages given are from the English translation (Burns & Oates, 1873).

2 Alfonzo Maria de Liguori was born at Naples in 1696, and died 1787. The “ Congregation of Rites ” declared in 1803 that “ in all the writings of Alfonzo de Liguori there is not one word that can be justly found fault with ; ” and in 1839 he was solemnly canonised.

X

Reformers on the Continent, both of the Saxon and Swiss schools, were emphatic in their repudiation of the practice of Invocation of Saints, as the formularies of the period testify : —

Tetrapolitan Confession, Cap. XI. :

“ Rejectus est et alius circa haec abusus, quod quidam precibus et jejuniis, Deiparam quoque virginem Mariam, aliosque divos sic demereri volunt, ut per eorum intercessionem et merita, cum animae, turn corporis malis liberentur, bonisque omne genus cumu- lentur.”

Augsburg Confession, Part I. Art. XXI. :

“ Sed Scriptura non docet invocare Sanctos, seu petere auxilium a Sanctis. Quia unum Christum nobis proponit mediatorem, pro- pitiatorium, pontificem, et intercessorem.”

Saxon Confession, Art. XXII. :

“Hoc loco reprehendimus hanc corruptelam ethnicam, quod defenditur consuetudo alloquentium homines, qui ex hac vita discesserunt, et petitur ab eis vel auxilium vel intercessio… .

Hanc doctrinam de Mediatore obscuratam et corruptam esse, manifestum est, cum confugerent homines ad matrem Yirginem, tanquam magis propitiam, et alii alios mediatores quaererent.”

WuRTEMBURG CONFESSION, Art. XXIII. :

“Fatemur etiam quod sancti in coelis, suo quodam modo, pro nobis coram Deo orent, sicut et Angeli pro nobis sunt solliciti ; et omnes creaturae pro salute nostra coelesti quodam modo inge- miscunt, et nobiscum, quemadmodum Paulus loquitur, parturiunt. Sed sicut ex gemitu reliquarum creaturarum non est instituendus cultus invocandi eas, ita ex oratione sanctorum in coelis non est approbandus cultus invocandi sanctos : de his enim invocandis nullum extat in sacris literis vel mandatum, vel exemplum.”

French Confession, Art. XXIY. :

“ Quicquid homines de mortuorum sanctorum intercessione commenti sunt, nihil aliud esse quam fraudem et fallacias Satanae, ut homines a recta precandi forma abduceret.”

Belgic Confession, Art. XXYI. :

[…]

Second Helvetic Confession, Art. Y. :

[…]

colimus, nec invocamus, neque illos coram Patre in coelis pro intercessoribus aut mediatoribus nostris agnoscimus.”

Art. XXIII. : “ Dives coelites invocare, aut his- uti pro inter¬ cessoribus, proliibet sacerdotium Christi Domini et vera religio.”

A comparison of the above extracts shows us that, while the Lutheran school rejected the practice of Invocation of Saints, the formularies which give expression to the Helvetic and Calvinistic theology go further, and deny that the saints pray for us.

Notes

• See p. 154, note 1.
• See what has been said above under the head of Purgatory, p. 149.