Maclear and Williams on Article XXII: Of Purgatory

i. Connection. In the previous Article it has been laid down that even in the case of General Councils their decrees must be shewn to be in accordance with Holy Scripture. In the present Article the decision of certain so-called General Councils1, which had been proclaimed as Articles of Faith, touching a class of subjects, that had become prominent during the Middle Ages, is declared to be ” grounded upon no warranty of Scripture,” but rather to be ” repugnant to the Word of God.”

ii. Title. The Class of Subjects alluded to includes Purgatory, Indulgences, the Veneration of Images and Relics, and the Invocation of Saints. But it is to be noticed that only one of these subjects, viz., that of Purgatory, is mentioned in the Title, which has been uniform since 1553, while all relate not so much to the

1 Purgatory at the Council of Flor- Councils ; Adoration of Images and ence, a.d. 1439; Indulgences at the Relics at Trent, a. d. 1563; the Invo- First, Third, and Fourth Lateran cation of Saints at Trent, A. o. i;66.

Church Visible as to the Church Invisible. One important variation in the text must not be passed over. In 1553 the Article began with the words ” The doctrine of School Authors1,” or Scholastic divines, who flourished in the Middle Ages, and derived their name from the Schools attached to the Cathedrals or Universities in which they lectured. This term was altered in 1563 to “The Romish Doctrine2,” an expression used in the Sixteenth Century to denote the extreme Mediaeval party in the Church, who were strongly opposed to the men of the New Learning.

iii. Object and Analysis. The object of the Article, then, is to condemn the subtilities of such an extreme Mediseval party respecting the four subjects above speci- fied, and it affirms that their doctrine is (1) “A fond3

1 Scholasticorum Doctrina. The Scholastic Divines systematized Di- vinity by the application to it of the reigning philosophy of Aristotle. The most celebrated were : (i) Albertus Magnus, a Dominican friar, who died A.D. 1280; (2) S. Bonaventura, the Seraphic Doctor, A.D. 1221 — 1279; (3) S. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelical Doctor, a.d. 1225 — 1274; (4) John Duns Scotus, the Subtil Doctor, 1274 — 1308; (5) William Ockham, the Singular Doctor, A.D. 1290—1347. The Articles are very far from con- demning the Evangelical teaching of great names such as these.

Lombard or Aquinas, still less against the earlier teaching of the Greek and Latin Fathers, as against the popular current teaching of the Romish theo- logians of the time, and so far as the Tridentine decrees, with whatever reserves and limitations, embodied that teaching, they come under that condemnation.” Dean Plumptre’s Spirits in Prison, pp. 307, 308.

3 Res futilis. Futilis from fundo = / pour out, denotes ( [ ) That which is easily poured out; (2) That which easily breaks when dropped, comp. glacies futilis, “brittle ice,” Virg. /En. xii. 740 ; (3) empty, poor, worthless, Cic. Div. i. 19, 36. In the English Version of the Article it is translated fond— foolish, from O. E. fonne, […] Comp.

“Grant that I may never be so fond,

To trust man on his oath or

Comp. also Hooker vii. 6, 10, “A fond kind of speech, if so be there had been as then in bishops no ruling superiority over presbyters.”

thing vainly invented1,” (2) That it is “grounded upon8 no warranty of Scripture,” (3) But is “rather repugnant3 to the Word of God.”

v. Purgatory. The Mediaeval doctrine of Purgatory was of gradual growth, and passed through various stages before it reached its final development : —

(1) We have already seen4 that the Jews and the early Christians believed in the existence of an intermediate state between death and the Final Judgment, but concerning this intermediate state itself, and the nature of the happiness or suffering awaiting the soul there, the earliest Christian Fathers maintained a great reserve5 ;

(2) We begin to trace the idea of a purifying fire after death in the writings of Tertullian6 and Origen, of Gregory Nazianzen7 and Gregory of

1 Vainly invented, inaniter cotificla. I” ‘553 this was translated “vainlie feigned.” Conficta from confingo = to fabricate, make -up, pretend. Comp. Terence, Phorm. i. 81, ” hoec omnia conficta,” ” it is an entirely made up story,” ” all lies.”

[…]

of those who have finished their course in charity as possessing the region of the godly, owie xpov evaeftwv. Ep. ad Cor. i. 50. S. Justin Martyr describes the souls of the godly as remaining in a certain better place, ev Kpdrrovl ttoi xPV lveiv, Dial, cum Tryph., cap. v., while the unjust and wicked remain in a worse, awaiting

the day of judgment. “And thus some, appearing worthy of God, die no more, and some are punished (/coXafoirai), tor &f auras nai elxai /cai KoXafradai 6 Qebs 6i\rj (so long as God wills them to exist and to be punished)” S . Irenaeus argues that ” each sort of men receive, even before the judgment, their du place of abode, dignam habitationem unamquamque gentem percipere etiam ante judicium.” Iren. Lib. II. 63. S. Clement of Alexandria teaches that ” the punishments of God in Hades are remedial and reformatory, and lead to repentance.” Clem. Alex. Strom., vi.

6 Not, however, as it would seem, between death and the judgment, but at the revelation of the Great Day.

7 He speaks of ” the baptism of fire awaiting men in the next world, which will devour the material part like hay, and consume the light sub- stance of every kind of sin.” Greg. Naz. Oralio xxxix.

Nyssa1, while S. Augustine, commenting on S. Paul’s words in 1 Cor. iii. 11 — 15, speaks of the idea of a purifying fire, which has its seat in Hades, awaiting men after death, as having been suggested by some, and he thinks it not altogether impossible or improbable. He says he will not argue against it2, but he does not regard the opinion as an article of faith, or a doctrine of the Church, or an established truth, but simply as a not improbable conjecture3;

(3) A century and a half afterwards, Pope Gregory I. laid it down as his final conclusion that there is a purgatorial fire before the judgment for lighter faults4. From this time what had been an opinion with S. Augustine, becomes more or less a settled belief, which was strengthened by legends and dreams6, by the preaching of Missionaries, like S. Boniface, who taught the

6 Compare the dream of S. Fursaeus and the vision of Drithelm, as recorded by Bede Ecc. Hist. iii. 19; v. 12. ” There is a legend of S. Paul him- self; of the French monk S. Farcy; of Drithelm related by Bede; of the Emperor Charles the Fat, by William of Malmesbury…The Purgatory of S. Patrick, the Purgatory of Owen Miles, the vision of Alberic of Monte Casino, were amongst the most popular and widespread legends of the ages pre- ceding Dante.” Milman’s Latin Christianity, ix. 93.

doctrine to the newly converted Teutonic tribes1, by the authors of miracle-plays, by the School- men2, by poets, like Dante, who sum up the whole popular belief as to the intermediate state of Purgatory ; (4) Although in a.d. 1439 the Council of Florence propounded it as a dogma, though it was not accepted by the Eastern Church3, and at Trent, A.D. 1563, the Council claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures, and the Tradition of the Fathers, formally decreed that there is a Purgatory, and that souls detained4 therein are aided by the sacrifice of the altar5, but it forbade the troubling the minds of the people generally with any of the more subtle questions on the subject.

vi. The Passages of Scripture commonly brought forward really bear very little on the doctrine of Purgatory. We learn that there is an intermediate place of safe keeping and waiting between death and judgment, but there is no positive intimation that souls undergo there, amidst material flames, pains, which differ little, save in their temporary character, from the sufferings of the lost. The parable of

2 They discussed the subject with deputies at the Council, protested their usual ingenuity, and fully ex- against it. The Eastern Church has plained the situation of purgatory, its never acknowledged its decrees. Pal- pains, and their intensity. mer On the Church, IV. xi. 5.

3 At this Council there met besides * The Tridentine Decrees only assert many Italian bishops, the Greek that souls are dctcnla in Purgatory ; in Emperor, John Falxologus, and eigh- the Tridentine Catechism the Roman teen Eastern bishops. On their re- Church teaches that they are cruciate. turn to Constantinople, the Greek 5 “Neque negandum est, defuncto- bishops were received with the utmost rum animas pietate suorum viventium indignation by those whom they were relevari, quum pro illis sacrificium supposed to represent. The decrees mediatoris offertur, vel eleemosynae of Florence were absolutely rejected, in ecclesia fiunt.” S. Aug. Enchir. the Synod was repudiated, and the § 110.

Dives and Lazarus (Luke xvi. 19 — 31) does indeed teach us that a separation between the evil and the good awaits each one immediately after our departure out of this world in the waiting time between death and the general resur- rection, and that the evil and unrepentant have a foretaste of future misery1, and the good of future bliss. But there is no hint that the soul of Dives was numbered among the faithful, for whom the Purgatorial pains are regarded as available. Again when S. Paul declares that every man’s zvork shall be made manifest ; for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try every mans work of what sort it is (1 Cor. iii. 12 — 15), it is difficult to see what else he can be referring to, except the day of judgment at the end of the world2. He is plainly making no allusion to the Intermediate State. When, moreover, he prays for Onesiphorus that he may find mercy of the Lord in the day* (2 Tim. i. 16, 18), there

1 ‘Ei> fiaaivois. Originally the word is applied to the test or touchstone of metals. Here the nature of the tor- ments is suggested by the ” flame ” of the next verse, hut that word does not necessarily imply the material element of fire. Rather it seems to indicate for the soul of the evil doer, when brought face to face with that holiness of God which is as a ” consuming fire” (Ileb. xii. 29), an anguish as in- tolerable as the touch of earthly flame is to the nerves of the mortal body. Compare Newman’s Ara« of Geron- tins :—

“And these two pains, so counter and so keen, —

The longing for Him, when thou scest Him not,

The shame of self at thought of seeing Him —

Will be thy veriest, sharpest purga- tory.”

“The torment, especially of thirst, of the wicked, is repeatedly mentioned in Jewish writings. Thus, in one

place, the fable of Tantalus is appa- rently repeated (Jer. Chag. 77. d). The righteous is seen beside delicious springs, and the wicked with his tongue parched at the brink of a river, the waves of which are constantly re- ceding from him.” Edersheim Life and Times of Jesus, ii., p. 281. Re- specting the material flame and the burning tongue, “we may,” writes Abp. Trench, “safely say that the form in which the sense of pain, with the desire after alleviation, embodies itself, is figurative.” Trench On the Parables, p. 471 note, Ed. 1847.

2 That the Apostle is referring to the fire of the Great Day is evident from the context, and from such pas- sages as 2 Thess. i. 7, “The revela- tion of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of His power in flaming fire.” Comp. also Heb. x. 27 ; xii. 29 ; 2 Pet. iii. 7.

[…]

is nothing which implies, supposing Onesiphorus had departed this life, that he was in Purgatory, and that the Apostle’s prayers might help to mitigate his pains. If we turn to the Apostle’s own language, and consider his statement on the subject of his own dissolution, we do not find anything that bears out such a doctrine. When he speaks of departing this life himself, it is to be with Christ1 (Phil. i. 23), to be, that is, in His immediate presence and keeping. S. John, again, tells us how he heard a Voice from heaven, saying, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in tJie Lord from henceforth ; yea, saith tJie Spirit, that they may rest from their labours’1- (Rev. xiv. 13). We may perhaps believe that the Intermediate State in the case of those, who have departed this life in God’s holy fear, is a state of purification3 and preparation for the Beatific Vision and the life of heaven, and that many, whose conversion here is maimed and imperfect, may by purgation ripen to such a degree of perfection as they are capable of, before they can endure the presence of God. But this is very different from the doctrine that there is for all souls after death a purgatorial fire1, from the pains of which relief can be obtained by the offering of masses in consideration of payments of money.

1 ‘Ei> extlvri rrj tjm^P? must refer to that day, when all judgment will be committed to the Son, John v. 22.

2 “Joy and rest are given imme- diately upon death, to all who depart in charity. For presently all become certain of their eternal salvation, which brings great joy. Yet that joy is not given in the same way but diversely, according to diversity of merits. For to some it is given without admixture of dolour, to others, not without admixture of temporal sufferings.” Bellarmine De Purg.,

3 “This life is far more than a pro- bation; it is an education, a discipline ; and this aspect of existence by no

means ceases at death. No unfair strain is put upon S. Paul’s language by supposing that he distinctly con- templated a progressive work of grace in the soul between death and judg- ment. / am confident, he writes, of this very thing that He, who began in you a good work, will accomplish it until the day of Jesus Christ (Phil, i. 6)… We may hope that many, in whom conversion was very imperfect here, will then be ripened to such a degree of perfection as they are found capable of.” Mason’s Faith of the Gospel, p. 376, ?nd ed.

4 The expression that the doctrine of Purgatory ” is a fond thing vainly invented ” must far less apply to the

vii. Pardons. Prayers and Masses for the dead, at first a mercy and consolation, became in time a trade and an inexhaustible source of wealth. Later still Pardons or Indulgences1, originally the remission of Ecclesiastical Censures, and granted by Bishops and afterwards by Pro- vincial Councils2, became extended in their significance, and were understood to effect the remission of years, some- times of centuries, of Purgatory. In process of time In- dulgences were still further extended to liberal almsgiving, pilgrimages, and taking part in holy wars like the Crusades. The sale of them reached its greatest height in the Pontificate of Leo X., when Tetzel, the agent of that Pope3, openly sold

mere doctrine than to the mass of flagrant abuses with which it became identified. The primitive doctrine of a place of purification is not con- demned by the Article. It is notice- able that the Article does not formu- late the doctrine which it condemns. Gregory of Nazianzus speaks of the ” benignant, the philanthropic fire worthy of Him who chastises («o\d- fofTos), by which men are to be puri- fied from evil.” Oral. xl. 6. ” As no soul leaves this present existence in a fully complete and prepared state, we must suppose that there is an intermediate state, a realm of progressive development in which souls are prepared and matured for the final judgment. The Roman doc- trine…contains the truth that the in- termediate state must, in a purely spiritual sense, be a Purgatory de- signed for the purifying of the soul.” Martensen’s Christian Dogmatics, p. 457, E. T. Compare the words of Butler, Anal. ii. 5, ” It cannot, I sup- pose, be imagined, even by the most cursory reader, that it is in any sort affirmed or implied in anything said in this chapter, that none can have the benefit of the general redemption, but such as have the advantage of being made acquainted with it in this present life.’” See also Dorner, System of Christian Doctrine, iv. pp. 409,

410, E. T.

1 Indulgentia in Classical Latin was a Roman law-term, and meant remission of (i) punishment or (ii) taxation on the occasion of the acces- sion of a new emperor or of the birth of an imperial or royal prince. As an ecclesiastical expression it denoted (i) the remission of sins, (ii) the lightening of ecclesiastical penalties. The ques- tion of such relaxation first came up in the case of those who had lapsed during the Decian persecution, and for whom martyrs interceded.

3 To call such sales “a fond thing

vainly invented repugnant to the

Word of God ” is a mild censure com- pared with Gardiner’s words, who describes them as ” the devil’s craft.” See Hardwick, Hist. Art., 411, ed. 1890. ” At the close of the xiiith cen-

them throughout Germany, and by so doing precipitated the Teutonic revolt. The idea that the temporal penalties for sin in the Intermediate State can be remitted by a money payment did untold harm, as Chaucer and other writers1 testify, and gave rise to the saying of our fore- fathers, ” No penny, no Paternoster.” Long before the sixteenth century this abuse had rankled in the heart of Christendom. The reforming Councils, however, had no power to stem the increasing corruption, and owing to the expensive tastes of the Roman Curia demanding more and more money, a doctrine, ” which had its roots in primitive antiquity, was preached in a way to destroy all Christian morality2.”

viii. The Teaching of Scripture. The doctrine of Pardons or Indulgences rests on the doctrine that the merits of the Saints, over and above what were needed for their own salvation, technically called ” works of superero- gation,” constitute an inexhaustible treasury, on which the Pope has a right to draw and apply to the release of souls

tury, the fervent Franciscan preacher, Berthold, called the 1 Penny Preach- ers,’ ‘favourite servants of the devil,’ and said that they ’ crowned the devil daily with many thousand souls.’ ” Bp Forbes On the Articles, p. 354.

1 In the vision of Piers rioughman we read

[…]

a prest were, Brou3t forth a bulle ; with bishopes

seles,

[…]

The poem ends with a peroration on the small value of the Pope’s pardons, and the superiority of a righteous life over mere trust in indulgences at the last Great Day. See Skeat’s Edition, Clarendon Press, p. xxx. 1 The Roman Catholic princes of

Germany, alarmed at the progress of Lutheranism, met in Diet at Nurem- berg in 1522, and addressed a petition to Pope Hadrian VI. for the remedy of a ” Hundred Grievances of the German Nation,” which they set forth in that document. Amongst these occur, No. 5, “How license to sin with impunity is granted for money”; No. 67, ” How more money than penitence is exacted from sinners.” ” What wickedness,” the princes ask, ” will mortals shudder at any longer, when they have once persuaded them- selves that license and impunity for sinning can be had for money, however extravagant the sum, not only in this life but after death also, by means of these marketings of Indulgences?” See Brown’s Fasciculus Rerum, London, 1690, i. pp. 334 — 393 ; also Milman’s Latin Christianity, ix. p. 343 ; Bp Forbes On the Articles, p. 353.

27I

in Purgatory, so that anyone, who obtains an Indulgence, can apply its merits to himself or transfer it to some other, living or dead. But we have already seen that none of the Saints were free from the stain of Original Sin, and so could not perform works of superabundant merit. When S. Paul says to his Corinthian converts that he will most gladly spend and be spent for their souls (2 Cor. xii. 15); when he tells the Colossians that he rejoices in his sufferings for their sake, and fills up on his part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in his flesh for His body’s sake, which is the Church (Col. i. 24); whatever else he means, it seems indeed a straining of words to believe that he intended us to understand that he was adding to an infinite store of merits, which could be applied for the deliverance of souls. The merits of Christ, it is allowed, are infinite, and there- fore the merits of all the Saints together1 which at best are finite, cannot make His merits greater or more efficient.

ix. The Worshipping and Adoration of Images and Relics. In the Primitive Church the feeling against the adoration of

(a) Images was very strong. The Jewish Christians were naturally imbued with a horror of them, and many of the early Fathers speak, like

[…]

fiov inrtp tov (Tib/xaTOS avrov, o iariv t) Christus non satis passus sit ad re-

[…]

“have found in this passage an asser- quod impium est sentire, quodque

tion of the merits of the saints, and (as Catholicos dicere impie calumniantur

a necessary consequence) of the doc- hseretici’.” See Lightfoot ‘s Commen-

trine of Indulgences. They have not tary on Col., in toe, p. 233. “So far

observed that if the idea of vicarious as regards this particular passage, the

satisfaction comes into the passage at Roman doctrine can only be imported

all, the satisfaction of S. Paul is repre- into it at the cost of a contradiction

sented here as the same in kind with to the Pauline doctrine of the satis-

the satisfaction of Christ, however dif- faction of Christ.” See Bp Light-

ferent it may be in degree ; and thus foot’s Comm. in loc.

2/2

Clement of Alexandria1, of ” the impropriety of making an image of God, the best image of whom is man created after His likeness.” The sign, indeed, of the Cross was constantly made by Christians on their foreheads, at their going out and coming in, at meals, at the baths, at lying down and rising up2. But, as Minucius Felix says, they ” neither worshipped crosses nor wished to do so3.” In the fourth and fifth centuries, however, a tendency to pay reverence to images began to appear in some quarters, and they gradually found admittance into the Churches. In the eighth century the famous Iconoclastic controversy arose, and continued for many years, till a Council summoned at Constantinople, A.D. 754, condemned all worship and use of images4. But these decrees were reversed by the Second Council of Nice, sum- moned by the Empress Irene, a.d. 784, which enacted that images might be set up, saluta- tions and honour paid to them, and incense offered, but not the worship of Latrcia, which was due to God alone. As the Middle Ages advanced, carved representations began to be set up, which were supposed to be possessed of miraculous powers for the cure of diseases. It is these images, which the framers of the Articles had before their eyes in England. Such was the Crucifix at Boxley in Kent5,

if you think rightly, man is himself i. p. 818.

Tertull. De Cor. Mil. c. iii.; Ad Wales, to which pilgrims, several hun-

God’s image?” Min. Felix, Octavius, cap. xix.

6 Such again was the huge image of wood, called Darvel Gatheren, in

which was said at times to stir and shake its head, to bow and lift up itself, and to do other things which were deemed miraculous1.

(b) Relics.

In the early ages of the Church there was a marked inclination to pay much respect to the remains of martyrs2. While it was regarded as a privilege by the early Christians to save their bodies after their passion, to collect and preserve their bones, they indignantly repudi- ated the idea of worshipping them. But the practice, when pushed to an extreme, began to foster superstition3, and S. Augustine com- plains of the custom, then beginning, of people wandering about his Diocese, and selling relics4, or what they reported to be relics, of those who had suffered martyrdom. During the Middle Ages, and especially after the Crusades, relic- worship reached its highest point. The con-

dreds in number, brought oxen and cattle and money ; a huge image of our Lady at Worcester ; an image of our Lady with a taper in her hands at S. David’s, “which was believed to have burnt nine years, till one for- swearing himself upon it, it went out; and was then much reverenced and worshipped.” Burnet’s Hist. Ref. i.

3 “There is, however, no trace of a superstitious value being attached to

M.

relics before the conversion of the Emperors, under whom multitudes of proselytes entered the Church, who had only partially renounced heathen- ism.” Smith’s Diet. Christian Ant. ii. 1769.

quest of Jerusalem poured upon Europe a countless supply of sacred objects. A splinter of the true Cross, some memorial of the Virgin- Mother and her Son, the bone of an Apostle, filings from the chains of S. Peter or S. Paul, became the most precious treasures of the most beautiful Churches, and were regarded as pos- sessing the power of working miracles.

x. The teaching of the Scriptures as regards Images and Relics may be thus summarised, (i) Images.

The Jews, as we all know, were solemnly warned against any approach to idolatry, but they were instructed to place emblematical figures in the Tabernacle and the Temple, e.g. the Cherubim on each side of the Mercy-Seat (Ex. xxv. 1 8), the oxen, lions, and Cherubim round the Molten Sea (i Kings vii. 23, 25). The idea, however, of worshipping these figures never occurred to them. It is true, again, that when Moses set up the brazen serpent in the wilderness the wounded Israelites were taught to look up to it for healing and deliverance (Numb. xxi. 8, 9), but when the people were tempted to worship it, Hezekiah, in spite of all its venerable associations, broke it in pieces (2 Kings xviii. 4). Jeroboam, indeed, might have pleaded that the golden calves he set up at Dan and Bethel were merely intended as symbols of the power of Jehovah, but this did not make his act other than idolatrous, and he is ever described as the man who made Israel to sin (1 Kings xii. 28). It is no wonder, therefore, that in the face of these facts the leaders of the new Movement in the Sixteenth Century regarded figures supposed to be pos- sessed of miraculous powers with extreme disfavour, and viewed with suspicion the distinctions drawn between the

kinds of worship, which might or might not be addressed to them.

(ii) Relics.

In extenuation of relic-worship it is pleaded that miracles were wrought by the bones of Elisha (2 Kings xiii. 2l), by touching the hem of Christ’s garment (Matt, ix. 20 — 22), by the shadow of Peter passing through the streets of Jerusalem (Acts v. 15), by handkerchiefs and aprons brought from the body of S. Paul (Acts xix. 12). But we have no instance in Scripture of the bones or garments of the Saints being preserved for the express purpose of adoration or as instruments of miraculous cures. We do not find that this was done in the case of the body of S. Stephen (Acts viii. 2), or S. James (Acts xii. 2), or in the case of the linen brought from the body of S. Paul (Acts xix. 12). In the earliest ages of the Church, no undue honour was paid to the relics even of the most holy of men. As we have seen, the contemporaries of S. Polycarp indignantly denied that they wished for his body with a view to any superstitious purpose1, and S. Augustine severely reproved the sale of relics, which in his day had grown into an abuse.

xi. The Invocation of Saints. Prayers for the de- parted have entered into the ritual of every Jewish syna- gogue from the earliest times, and there is no question that this custom prevailed early amongst the primitive Christians. They had a lively conviction that the saints departed were still fellow-worshippers with the Church militant here on earth, and were in close communion with its members2, that “between the living and the dead in Christ there is a vital bond of union and joint participation

2 Compare Phil. iii. 20; Eph. ii. 19; Heb. xii. 22, 23.

of privilege and responsibility’.” In the course of time the affectionate interest of the early Christians in the state of those who had gone behind the veil, and their belief that they still prayed with them and for them, fostered the inclination to ask the departed to offer prayers for them, and so by degrees the worship of the saints became more and more common. Eventually throughout the length and breadth of Christendom every community and every individual2 had an intercessor with the great In- tercessor between God and man, some intermediate being, whose office and duty it was to speed the suppliant’s prayer and, having put off the fetters of the flesh, to plead with greater avail on his behalf3. Thus it came to pass that the cultus of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints reached a height which seemed to overshadow the worship due to Christ Himself, and it was laid down in the decrees of the Council of Trent that “the Saints reigning together with Christ offer their prayers for men to God, and that it is good and useful to invoke them as suppliants, and, for the sake of obtaining benefits from God through our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our only Redeemer and Saviour, to have recourse to their prayers, aid, and assistance4.”

xii. Teaching of the Scriptures. The Invocation, then, rebuked in the Article is that kind of Invocation which trenches on the incommunicable honour due to God alone5. This rebuke Scripture sanctions. For in the New

2 The fact that when Constantine adopted the Christian Faith, multi- tudes joined the Church, who were just emerging from a state of heathenism, which had all along worshipped deified

mortals, told sensibly in the direction of adoration of Saints departed. See Bp Forbes, Articles, pp. 380, 381.

J See Milman’s Latin Christianity, ix. p. 83.

4 Cone. Trident. Sessio xxv.

5 Inone of his Sermons Hookersa “Against invocation of any other t’ God alone, if all arguments else sho fail, the number whereof is both and forcible, yet this very bar

Testament we have two instances of adoration offered to Angels (Rev. xix. 10 ; xxii. 8, 9), and two offered to Apostles (Acts x. 25, 26; xiii. 14), and each time it is refused. It is quite true that subtle distinctions can be drawn between degrees of worship, and it may be said that, while divine honours are paid to God, only secondary worship is offered to the Saints. But all history tends to show that in dealing with the ignorant it is not easy to preserve these distinctions, and when S. Paul warns his Colossian converts against the worshipping of angels (Col. ii. 1 8), the Greek word he uses comprehends all kinds of worship1. It seems allowable to believe that the Saints in the disembodied state are engaged in ceaseless supplication, and that by an act of faith we may join our supplications with theirs. But there is no Scripture warrant for believing that they have power with God because of their own merits apart from those of our Lord, or that they are kinder and have more sympathy with sinners than Christ our Saviour, who offered Himself for us on the Altar of His Cross. To request the intercession of the Saints is too like the way in which we address Almighty God to be really safe, and trenches dangerously on the office of the Great Intercessor. It seems far best to be guided by the spirit of the

single challenge might suffice; that whereas God hath in Scripture de- livered us so many patterns for imita- tion when we pray, yea, framed ready to our hands in a manner all, for suits and supplications, which our condi- tion of life on earth may at any time need, there is not one, no not one to be found, directed unto angels, saints, or any, saving God alone.” Hooker, Sermons, vii. i ; Works, Vol. ii. p. 793. Ed. 1841.

1 Qp-qaKelq. twv a-yyiXuv. The word BpTjaitda. includes every kind of wor- ship that can be offered. Primarily it denotes religious worship in its ex-

ternal aspect, a eutitis : comp. Acts xxvi. 5; Jas. i. 26, 27. “It is notice- able that the Council of Laodicea A. D. 394), so near Colossne, forbids c. 35) Christians to leave the Church and go away ’ to name angels ’ in secret assemblies, calling this a ‘secret idolatry.’ Theodoret in his Com- mentary here speaks of the existence in his time (Cent, v) of oratories (encteria) to the Archangel Michael in the region of Laodicea and Colossre, and of their popularity, apparently as rivals to the regular Churches. ” The Cambridge Bible, in loc.

Prayer Book, which in the Collect for All Saints Day bids us, instead of invoking their aid1, pray for grace to imitate their good examples, and follow in the steps of their most holy lives2.

1 The evidence of the Latin Sacra- mentaries, the source of so many of our Prayer-Book Collects, goes to prove that certainly in the fifth cen- tury, probably earlier, frequent com- memoration was made of the iiiter- ventus, opilutatio, preces, suffragiu?n, even peeuliare presidium of the Saints. These expressions, however, are found in such connection with certain others, e.g. veneranda confessio, robur, pa- tientia, as to show that, ultimately, the principle underlying the practice is that solidarity of the Xwfia Xpiarov to which St Paul refers in 1 Cor. xii. 20 sqq. Comp. Neale and Forbes, Gallican Liturgies, Pt I. Ed. 1855.

Notes

• Doctrina Romanensiitm. The terms ” Romanenses” and “Roman- ists;” were used as far back as 1520 by Luther and Ulrich von Hutten, to designate the extreme Mediaeval party. Cranmer, in his “Answer to Gardi- ner” uses the phrase, “your new Romish errors.” Hardwick, p. 410, ed. 1890. The alteration of the words “Scholasticorum Doctrina” to “doc- trina Romanensium” in 1563, “indi- cates that it was directed not so much against the formulated statements of
• See above under Article iii., p. 62. 6 S.Clemens Romanus simply speaks
• See Dean Plumptre’s The Spirits in Prison, pp. 139, 140.
• “Non redarguo quia forsitan ve- rum est.” S. Aug. De Civ. Dei xxi. 26 ; comp. Hagenbach, History of Doctrines, ii. 94 — 96 ; Bp Browne on the Articles, p. 500; Plumptre, The Spirits in Prison, pp. 151, 152.
• Comp. S. Aug. De Fid. et Op., c. xvi. 29, ” Sive ergo in hac tan- tum vita ista homines patiuntur, sive etiam post hanc vitam talia quaedam judicia subsequuntur, non abhorret, quantum arbitror, a ratione veritatis iste intellectus hujusce sentential” ; also S.Aug.£uchirid.adLaurent.,cap.\xix. “Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri, incredibile non est, et utrum ita sit quceri potest ; et aut inveniri aut latere, nonnullos fideles per ignem quemdam purgatorium quanto magis minusve bona pereuntia dilexerunt, tanto tardius citiusque salvari.”
• ” De quibusdam levibus culpis esse ante judicium purgatorius ignis credendus est.” Gregor. Dial., iv., cap. 39. On purgatory Gregory the Great ” is dubious, though his final conclusion seems to be that there is a purgatorial fire, which may purify the soul from very slight sins.” Milman, Latin Christianity, ii. 157.
• See Vita S. Boni/acii, Epist. xx., patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, and ed. Migne. Alexandria, who were represented by
• As Provincial Councils frequently referred such matters to the See of Rome, that See gradually claimed and exercised a dispensing power indepen- dent of Councils, and the Bishop of Rome was held to have a storehouse of merits of Christ and of the Saints, which he could dispense, either by himself or his agents, to mitigate or shorten the sufferings of penitents, whether in this world or the world to come. See Article ” Indulgence ” in Smith’s Diet. Christian Antiq. i. p.
• Clem. Alex. Stroma/, v. 5 ; vi. 18; Uxor. ii. 5. vii. 5. So Minucius Felix asks, “Why 3 Min. Felix, Odav. c. ix. should I form an image of God, when, 4 See Smith, Diet. Christian Antiqq.
• See Burnet’s History of the Refer- mation i. p. 486; the Homily on the Peril of Idolatry, pp. 219 — 222.
• See the Martyr. Pofycarpi, c. 17. Such due honour is indeed inseparable from an adequate realization of the fact of the Incarnation. Comp. Pater, Marius the Epicurean, ii. p. 153. Ed. 1885.
• ” Alii membra martyrum, si tamen martyrum, venditant.” S. Aug. de Op. Monach. c. 28. The sale of them was forbidden by Theodosius, but ap- parently with little effect in the more distant provinces. “Humatum corpus nemo ad alteram locum transferat, nemo martyrem detrahat, nemo mer- cetur.” Codex ix. 17, 7. “Gregory the Great reproved the Greek practice of irreverently disinterring and sending about the bodies of Saints ; he refused to the Emperor of Constant i nople relics of S. Paul.” Milman’s Lat. Christ.
• Martyr. Polycarpi, c. 17.
• Luckock’s Intermediate State, p. 235. Thus Origen writes, ” Ego sic arbitror, quod omnes illi, qui dormi- erunt ante nos, patres pugnent nobis- cum, et adjuvent nos orationibus suis.” In Jesum Nave, Horn. xvi. 5.
• As regards the Invocation of Saints Launcelot Andrewes agrees with Origen in Epist. ad Rom. lib. ii. that our relations to the saints are among ” the hidden things of God (” inter occulta Dei, nec chartulae com- mittenda mysteria”). “That they in- tercede for us,” he says, “is probable; a pious and well-founded hope. That they hear prayers is not proved. We cannot invoke them, because we have no command warranting us to do so,” (“eos autem haud libenter quis com- pellet, de quibus, qua tandem ratione audiant compellantem, et proinde audiant necne, certus non sit.” Ad Card. Bellarm. Respo/isio, p. 47.