The Benedictine editors[64], who published the remains of St. Athanasius in 1698, cla.s.s the works contained in the second volume under two heads, the doubtful and the spurious; and the homily under consideration is ranked, without hesitation, among the spurious. In the middle of that volume they not only declare the work to be unquestionably a forgery, a.s.signing the reasons for their decision, but they fortify their judgment by quoting at length the letter written by the celebrated Baronius, more than a century before, to our countryman, Stapleton. Both these doc.u.ments are very interesting.

[Footnote 64: Here I would observe, that though the Benedictine editors differ widely from each other in talent, and learning, and candour, yet, as a body, they have conferred on Christendom, and on literature, benefits for which every impartial and right-minded man will feel grat.i.tude. In the works of some of these editors, far more than in others, we perceive the same reigning principle--a principle which some will regard as an uncompromising adherence to the faith of the Church; but which others can regard only in the light of a prejudice, and a rooted habit of viewing all things through the eyes of Rome.]

The Benedictine editors begin their preface thus: "That this discourse is spurious, there is NO LEARNED MAN WHO DOES NOT NOW ADJUDGE ... The style proves itself more clear than the sun, to be different from that of Athanasius. Besides this, very many trifles show themselves here unworthy of any sensible man whatever, not to say Athanasius ... and a great number of expressions unknown to Athanasius ... so that it savours of inferior Greek. And truly his subtle disputation {183} on the hypostasis of Christ, and on the two natures in Christ, persuades us, that he lived after the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon; of which councils moreover he uses the identical words, whereas his dissertation on the two wills in Christ seems to argue, that he lived after the spreading of the error of the Monothelites. But (continue these Benedictine editors) we would add here the dissertation of Baronius on this subject, sent to us by our brethren from Rome. That ill.u.s.trious annotator, indeed, having read only the Latin version of Nannius, which is clearer than the Greek, did not observe the astonishing perplexity of the style[65]."

[Footnote 65: Even in the Bibliotheca Patrum Concionatoria the homily is declared to be not the work of Athanasius, but to have been written after the sixth general council. "It is evident,"

say the editors, "that it is the monument of a very learned man, though he has his own blemishes, on which, for the most part, we have remarked in the margin." Paris, 1662. p. 336.]

The dissertation which the Benedictine editors append, was contained in a letter written by Baronius to Stapleton, in consequence of some animadversions which Stapleton had communicated to Cardinal Allen on the judgment of Baronius. The letter is dated Rome, November, 1592. The judgment of Baronius on the spurious character of this homily had been published to the world some time previously; for after some preliminary words of kindness and respect to his correspondent, Baronius proceeds to say, that when he previously published his sentiments on this homily, it was only cursorily and by the way, his work then being on another subject. Nevertheless he conceived, {184} that the little he had then stated would be sufficient to show, that the homily was not the production of Athanasius, and that all persons of learning, WHO WERE DESIROUS OF THE TRUTH, would freely agree with him; nor was he in this expectation disappointed; for very many persons expressed their agreement with him, congratulating him on separating legitimate from spurious children. He then states the arguments which the Benedictine editors adopted after him, and which we need not repeat. But he also urges this fact, that though Cyril had the works of Athanasius in his custody, and though both the disputing parties ransacked every place for sentiments of Athanasius countenancing their tenets, yet neither at Ephesus nor at Chalcedon was this homily quoted, though it must have altogether driven Eutyches and Nestorius from the field, so exact are its definitions and statements on the points then at issue. Baronius then adds, that so far from reversing the judgment which he had before pa.s.sed against the genuineness of this homily, he was compelled in justice to declare his conviction, that it could not have been written till after the heresy of the Monothelites had been spread abroad. This we know would fix its date, at the very earliest, subsequently to the commencement of the SEVENTH century, three hundred years after Athanasius attended the Council of Nice. Among the last sentiments of Baronius in this letter, is one which implies a principle worthy of Christian wisdom, and which can never be neglected without injury to the cause of truth. "These sentiments concerning Athanasius I do not think are affirmed with any detriment to the Church; for the Church does not suffer a loss on this account; who being the pillar {185} and ground of the truth, very far shrinks from seeking, like aesop's Jackdaw, helps and ornaments which are not her own: the bare truth shines more beautiful in her own naked simplicity." Were this principle acted upon uniformly in our discussions on religious points of faith or practice, controversy would soon be drawn within far narrower limits; and would gradually be softened into a friendly interchange of sentiments, and would well-nigh be banished from the world. No person does the cause of truth so much injury, as one who attempts to support it by arguments which will not bear the test of full and enlightened investigation. And however an unsound principle may be for a while maintained by unsound arguments, the momentary triumph must ultimately end in disappointment.

Coccius also cites two pa.s.sages as conveying the evidence of Athanasius on this same point; one from the spurious letter addressed to Felix, the pope; the other from the treatise to Marcellus, on the interpretation of the Psalms. On the former, I need not detain you by any observation; it would be fighting with a shadow. The latter, which only recognises what I have never affirmed or denied here,--the interest in our welfare taken by holy souls departed, and their co-operation with us when we are working out our own salvation,--contains a valuable suggestion on the principles of devotion.

"Let no one, however, set about to adorn these Psalms for the sake of effect with words from without, [artificial and secular phrases,] nor transpose, nor alter the expressions. But let every one inartificially read and repeat what is written, that those holy persons who employed themselves in their production, recognising their own works, may join with us in prayer; or {186} rather that the Holy Spirit, who spake in those holy men, observing the words with which his voice inspired them, may a.s.sist us. For just as much as the life of those holy men is more pure than ours, so far are their words preferable to any production of our own."

But whilst there is not found a single pa.s.sage in Athanasius to give the faintest countenance to the invocation of saints, there are various arguments and expressions which go far to demonstrate that such a belief and such practices as are now acknowledged and insisted upon by the Church of Rome, were neither adopted nor sanctioned by him. Had he adopted that belief and practice for his own, he would scarcely have spoken, as he repeatedly has, of the exclusion of angels and men from any share in the work of man's restoration, without any expressions to qualify it, and to protect his a.s.sertions from being misunderstood.

Again, he bids us look to the holy men and holy fathers as our examples, in whose footsteps we should tread, if we would be safe; but not a hint escapes him that they are to be invoked.

I must detain you by rather a long quotation from this father, and will, therefore, now do nothing more than refer you to two pa.s.sages expressive of those sentiments to which I have above alluded. In the thirteenth section of his Treatise on the Incarnation of the Word of G.o.d, he argues, that neither could men restore us to the image of G.o.d, nor could angels, but the word of G.o.d, Jesus Christ, &c. [Vol. i. part i. p. 58.]

In his Epistle to Dracontius, he says, "We ought to conduct ourselves agreeably to the principles of the saints and fathers, and to imitate them,--a.s.sured that if we {187} swerve from them, we become alienated also from their communion." [Vol. i. part i, p. 265.]

The pa.s.sage, however, to which I would invite the reader's patient and impartial thoughts, occurs in the third oration against the Arians, when he is proving the unity of the Father and the Son, from the expression of St. Paul in the eleventh verse of the third chapter of his first Epistle to the Thessalonians.

"Thus then again ([Greek: outo g' oun palin]), when he is praying for the Thessalonians, and saying, 'Now our G.o.d and Father himself and the Lord Jesus Christ direct our way to you,' he preserves the unity of the Father and the Son. For he says not 'may THEY direct ([Greek: kateuthunoien]),' as though a twofold grace were given from Him AND Him, but 'may HE direct ([Greek: katenthunai]),' to show that the Father giveth this through the Son. For if there was not an unity, and the Word was not the proper offspring of the Father's substance, as the eradiation of the light, but the Son was distinct in nature from the Father,--it had sufficed for the Father alone to have made the gift, no generated being partaking with the Maker in the gifts. But now such a giving proves the unity of the Father and the Son. Consequently, no one would pray to receive any thing from G.o.d AND the angels, or from any other created being; nor would any one say 'May G.o.d AND the angels give it thee;' but from the Father and the Son, because of their unity and the oneness of the gift. For whatever is given, is given through the Son,--nor is there any thing which the Father works except through the Son; for thus the receiver has the gracious favour without fail. But if the patriarch Jacob, blessing his descendants Ephraim and Mana.s.seh, said, 'The G.o.d who nourished {188} me from my youth unto this day, the Angel who delivered me from all the evils, bless these lads;' he does not join one of created beings, and by nature angels, with G.o.d who created them; nor dismissing Him who nourished him, G.o.d, does he ask the blessing for his descendants from an angel, but by saying 'He who delivered me from all the evils,' he showed that it was not one of created angels, but the WORD OF G.o.d; and joining him with the Father, he supplicated him through whom also G.o.d delivers whom he will. For he used the expression, knowing him who is called the Messenger of the great counsel of the Father to be no other than the very one who blessed and delivered from evil. For surely he did not aspire to be blessed himself by G.o.d, and was willing for his descendants to be blessed by an angel.

But the same whom he addressed, saying, I will not let Thee go, except thou bless me (and this was G.o.d, as he says, 'I saw G.o.d face to face'), Him he prayed to bless the sons of Joseph. The peculiar office of an angel is to minister at the appointment of G.o.d; and often he went onwards to cast out the Amorite, and is sent to guard the people in the way; but these are not the doings of him, but of G.o.d, who appointed him and sent him,--whose also it is to deliver whom he will." [Vol i. p.

561.]

"For this cause David addressed no other on the subject of deliverance but G.o.d Himself. But if it belongs to no other than G.o.d to bless and deliver, and it was no other who delivered Jacob than the Lord Himself, and the patriarch invoked for his descendants Him who delivered him, it is evident that he connected no one in his prayer except His Word, whom for this reason he called an angel, because he alone reveals the Father." {189}

"But this no one would say of beings produced and created; for neither when the Father worketh does any one of the angels, or any other of created beings, work the things; for no one of such beings is an effective cause, but they themselves belong to things produced. The angels then, as it is written, are ministering spirits sent to minister; and the gifts given by Him through the Word they announce to those who receive them."

Now if the invocation of angels had been practised by the Church at that time, can it be for a moment believed, that a man of such a mind as was the mind of Athanasius, a mind strong, clear, logical, cultivated with ardent zeal for the doctrines of the Church, and fervent piety, would have suffered such pa.s.sages as these to fall from him, without one saving clause in favour of the invocation of angels? He tells us in the most unqualified manner, that they act merely as ministers; ready indeed, and rejoicing to be employed on errands of mercy, but not going one step without the commands of the Lord, or doing one thing beyond his word. Had the idea been familiar to the mind of Athanasius, of the lawfulness, the duty, the privilege, the benefit of invoking them, would he have avoided the introduction of some words to prevent his expressions from being misunderstood and misapplied, as subsequent writers did long before the time when the denial of the doctrine might seem to have made such precaution more necessary?

I close then the catalogue of our witnesses before the Council of Nicaea with the testimony of St. Athanasius; whose genuine and acknowledged works afford not one jot or t.i.ttle in support of the doctrine and practice of the invocation of angels and saints, as now insisted upon by the Church of Rome; and the direct {190} tendency of whose evidence is decidedly hostile both to that doctrine and that practice.

I have seen it observed by some who are satisfied, that the records of primitive antiquity do not contain such references to the invocation of saints and angels, as we might have expected to find had the custom then prevailed, that the earliest Christians kept back the doctrine and concealed it, though they held it; fearing lest their heathen neighbours should upbraid them with being as much polytheists as themselves[66].

This is altogether a gratuitous a.s.sumption, directly contrary to evidence, and totally inconsistent with their conduct. Had those first Christians acted upon such a debasing principle, they would have kept back and concealed their worship of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, as exposing them to a similar charge. They were constantly upbraided with worshipping a crucified {191} mortal; but instead of either meeting that charge by denying that they worshipped Jesus as their G.o.d, or of concealing the worship of Him, lest they should expose themselves again to such upbraidings, they publicly professed, that He whom the Jews had murdered, they believed in as the Son of G.o.d, Himself their G.o.d. They gloried in the doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity, and did not fear what men might do to them, or say of them in consequence. Had they believed in the duty of invoking saints and angels, the high principle of Christian integrity would not have suffered them to be ashamed to confess it, or to practise openly what they believed.

[Footnote 66: Bishop Morley, (London, 1683,) in a letter written whilst he was in exile at Breda, to J. Ulitius, refers to Cardinal Perron, "Replique a la Resp. du Roy de la Grande Bret."

p. 1402 and 4, for this sentiment: "The Fathers do not always speak what they think, but conceal their real sentiments, and say that which best serves the cause which they sustain, so as to protect it against the objections of the gentiles. The Fathers, as much as in them lies, and as far as they can, avoid and decline all occasions of speaking about the invocation of saints then practised in the Church, fearing lest to the gentiles there might appear a sort of similarity, although untrue and equivocal, between the worship paid to the saints by the Church, and by the Pagans to their false divinities; and lest the Pagans might thence seize a handle, however unfair, of retorting upon them that custom of the Church." Had a member of the Anglican Church thus spoken of the Fathers, and thus pleaded in their name guilty of subterfuge and duplicity, he would have been immediately charged with irreverence and wanton insult, and that with good reason. These sentiments of the Cardinal are in p. 982 of the Paris edition of 1620.] {192}

PART II.

CHAPTER I.

STATE OF WORSHIP AT THE TIME OF THE REFORMATION.

One of the points proposed for our inquiry was the state of religious worship, with reference to the invocation of saints, at the time immediately preceding the reformation. Very far from entertaining a wish to fasten upon the Church of Rome now, what then deformed religion among us, in any department where that Church has practically reformed her services, I would most thankfully have found her ritual in a more purified state than it is. My more especial object in referring to this period is twofold: first, to show, that consistently with Catholic and primitive principles, the Catholic Christians of England ought not to have continued to partic.i.p.ate in the worship which at that time prevailed in our country; and, secondly, by that example both to ill.u.s.trate the great danger of allowing ourselves to countenance the very first stages of superst.i.tion, and also to impress upon our minds the duty of checking in its germ any the least deviation from the primitive principles of faith and worship; convinced that by the general tendency of human nature, one wrong step will, though imperceptibly, yet almost inevitably lead to another; and that only whilst we adhere with uncompromising steadiness {193} to the Scripture as our foundation, and to the primitive Church, under G.o.d, as a guide, can we be saved from the danger of making shipwreck of our faith.

On this branch of our subject I propose to do no more than to lay before my readers the witness borne to the state of religion in England at that time, by two works, which have been in an especial manner forced upon my notice. Many other testimonies of a similar tendency might readily be adduced; but these will probably appear sufficient for the purposes above mentioned; and to dwell longer than is necessary on this point would be neither pleasant nor profitable.

SECTION I.

The first book to which I shall refer is called The Hours of the most blessed Virgin Mary, according to the legitimate use of the Church of Salisbury. This book was printed in Paris in the year 1526. The prayers in this volume relate chiefly to the Virgin: and I should, under other circ.u.mstances, have reserved all allusion to it for our separate inquiry into the faith and practice of the Church of Rome with regard to her.

But its historical position and general character seemed to recommend our reference to it here. Without antic.i.p.ating, therefore, the facts or the arguments, which will hereafter be submitted to the reader's consideration on the worship of the Virgin, I refer to this work now solely as ill.u.s.trative of the lamentable state of superst.i.tion which three centuries ago overran our country.

The volume abounds with forms of prayer to the Virgin, many of them prefaced by extraordinary notifications of indulgences promised to those who duly utter {194} the prayers. These indulgences are granted by Popes and by Bishops; some on their own mere motion, others at the request of influential persons. They guarantee remission of punishment for different s.p.a.ces of time, varying from forty days to ninety thousand years; they undertake to secure freedom from h.e.l.l; they promise pardon for deadly sins, and for venial sins to the same person for the same act; they a.s.sure to those who comply with their directions a change of the pain of eternal d.a.m.nation into the pain of purgatory, and the pain of purgatory into a free and full pardon.

It may be said that the Church of Rome is not responsible for all these things. But we need not tarry here to discuss the question how far it was then competent for a church or nation to have any service-book or manual of devotion for the faithful, without first obtaining the papal sanction. For clear it is beyond all question, that such frightful corruptions as these, of which we are now to give instances, were spread throughout the land; that such was the religion then imposed on the people of England; and it was from such dreadful enormities, that our Reformation, to whatever secondary cause that reformation is to be attributed--by the providence of Almighty G.o.d rescued us. No one laments more than I do, the extremes into which many opponents of papal Rome have allowed themselves to run; but no one can feel a more anxious desire than myself to preserve our Church and people from a return of such spiritual degradation and wretchedness; and to keep far from us the most distant approaches of such lamentable and ensnaring superst.i.tions.

In this feeling moreover I am a.s.sured that I am joined by many of the most respected and influential members of the Roman Catholic Church among us. {195} Still what has been may be; and it is the bounden duty of all members of Christ's Catholic Church, to whatever branch of it they belong, to join in guarding his sanctuary against such enemies to the truth as it is in HIM.

At the same time it would not be honest and candid in me, were I to abstain from urging those, who, with ourselves, deprecate these excesses, to carry their reflections further; and determine whether the spirit of the Gospel does not require a total rejection, even in its less startling forms, of every departure from the principle of invoking G.o.d alone; and of looking for acceptance with Him solely to the mediation of his Son, without the intervention of any other merits. As we regard it, it is not a question of degree; it is a question of principle: one degree may be less revolting to our sense of right than another, but it is not on that account justifiable.

The following specimens, a few selected from an overabundant supply, will justify the several particulars in the summary which I have above given:

1. "The Right Reverend Father in G.o.d, Laurence[67], Bishop of a.s.saven, hath granted forty days of pardon to all them that devoutly say this prayer in the worship of our blessed Lady, being penitent, and truly confessed of all their sins. Oratio, 'Gaude Virgo, Mater Christi,' &c.

Rejoice, Virgin, Mother of Christ. [Fol. 35.]

[Footnote 67: This was Laurence Child, who, by papal provision, was made Bishop of St. Asaph, June 18, 1382. He is called also Penitentiary to the Pope. Le Neve, p. 21. Beatson, vol. i. p.

115.]

2. "To all them that be in the state of grace, that daily say devoutly this prayer before our blessed Lady of Pity, she will show them her blessed visage, and warn them the day and the hour of death; and in their last {196} end the angels of G.o.d shall yield their souls to heaven; and[68] he shall obtain five hundred years, and so many Lents of pardon, granted by five holy fathers, Popes of Rome. [Fol. 38.]

[Footnote 68: The language in many of these pa.s.sages is very imperfect; but I have thought it right to copy them verbatim.]

3. "This prayer showed our Lady to a devout person, saying, that this golden prayer is the most sweetest and acceptablest to me: and in her appearing she had this salutation and prayer written with letters of gold in her breast, 'Ave Rosa sine spinis'--Hail Rose without thorns.

[Fol. 41.]

4. "Our holy Father, Sixtus the fourth, pope, hath granted to all them that devoutly say this prayer before the image of our Lady the sum of XI.M. [eleven thousand] years of pardon. 'Ave Sanctissima Maria, Mater Dei, Regina Coeli,' &c. Hail most holy Mary, Mother of G.o.d, Queen of Heaven. [Fol. 42.]

5. "Our holy Father, Pope Sixtus, hath granted at the instance of the highmost and excellent Princess Elizabeth, late Queen of England, and wife to our sovereign liege Lord, King Henry the Seventh, (G.o.d have mercy on her sweet soul, and on all Christian souls,) that every day in the morning, after three tollings of the Ave bell, say three times the whole salutation of our Lady Ave Maria gratia; that is to say, at 6 the clock in the morning 3 Ave Maria, at 12 the clock at noon 3 Ave M., and at 6 the clock at even, for every time so doing is granted of the SPIRITUAL TREASURE OF HOLY CHURCH 300 days of pardon totiens quotiens; and also our holy father, the Archbishop of Canterbury and York, with other nine Bishops of this realm, have {197} granted 3 times in the day 40 days of pardon to all them that be in the state of grace able to receive pardon: the which begun the 26th day of March, Anno MCCCCXCII.

Anno Henrici VII.[69] And the sum of the indulgence and pardon for every Ave Maria VIII hondred days an LX totiens quotiens, this prayer shall be said at the tolling of the Ave Bell, 'Suscipe,' &c. Receive the word, O Virgin Mary, which was sent to thee from the Lord by an angel. Hail, Mary, full of grace: the Lord with thee, &c. Say this 3 times, &c. [Fol.

42.]

[Footnote 69: Henry VII. began to reign in 1485.]

6. "This prayer was showed to St. Bernard by the messenger of G.o.d, saying, that as gold is the most precious of all other metals, so exceedeth this prayer all other prayers, and who that devoutly sayeth it shall have a singular reward of our blessed Lady, and her sweet Son Jesus. 'Ave,' &c. Hail, Mary, most humble handmaid of the Trinity, &c.

Hail, Mary, most prompt Comforter of the living and the dead. Be thou with me in all my tribulations and distresses with maternal pity, and at the hour of my death take my soul, and offer it to thy most beloved Son Jesus, with all them who have commended themselves to our prayers. [Fol.

46.]