in behalf of the martyr-worship of Primitive Catholicity,' must it not be granted to have been-a dangerous practice?—Was it not, in scripture phrase, a stumbling-block' to the christian commonwealth of that age? If so, and seeing that it was eagerly promoted by all the teachers and authorities to whom the people listened, the application of a passage like the following is sure and certain :—

'Son of man, these men have set up their idols in their heart, and put the stumbling-block of their iniquity before their face; should I be inquired of at all by them? Therefore speak unto them, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God: Every man of the house of Israel that setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumbling-block of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to the prophet, I the Lord will answer him according to the multitude of his idols. That I may take the house of Israel in their own heart, because they are all estranged from me through their idols.' Ezek. xiv. 3-5.

In these, and many similar passages, all the conditions of the Nicene polytheism are included:-and especially this-that there would be, in the professions and conduct of the people, an intimate and almost unconscious admixture of idolatrous predilections and practices, with an exterior submission to the service and commands of God.-Nothing can be more pointedly characteristic of the christian paganism of the fourth century:-priests and people saying aloud-'The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, are we;' while priest and people, with a mad perversity, were repeating every folly and delusion of the pagan temples.

We do not now inquire whether certain predictions of Christ and the Apostles are applicable to the Nicene, or to the Romish church; but we appeal to them as a proof that, at some time then future, there should arise, from the very bosom of the Church, false prophets, professing themselves to be the servants of God, who should show great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they should deceive the very elect.' At some time then future, miracles, or preternatural events, brought about by the power of Satan,' should seduce the multitude from the truth. The power so coming in the place of the obsolete paganism should

' deceive them that dwell upon the earth, by the means of those miracles which he had power to do.'

With such cautions before us, a serious guilt must be incurred by those who, in the fondness of an easy credulity, admit as true every pretension to miraculous powers, and who, because the wonder-worker professes great zeal for God, allow him to lead them into practices flagrantly opposed to the spirit and precepts of the Scriptures.

By the evidence above cited it appears—

1st. That the veneration of relics, the invocation of the dead saints, the adorations and festival-worship carried on at celebrated shrines, and the custom of making pilgrimages to such shrines, were as prevalent in the Fourth, as in the following centuries; and that they constituted the prominent feature of the popular religion of the times.

2dly. That this system of worship was not merely winked at by the leading men of the Church, but was zealously promoted by them, and received their warmest commendations; and was held in credit by a species of support on particular occasions which touches, too nearly, their reputation for common honesty and piety.

3dly. That this worship was constantly and intimately connected with a system of professed miracles, which, if real, should compel our approval of the same worship; or at least must preclude our condemnation of it: or, if spurious, must be held to mark broadly the church system of the fourth century with the deepest stains of fraud, idolatry, and blasphemy.

But the most cogent reasons compel us to reject these miracles as spurious, as well as to condemn the worship they recommended as idolatrous.

It only remains then to apply our conclusions to the particular case of those whose faith and honour are pledged to the formularies of the Established Church. In making this application, while I shall carefully avoid, so far as the occasion permits, whatever might seem offensive, I shall not think myself precluded, on any ground, from carrying my argument home to its just conclusions.

366

IMPORT OF THE TWENTY-SECOND OF THE THIRTYNINE ARTICLES.

In what way, or by what system of casuistry the writers of the Tracts for the Times are used to reconcile themselves to their position, as ministers of the Protestant Church of England, while they condemn that which the Reformers approved, and approve that which these sternly condemned, I have no wish to inquire.

A far more important question-a question in which every Englishman is concerned, is this-Whether the Church of England allows and favours, or rejects and condemns, THAT INVO

CATION OF THE SAINTS, AND VENERATION OF RELICS, WHICH PREVAILED THROUGHOUT CHRISTENDOM IN THE FOURTH CENTURY?

This question does not seem to be in itself a peculiarly obscure or difficult one; or to demand any extraordinary acuteness or skill in discussing it. I shall here consider it as coming altogether within the range of a common understanding, guided by an ordinary measure of information. I make pretensions to nothing more; and I am not in this instance to be rebutted by the advice- not to meddle with things too high for me.' It were strange indeed if a layman could not be permitted to form an opinion on such a point; and equally so, if having with care formed his opinion, he might not express it.

I shall consider the TWENTY-SECOND ARTICLE in its several clauses, premising nothing but this That I mean to pay no regard whatever to evasions, subterfuges, or refined distinctions, of that sort which would be rejected with contempt if advanced in extenuation of a sinister course of conduct in civil life.

We are however (by our immediate subject) confined to the latter of the several points referred to in the article. This article condemns as fond, and vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, and as repugnant to the word of God'the ROMISH doctrine concerning

'Worshipping and adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques; and also invocation of saints.'

The ROMISH doctrine.

Apart from collateral evidence this phrase might possibly admit of either of the two interpretations—

1st. That, while the Romish doctrine on these points is condemned, there is some other doctrine, favourable to the opinions and practices in question, which is not condemned by it.—

Or 2d. That, in accordance with the usage of the human mind, and the ordinary customs of speech, the genus is here denominated by the species :-the species being at the time, not merely the proximate object; but that which was obtruded upon their notice by the peculiar circumstances of the framers of the article: as if it were said-We condemn the Romish doctrine, with which especially we have now to do; and, by necessary inference, every other doctrine, or practice, like to it; or which has the same qualities, and is obnoxious to the very same objections.

Now I suppose that none but a few astute and sinuous minds have ever imagined that the framers of this article intended any thing else than to condemn the Romish doctrine :—and with it every other doctrine like it. If this be not the intention of the article, the most decisive reasons to the contrary should be produced. Apart from any such reasons, this is clearly the interpretation which it is the safest to put upon it;-that is to say, if we would enjoy the comforts of a 'good conscience.'

Suppose the case that, in some remote quarter of the world, a church were still extant which, although it had held no correspondence with Rome; and knew nothing of the middle ages, yet professed a doctrine precisely similar to the Romish, on these points; or so nearly identical that the differences, whatever they might be, amounted only to some shades of diversity. In this case, surely, no man subscribing the TWENTY-SECOND Article, could honestly minister within that other church, on the mere plea that his subscription bound him to nothing but the reprobation of what is actually Romish. Such a plea would be rejected as a frivolous evasion-most disgraceful to whoever would attempt to avail himself of it, and in a matter touching religious consistency.

We must conclude then--That if in fact the TWENTY-SECOND Article may honestly be subscribed by those who approve, or who do not decisively condemn the practice of invoking the saints,

and venerating relics, as prevalent in the fourth century, it must be on the ground of some clearly defined and essential difference, in quality and in tendency, between the Romish, and the Nicene doctrine and practice, in these instances.

But I now appeal to the conscientious reader to say—Whether any such difference in religious tendency, or actual quality, distinguishes the one from the other doctrine; or whether an upright man would wish to rest his reputation upon the assumed fact of any such difference? I might ask, whether the habit of claiming a benefit, and enjoying emoluments, on the plea of such an alleged difference, must not benumb the moral sense, and fatally deprave the religious sentiments?

But we need not stop here. The Twenty-second Article does not simply denominate the objects of its reprobation, but it describes them; or rather-by specifying the grounds of its condemnation, it carries forth its meaning toward whatever is clearly obnoxious to those specific objections. If therefore there be any other doctrine, not Romish, which, like it, is also fond,' and vainly invented,' and is 'grounded upon no warranty of Scripture,' but is rather repugnant thereto;' then such doctrine, coming as it does within the reach of the same categories, is as certainly condemned as it could have been had it actually been specified. We cannot hesitate to reject any endeavour to evade so plain a consequence.

It remains then to inquire, what meaning ought to be attached to the phrases subjoined, as descriptive of the doctrine condemned; and to ask whether, fairly understood, they apply to the doctrine and practices of the Nicene church.

-A FOND THING.

The term (now almost obsolete in the sense in which it is here, and so appropriately used) conveyed, at the time when the Articles were framed, the idea of some object pursued, and embraced, with a passionate and childish eagerness, and which, in itself, has but a very ambiguous title to any kind of respect.

The English language barely offers a term so precisely fitting the prevalent martyr-worship of the ancient and ante-Romish church as does this. In later ages that is to say, in the times of the Romish supremacy, and when the invocation of saints and