quote this Father against Romanists, when, in truth, his testimony, taken as a whole, bears most decisively against protestantism?"

Such a reply can by no means be rebutted. There is however a point or two connected with the passage cited in the Homily which yet claims a moment's notice. The Homilist refers to the much noised "Invention of the Cross," in terms implying, we must grant, if not affirming, his belief in the reality of that absurd fraud. But such an acquiescence in an imposture which had so long, and so extensively gained credence, is not to be much wondered at, in the case of the Reformers. And yet, had they allowed themselves to consider the circumstance of the evidence, as presented in this very instance, and as reported by Ambrose himself, minds so vigorous could hardly have failed to break through the tissue of lies. But they were not accustomed, it is clear, thus to scrutinize the evidence, or the opinions of the Fathers:-they admitted as true, whatever they had been taught to think so ;-except only in cases where the decisive evidence of Scripture compelled them to reject it. AND THEREFORE, Our inference stands good-that the deference yielded by the Reformers to the Fathers is intrinsically of little worth; and in point of argument, should be estimated as amounting to almost nothing.

But we turn for a moment to the facts in this particular instance. We have already seen (vol. ii. p. 277, et seq.) that in the story of" the invention," as told throughout the East, and as thence derived by the western church, the means resorted to for discriminating the True Cross, among the three, was the application of the three, in turn, to a dead, or, as some were contented to saya dying person. This sounded well so long as it provoked no scepticism; but Ambrose, it is clear, felt a diffidence in this instance; and notwithstanding the uniformity of the existing testimony on the point, he deemed it prudent to tell the story in a more sober style. He therefore affirms, that which, although it contradicts all probability, does not startle the ear so much: namely that the pious empress, doubting which might be the true cross, bethought herself of the title affixed by Pilate to that of the Saviour: She sought it therefore-and actually found it! But now, it must either have been attached to the cross, or not: if attached, then there could have been no previous perplexity;—

for this title and which was long preserved among the most sacred treasures of the Vatican, was on a board-conspicuous at once :-if not attached, but loose, then the finding it could furnish no possible aid in distinguishing one cross from another; for it is in this very place acknowledged, that the broken remains of the three were so intermingled, as to render any discrimination, by their relative positions, impracticable! What sheer nonsense then, is this story! Yet it is of a piece with the impious bombast that follows, about the nails, and the uses to which they were applied. I pray the learned reader to turn to this passage-reeking as it is with fraud and folly, and in the thorough-going popish style; and then say how much value, in an argument with Romanists, ought to be attached to the three exceptive lines that are quoted by the Homilist, as a rebuke of idolatry.-No fair controvertist, who had taken the pains to look at the quotation in its connexion, could have allowed himself to adduce it. Nevertheless, if we suppose this sentence to have been transferred to a commonplace book, years before, and its connexion forgotten-then it might naturally have been brought forward, as seeming to confirm the argument in hand.* It is not hypercritical to remark, that the instance is not even reported with strict accuracy—"St. Ambrose saith, Helene found the cross, and the title on it." What St. Ambrose does say is—that Helene found the cross-and, after a search, found also the title.

Next come the citations from Augustine; and they demand peculiar attention.

"St. Augustine, the best learned of all ancient Doctors, in his forty-fourth Epistle to Maximus, saith, "Know thou, that none of the dead, nor any thing that is made of God, is worshipped as God, of the catholic Christians, of whom there is a church also in your town. Note, that by St. Augustine, such as worshipped the dead, or creatures, be not catholic Christians."

* Ambrose says, speaking of the difficulty of the discrimination-Sed poterat fieri ut patibula inter se ruina confunderet, casus inverteret.therefore unless the title were actually attached to the Cross, it could do nothing toward solving the doubt. If attached-there could have been no perplexity. But it is said that the Empress sought for the title, after some period of anxious doubt, and then-invenit ergo titulum-Regem adoravit, non lignum utique, quia hic gentilis est error, et vanitas impiorum!

St. Augustine "the best learned of all ancient Doctors!" no such pre-eminence has ordinarily been assigned to the bishop of Hippo. How would Jerome have chafed had he heard himself thus implicitly disparaged! But this casual error is of little importance.

Again, the reply of a Romanist would be obvious, and irrefragable."Not less strenuously than St. Augustine, does the Roman catholic Church denounce the worship of the dead, or of any creature, as God;' and most carefully does it insist upon the distinction between Dulia, and Latria. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church is, in this behalf, perfectly in accordance with Augustine, and his contemporaries :-it, with them, authorizes and promotes the invocation of the saints, and the veneration of Holy Relics; and it, with them, reproves and disowns all idolatry."

Thus would a Romanist reply ;-and justly, inasmuch as the citation of Augustine-if complete, and fairly adduced, must be granted to favour Romanism, not to refute it. But the facts in this case, which are highly curious, should be mentioned.— Maximus, a grammarian, and a wit, and a pagan, of Madaura, in Numidia, had-and manifestly for the purpose of tormenting the good bishop of Hippo, addressed to him a long and ironical epistle, which is extant, wherein, with an air of serious inquiry and modesty, he propounds some doubts concerning the respective merits of the heathen and christian worship;-both parties seeming to agree in acknowledging one supreme God; while both alike paid their actual worship to various divinities. And this Maximus seems to think it as rational, or even more so, to worship gods, as to worship dead men! Augustine, in his reply to this caviller, betrays extreme vexation, and the embarrassment he feels in warding off the inference, where he cannot deny the facts. He knows not whether Maximus be jesting only, or in earnest; and would fain rid himself of so troublesome a correspondent, by retorting upon him the absurdities and enormities of the pagan worship. How well would it have been, if he could have rejected the imputation of worshipping dead men, as a groundless calumny! --or even if he had been free to make an ingenuous acknowledgment, that although some few, calling themselves christians, did indeed invoke the martyrs in a manner unwarranted and impious,

it was an abuse which he, and all men in authority, constantly reproved, and laboured to repress! Alas! he could take no such ground, and he therefore confines himself to the kind of reply which has ever been given by Romanists, when accused of idolatry-" Catholic christians," he says, "do not worship as a god any creature-worship-Latria, they render to God alone." This citation therefore, in the Homily-the facts being considered, is singularly unhappy; and an adroit Romanist, if acquainted with Augustine, and Augustine's times, would most willingly appeal to the arbitration of this Father, in the controversy with protestants, concerning the invocation of saints, and veneration of relics. "Augustine," he would say, "reproves the worshipping any creature; and so do we:-but he approves the invocation of saints; and sanctions all those practices connected with the veneration of relics, which the Catholic Church has formally sanctioned."

The next citation of Augustine is still more perplexing, if indeed we are to assume that the Homilist was well informed of the religious usages of the fourth and fifth centuries; and also well read in Augustine. This Father did, it is true, protest against the image worship-or flagrant idolatry, which was then becoming common in the christian community; but how nugatory was this protest, when that polytheism, whence idolatry takes its start, had become rank before his eyes, and had grown up under his episcopal wing! The references in the following passage must be severally collated with their contexts.

"The same Augustine teacheth in the twelfth book of the City of God, the tenth chapter, that neither temples nor churches ought to be builded or made for martyrs or saints; but to God alone; and that there ought no priests to be appointed for martyr or saint, but to God only.' The same St. Augustine, in his book of the manners of the Catholic Church, hath these words;

I know that many he worshippers of tombs and pictures; I know that there be many that banquet most riotously over the graves of the dead, and giving meat to dead carcases, do bury themselves upon the buried, and attribute their gluttony and drunkenness to religion.' See he esteemeth worshipping of saints' tombs and pictures, as good religion as gluttony and drunkenness,

and no better at all. St. Augustine greatly alloweth Marcus Varro, affirming, that religion is most pure without images, and saith himself, Images be of more force to crooken an unhappy soul, than to teach and instruct it.' And saith further, Every child, yea every beast, knoweth that it is not God that they see. Wherefore then doth the Holy Ghost so often admonish us of that which all men know? Whereunto St. Augustine himself answereth thus: 'For,' saith he, when images are placed in temples, and set in honourable sublimity, and begin once to be worshipped, forthwith breedeth the most vile affection of error.' This is St. Augustine's judgment of images in churches, that by-and-by they breed error and idolatry."

:

If we take these several quotations from Augustine, just as they stand, and without reference to the places whence they are taken, we must first note the historical facts which they either affirm, or clearly imply these are-That, in his time, there were, what he says there ought not to be-temples and churches dedicated to martyrs and saints-That many called Christians worshipped tombs and pictures-That the festivals of the dead were often celebrated with riot and intemperance-That Images in churches were not unknown:-that they were actually worshipped there; and that this idolatry had already ripened its natural fruitsproducing "the most vile affection of error."

But if so-and if the professedly Christian community had fallen into a condition of flagrant idolatry, then we pointedly ask -What becomes of the allegation-that these times were "the most pure and holy?" Surely such a state of things must have been the consequence of a previous "falling away!"

Augustine remonstrates against these heathen practices. But, had he himself done nothing to promote them? Alas! his many festival orations, as well as other passages in his writings, could have had no other effect than that of confirming the common people in their guilty superstitions! Of what avail was it to caution an ignorant, paganized people, not to worship the saints and martyrs, when they were encouraged to address to them their fervent petitions, and to entreat miraculous aids at their hands?

We turn however to the places cited. The passage first quoted does not occur in the tenth chapter of the twelfth book, or near it;