breaking her heart for the loss of the body: but if we must believe the story, miracles followed the stolen body; and yet they tarried in the place from whence it was stolen: so that Hesychius indeed, and they of Palestine, were considerable gainers; but Constantia was not so great a loser as she thought. For thus the relation goes on: we see to this day a wonderful contention between those of Palestine and those of Cyprus; one pretending to his body, the other to his spirit. And yet in both places there are great miracles done every day, but more in the garden of Cyprus, and that perhaps because he loved that place best. If miracles were done in both places, I am pretty well satisfied that God did not thereby intend to demonstrate either the clearness of Hesychius, or the discretion of Constantia in this business, nor approve the violent passion of either of them for relics. I do not deny but they might both of them be holy persons, but it was not for such things as these; and if this part of their story had been omitted, their reputation for sanctity had lost nothing by it. What therefore was it that God testified by these miracles? I answer with all submission, that he testified the truth of that religion in which Hilarion died; of that religion for which the martyrs died, the most holy religion which was first taught by Jesus, then by the Apostles, then by the primitive ages of Christianity after the Apostles; not of any sentiments or practices, which neither the holy Jesus taught, nor his Apostles; and which the primitive Church was a stranger to. This I am sure I have learned from St. Austin,* in the place beforementioned, who makes the testimony of those miracles that were wrought at the memories of the martyrs, to aim at nothing but the confirmation of the faith for which they suffered. And if I should say, that they who can be content with the old religion, may and ought to be content also with the old miracles, I should say no other thing than what I could justify by his authority and which is something more, that we are now to try doctrines not by new miracles, but by the Scriptures, which we are sure deliver to us the will of God testified by miracles. But if God is pleased to add new miracles, out of his abundant goodness, I do not doubt but such miracles are a confirmation of the old religion, as St. Austin tells us * Aug. de Unit. Eccles. c. 16. + De Civitat. Dei, lib. 22. c. 9. [ut supra, vol. 7. p. 673.] those were, which God wrought at the memories of the martyrs. But those miracles did by no means canonize the weakness of any holy person, in the matter of martyrs or saints, and relics; not the indiscretion of Hesychius or Constantia; nor did they give any authority at all to such examples. I suppose the gentlemen of the Church of Rome will grant this without any trouble; but I question whether they may not be displeased at the producing of this story, which, without any more ado, looks so like a satire upon the great author from whom I had it. But what a hard case is ours! Monsieur de Meaux, and the pretended Catholics, think to bear us down (who honour the relics of the saints no otherwise than the truly primitive Church did) by the authority of the later Fathers that lived towards the end of the fourth age. It has been often shewn, that the judgment and practice of that age, in the matter of relics, is very different from what we now see in the Church of Rome. But the argument is still urged upon us, as if nothing had been said to it. What have we therefore to do, but to shew, that so far as there is any agreement between the Church of Rome, and that age of the Church in the use of relics, they should urge it very modestly, and without boasting. We do profess a reverence for those excellent men, as M. de Meaux* grants; we acknowledge their sanctity and learning, and we praise God for the benefits which the Church hath received by their means. But we do not think their authority equal to that of the Apostles, or of the Fathers of the three first ages. And we are very sorry that the importunity of our adversaries puts us upon a necessity of confessing, that these great men (as M. de Meaux deservedly calls them) did, in the heat of their concern for relics, sometimes say and do such little things, as plainly shewed they were but men. We had been very glad, if our English Romanists would not have done this part of the controversy into English, nor obliged us to take off that veil a little, wherewith we have covered the least commendable characters of these excellent men. Nay, we have that reverence for their sanctity and learning, that we are still very willing to believe their writings to have been corrupted in those places, which afford this kind of stories. And though St. Jerome affirms, that he wrote the life of Hilarion; yet I must confess, this is so weak a part * Exp. p. of it, which I have mentioned, that I am sometimes almost persuaded that somebody has been making bold to mend him. I am sure there appears such a spirit of superstition and credulity in these passages, at the end of St. Hilarion's life-of superstition in the persons spoken of, and of credulity in the relator-that St. Jerome is a great deal more beholden to them that cannot be satisfied they are his, than to those that can. But to proceed: I have already observed that the affection of this age to the martyrs was expressed by a frequent and continual resort to their tombs or memories: and that when Christians obtained the deliverance or relief which they sought, it was believed to be in great part the effect of the martyrs' favour with God; which in many persons grew into a persua sion, that the martyrs were present at their* memories. And in this persuasion they were confirmed by apparitions, which were at least believed to be seen there, since it gave occasion to some questions then, and to a great controversy afterward, whether they were the souls of the martyrs, or whether they were angels that appeared. But the great question is, whether in those applications to the memories of their martyrs, they called upon God only, or the martyrs also. For here it is that the pretended Catholics must find colour of thus much antiquity, if any where. For their appeals to the apostrophes of some of the Fathers in their panegyrical orations upon the martyrs, deserve no consideration. If indeed the faithful were wont to call upon the martyrs at their memories; this has some appearance of an argument for the pretended Catholics. I shall therefore first lay down the fact, remembering all along that it is the duty of an honest man to deliver things as they appear to him, and not to attempt the defence even of truth, but only with such arguments, as he is well satisfied of the truth of himself. But when the fact is stated, I shall not envy the best advantages that our adversaries can make of it. That account which St. Austint gives of the tailor that had lost his cloak, and went to the twenty martyrs to pray for another, has been often produced as a sufficient demonstration that the practice of that age was to call upon the martyrs themselves. But to this it is answered on the other * Aug. de Cura pro Mortuis, c. 16. [Ibid. vol. 6. p. 528.] side, that no more can be certainly concluded from hence, than that the tailor went to the memory of the twenty martyrs, and there prayed to God: as it is said of others, that they went to the memory of St. Stephen, and there prayed that God would give them what they wanted; which is a defensible interpretation of such passages. For the application that was made to the martyrs by going to their memories or churches, and the hope of prevailing by their intercessions, did not necessarily imply any invocation of the martyrs: but the supplicant believing them to be present at their memories, and to observe the prayers that were made to God there, might hope for the benefit of their intercession, without speaking to them. As for St. Austin himself, what his opinion was concerning the presence of the martyrs, I shall shew in another place. But some of St. Chrysostom's homilies are produced with no little assurance, to shew not only that the saints were invocated at their memories, but that he approved it too. And indeed St. Chrysostom's authority, in a doubtful manner, would bear a little boasting: that age did not afford a man superior to him in true judgment, perhaps not his equal. But then it is but a fair request, that those homilies be not obtruded upon us for his, of which it is very doubtful whether they be his or not: those, for instance, to the people of Antioch; the Greek copies whereof could not be found in any ancient library. I interpose this, not for the service of a cause, but for the honour of St. Chrysostom, than whom no man abounds more with exhortations to pray to God, upon such considerations as these: "Thou mayest always and incessantly call upon God, and shall meet with no difficulty; for there is no need of door-keepers to introduce thee, of stewards or procurators, of guards or friends; but when thou comest by thyself, then will he most of all hear thee, even when thou beseechest none else. We do not so effectually incline him, when we entreat by others, as when we do it by ourselves." How this can be reconciled with two or three passages (which, if they be his, do manifestly imply his approbation of calling upon the martyrs at their memories), I cannot for my part understand; especially that in the con * Visum est ut iret ad memoriam S. Stephani, et illic quantum posset oraret, ut Deus illi daret. De Civ. Dei, 1. 22. c. 8. [ut supra, vol. 7. p. 668.] ↑ Chrys. in 4 Psal. [ut supra, vol. 5. p. 8, 9.] clusion of the homily upon Bernix, &c. which I shall examine by and bye. For to avoid contention about a matter not necessary to the cause in hand, I will proceed upon that testimony, as if it were St. Chrysostom's. But whatever St. Chrysostom's opinion was concerning the thing itself, I think it cannot reasonably be denied, that we have his testimony that it was done for describing the magnificence of the monuments of the saints, which were* "more splendid than the palaces of kings, not only for the greatness and beauty of their building, but which was more for the great resort of devout people thither;" he goes on thus: "for thither even he that is clothed with purple, goes to embrace their monuments, and laying by his stateliness, he stands entreating the saints, that they would intercede with God for him; and he that wears a crown, desires the patronage of a tent-maker, and a fisherman who died long since." I cannot approve Chamier's rendering this place, who supposes the emperor is here brought int not entreating, but only needing the intercession of the saints. His criticism is too subtle, and does not well accord with the place. But be that as it will, I must confess a few intimations of the fact will serve to make me conclude, that very many devout people did, besides their prayers to God, which they made at the memories of the martyrs, entreat also of the martyrs themselves the benefit of their intercessions to God for them; and that because it was generally believed that they were present at their memories. For if such an opinion should prevail amongst any considerable number of Christians any where, that the souls of martyrs or other saints, were to be conversed with in any certain place, where the people could come within their hearing; it is hardly to be imagined that all, or indeed the most, should restrain themselves from going thither to desire their prayers. And their guides, who themselves believed the presence of the martyrs, would, in all likelihood, be more forward to commend than to reprove them for it, unless they should be well aware of the ill consequences it might produce. And therefore I do not wonder that this new conceit of the presence of the martyrs at their memories, should carry the Christians of those times thither very frequently, and many of them to desire the martyrs to pray for them. This persuasion helped forward the devotion of the age, and was *Chrys. in 2 Epist. ad Corinth, vers. fin. † Δεόμενος, δεῖται. |