: monks of the Macedonian heresy were said to have found the head of the Baptist at Jerusalem; which after several removes, was at last brought by Theodosius to Constantinople, in the suburbs whereof he buried it, and erected a stately church over it so that here the relics of the martyr were a pledge of his presence and patronage; and here it was that Theodosius did not only pray to God, but called to the saint for his assistance too. Ruffinus* indeed tells us that he sought help by the intercession of other saints; but where was it? Not here at St. John Baptist's memory; but where the relics of the apostles and martyrs were kept, that is, in other memories. But when the Emperor was come into Italy, and had the enemy before him in the field; though we find that he prayed, yet there is not the least intimation of calling upon the Baptist, or upon any other saint there. It is only said that prostrating himself upon the ground he prayed with tears, and God presently heard his prayers. But though the victory was, without all question, to be ascribed to God, yet Sozomen relates a strange story, which he had taken, as it seems, upon common report, how the devil ascribed it to John the Baptist. For the same day that the battle was fought, a man possessed being in the Church of St. John Baptist, was heaved up very high from the ground, and the devil that was in him‡ railed at the Baptist, and reproached him for having lost his head; but yet could not forbear confessing to him in this manner: "Thou overcomest me, and defeatest my army." I confess I am apt to suspect foul play in this prank of the devil, if it were true; and do believe that God ought to have had the glory, not a whit the less for the devil's giving it to the saint. But such kind of reports were made use of to confirm people in an opinion of the presence of the martyrs at their memories (for the devil's speaking to John the Baptist here, was his acknowledgment of it), and in the practice of making addresses to them there upon that account. Nothing yet appears to the contrary, but that they who thought the martyrs heard when they were spoken to, believed their presence to be limited to some certain places, in the compass of which they were within hearing. But I am not so vain as to undertake that there were none in those days who * Ruffin. Hist. lib. 2. c. 33. [p. 260. Basil. 1535.] † Sozom. lib. 7. c. 24. [Ibid. p. 314.] Sozom. lib. 7. c. 24. [Ibid. p. 315.] called upon the martyrs in all places indifferently. For while the great men of that age seemed to give a full scope to that strain of zeal towards the martyrs, which was now going forward; it is to be feared rather (though no such thing appears), that some of the people made no difference between calling upon their martyrs at their memories, or anywhere else. And so it certainly was, when one of those sermons* was written that are falsely attributed to St. Ambrose. But it is enough for my present purpose that the custom of calling upon the martyrs at their respective memories was as yet very notorious. And this indeed was the ground of that scoff of Vigilantius, for which St. Jerome chastises him so severely.† "What," says he, are the souls of the martyrs therefore so fond of their own ashes? Do they hover about them, and are always present with them, lest perhaps if any one comes to pray they should be absent, and incapable of hearing him?" To the matter of which question St. Jerome was almost silent: but he lashes him for abusing and laughing at the relics of the martyrs. The truth is, Vigilantius had hit that popular opinion that the martyrs were very much present with their relics, and consequently, that the best way to be sure of them, was to go to the churches where their relics were, unless (which happened very seldom) they should discover a particular affection to some other place, as St. Hilarion did to the garden of Cyprus, after his relics were stolen out of it. Now therefore, as the first addresses that were made to the martyrs, had not the nature of prayer or religious invocation in any other respect; so neither in this, that they ascribed omnipresence to the saints or martyrs. For not only the belief of that age but the practice of it too, in seeking the intercession of the saints, limited their presence to some determinate places, and generally to their respective memories. They that called upon the saints at all, did not indifferently call upon them in any place, but (if we may gather the general practice from such particular instances as we have) they invocated them in some certain place only where they were thought to be within hearing. Nor can I find that they thought it reasonable to speak so much as to one saint at the memory of another; but rather to every saint at his own. Which makes the addresses of those times to the martyrs very different from the invocation of saints in the Church of Rome, which hath let her children loose to call upon every saint in every place, as occasion requires; and has furnished them with litanies of supplication to all the saints, to be used in all places of the world. He that cannot see a wide difference between these two things, can see nothing. The first practice of all, setting aside the ill consequences of it, was (to say the worst of it) but a harmless superstition; that is, when as yet the relics of the martyrs were entire, and there was but one memory to one. The next step indeed was something dangerous, which began also in this age, and that was, allowing some of them several memories in distant places; at every one of which I believe they were spoken to by some or other; though it was yet pretty well that they confined them all within some bounds. But the last practice is an intolerable affront to the Divine Majesty, because it does in effect ascribe omnipresence to a creature. The progress of the mischief from so small a beginning to so strange a conclusion, was plainly this. By dispersing the relics of the same martyrs into two or more, and at length into nany places, their memories were by degrees strangely multiplied; and that, to speak the truth, not inconsiderably in the next age, as appears by Theodoret ;* and so by degrees they were allowed a greater, and by the help of new relics (when the old ones would bear dividing no longer), still a greater compass of presence; till at last superstition and worldly policy together would not allow any bounds at all to be set to their presence, but would have them called upon no less than God in all places whatsoever. This account of the latter practices of the fourth age in this matter, and of the grounds of their practice, may perhaps deserve to be added to a great many others; whereby the difference of the addresses to the martyrs in that age, from the Roman invocation of saints, has been shewn. I shall say no more of it than that it may appear fair and reasonable to any man that shall take the pains to compare one thing with another. At least it deserves some consideration; because, if the addresses that were made in that age to the martyrs were limited to some certain places, it will destroy an appeal to that age for an invocation which is unlimited, and ascribes omnipresence to the saints. And therefore if in assigning this Theod. de Cur. Græc. Aff. 1. 8. de Mart. [vol. 4. p. 908. Hal. 1769.] difference, I have proceeded upon a mistake of the practice of that age, the gentlemen of the Church of Rome are concerned to shew it. And when they do, it will be my part to shew that I am not fond of a notion; but can with more ease reject it, when it appears to be false, than I entertained it while it seemed to be true. But then, 2. As the addresses of the fourth age to the saints were not properly religious invocations, so neither were they established in the Church. There was no public rule or order for them, but they were wholly the effects of a private and voluntary zeal, encouraged by some of the guides of the Church, and perhaps connived at by all. They were, I say, the actions of so many single Christians, in behalf of themselves or their near relations, but no part of the established service of the Church. The Liturgies were everywhere still the same, and none but God was called upon in the service performed at the religious assemblies of the Church. If the pretended Catholics could shew a change in the service of the Church about this time, favouring the invocation of saints, that indeed were something. But then they must not refer us to the shameful interpolations of St. Chrysostom's, and other ancient liturgies. It were an easy matter to be very large upon this head; but for a reason I shall mention presently, we will for the present go no further than to St. Austin. For if his authority be of any weight with them, they will see, that whatever was done in the way of private worship by single persons, there was no change of the service of the Church in this respect, but that God only was invocated in the stated assemblies of the faithful. Let us therefore hear what St. Austin says. * "The Gentiles," saith he, "have built temples, raised altars, and ordained priests, and offered sacrifices to their gods. But we do not erect temples to our martyrs, as if they were gods, but memories as to dead men, whose spirits live with God. Nor do we erect altars, upon which to sacrifice to martyrs, but to one God only do we offer, the God of martyrs, and our God; at which sacrifice, as men of God, who in confessing him have overcome the world, they are named in their place and order; but they are not invocated by the priest who sacrifices." St. Austin plainly speaks of the public service of the Church, at the assemblies of the faithful; in which, if we will * De Civit. Dei, lib. 22. c. 10. [ut supra, vol. 7. p. 673.] take his word, no addresses were made but to God only. And he expressly says, "that the priest who administered the service, did not invocate the martyrs, but named them in order, as men that had overcome the world;" that is, gave thanks and praises to God for them. And here I am much mistaken, or else there is an observable difference intimated between the voluntary addresses of single persons to the martyrs at their memories, and between the mention that was made of the martyrs, when the faithful assembled for the ordinary service of God at the same memories: for when, in voluntary and private devotion, the saints were spoken to, it was still at their respective memories; but in the assemblies of the Church for divine service, they were indifferently mentioned in their place and order, at all the memories of the martyrs, but not invocated. But that which I chiefly observe is this: that neither was the martyr, whose memory was the place of God's public service, invocated in the prayers of the Church; so that even the addresses of that age to a martyr, at his own memory, were not established by the order and service of the Church; but left to the voluntary zeal of single persons. And therefore those passages of this Father, referred to by M. de Meaux, make nothing for invocation of saints. St. Austin, it seems (though it was a singular opinion of his), thought "it an injury to a martyr* to pray for him, by whose prayers we ourselves are to be commended;" and therefore the martyrs were not mentioned in that place of the service, where "other dead persons were commemorated," viz. those for whom prayer was made. And says he,† "at the holy table we do not so commemorate them, as we do others that rest in peace," viz. as those "for whom we pray; but rather as those that pray for us, that we may tread in their steps." Now though St. Austin was one of those that doubted whether the petition of the faithful arrived to the knowledge of the martyrs; yet he doubted not that the martyrs prayed for the faithful, which is all that can be proved from these places. But what is this to the invocation of them? which St. Austin also expressly denies, in saying "that they are not invocated by the priest who sacrifices.' And here we must remember what the ancient Fathers meant by the "Christian sacrifice." Not only the oblation of bread and wine brought by all the people, and presented at * De verb. Apost. Serm. 17. [Ibid. vol. 5. p. 765.] |